Comments on: How to Bury a Prophet

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:04:06 +0000

Honestly, I don’t care if the Church continues in the afterlife or not – as long as I’m not disappointed in where I am.

By: Ellis

Ellis — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:45:48 +0000

The Priesthood and the Church are not the same thing. The Priesthood is necessary for the Church, but the Church isn’t necessary for the Priesthood. On the other hand some people believe, and it may be true, that the post mortal spirit world is part of the “day of this life.” In which case there might be some kind of organization or congregation just as there is organized missionary work. I don’t think it is required though. Maybe it doesn’t matter as long as the Priesthood continues.

The time after the final judgment there will clearly be no more need for preaching because the “day of this life” will definitely be gone.

By: Bradley Ross

Bradley Ross — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:27:23 +0000

I appreciated Flake’s sentiment as expressed in the paragraphs above. I do have one small quibble. Flake writes, “As the church teaches is the case in the afterlife, only the family remained.” This isn’t what I was taught. While ultimately, ecclesiastical orders will be replaced by patriarchal (family) orders, that isn’t going to be the case immediately after we die.

Wilford Woodruff on post-mortal priesthood callings, as quoted by Elder McConkie:

“The same Priesthood exists on the other side of the vail [sic]. Every man who is faithful in his quorum here will join his quorum there. When a man dies and his body is laid in the tomb, he does not lose his position. The Prophet Joseph Smith held the keys of this dispensation on this side of the vail, and he will hold them throughout the countless ages of eternity. He went into the spirit world to unlock the prison doors and to preach the Gospel to the millions of spirits who are in darkness, and every Apostle, every Seventy, every Elder, etc., who has died in the faith as soon as he passes to the other side of the vail, enters into the work of the ministry, and there is a thousand times more to preach there than there is here.”

By: Ellis

Ellis — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:00:54 +0000

#19 The â€œchurch is not foreverâ€? Where did that come from?

Priesthood and Church Government by John A Widstoe p. 45 “The Church of God is the organized institution to which has been given the authority of God to perform, according to the Great Plan, the necessary work on earth for man’s salvation.” That being the case, there is no need for a church beyond mortality.

Some funerals are done completely at the graveside. My aunt has expressed her wish that she for only a graveside service. I can’t imagine exactly how that would go, but I imagine her wishes will be honored. I remember one funeral where the mourners were given white balloons that they released at the graveside. That seemed to have a special meaning for those involved.

By: Marjorie Conder

Marjorie Conder — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:25:43 +0000

I was at a funeral a few years ago when after the dedicatory prayer, the husband of the deceased woman stood and said they were now going to participate in filling the grave. He invited anyone who wanted to participate with them and if anyone was offended, he invited them to leave. Everyone stayed. I think doing something physical was very cathartic. Everyone who was able, shoveled and shoveled. Then people started saying, “This one is for (someone who wasn’t there)” either dead or alive. Even little kids shoveled away. It was amazing. Virtually everyone who was there that day said, “Do that at my funeral.”

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:17:13 +0000

The “church is not forever”? Where did that come from?

By: Graham Wing

Graham Wing — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:45:52 +0000

I was at a funeral where the husband had told his wife (before she passed away) that he would stay there until she was totally buried. After the dedication, most people left but a few of us stayed with the man. Someone from the cemetery asked if he wanted a shovel, and he started putting the dirt on the casket. He seemed quite interested in this, and tried to get us all to put a shovel full of dirt in the hole (sorry if I’m not phrasing this very well). To the man this was his way of being with her and helping his wife, right to the end. It might sound odd, but the overall feeling of those of us who were there was that it was quite uplifting.

By: lamonte

lamonte — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:23:17 +0000

I especially love the fact that President Hinckly’s son came forth with confidence in the midst of the church leadership, stated his authority (equal to theirs in this case) and then dedicated the grave. For me it is further indication of God’s eternal law that we are all equal in His eyes and He is no respector of persons. Thank you Nate for sharing this with us.

By: Alan L

Alan L — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:31:47 +0000

The non – LDS funerals I have attended have been pretty grim affairs from my experience…the biggest and most disappointing point being there is no hope offered the berieved (sp) and generally the officiator didn’t know the deceased. At our funerals the family always hangs around the grave and shares the flowers, throw things into the grave (nice things), say goodby etc. Once, the gravediggers had to tell us to leave so they could get on with their job.

Tona, without too fine a point on it, I don’t think the dedication is any more of an ordinance than the funeral itself. Yes, the dedication is done by authority of the MPriesthood, but the CH of I (pp 42 or 69 – 2006) says “if the grave is to be dedicated” and “if” the family prefers a prayer may be offered instead of a dedication. I may be wrong but I don’t think it’s any than broadcasting the general conference prayers.

By: Martie

Martie — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:50:00 +0000

Clark Hinckley, the youngest of the two sons, offered the invocation, one daughter spoke, another offered the benediction, the eldest son dedicated the grave. Pretty standard LDS funeral.