Thread: "I don't want a funeral or any kind of service" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030185
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
This comes up when talking to people and when reading the obituaries. How bound are we to honour this request?
I have a personal connection to the issue as well, having had a relative 6 years ago assert this before death.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Do they mean "I don't want a church/Christian service of any kind" (thus leaving the door open for a secular commemoration of some kind); or "I don't want any kind of ritual, just dump the coffin in the grave and be done with it"?
In either case I'd do my best to accede to the request unless there were overwhelming reasons not to.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I have a friend who says this. In fact, she also seems a bit annoyed that her elderly father would like to have a funeral! Considering that he has far more friends and acquaintances than she does I think he's being perfectly reasonable.
But there's nothing stopping someone from having a quick cremation and then arranging a 'memorial event' at some later date.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
My godmother did the same-- possibly because, as her origins were in the Ottawa Valley where funerals are major events, she preferred a quiet life without fuss. While her children would have liked to have had a memorial service, they were insufficiently organized to hold one, and they did not ask anyone to help.
However, she left me her dining room table and, on the anniversary of my baptism when she made the promises for me, I have a few friends over for a dinner and think of her as I offer hospitality to them.
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on
:
In a way its a rather selfish request. Funerals are largely (mainly?) for the benefit of the living, to give them an opportunity to say goodbye and express appreciation for the life of someone they have loved.
If you don't want a religious service, there are humanist funeral celebrants who'll give you a dignified and completely religion-free send-off.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I definitely want a humanist funeral with celebrant, I don't trust the church not to own the funeral.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Funerals are cultural artifacts. Why should the living need them? I would almost prefer to have a memorial service before I die so that I can listen to some great U2 music with my friends.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You could exit at the end like this.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
In a way its a rather selfish request. Funerals are largely (mainly?) for the benefit of the living, to give them an opportunity to say goodbye and express appreciation for the life of someone they have loved.
I agree. The point of a memorial service (to cover funerals as well as gatherings without the body present) is to give a sense of closure for those who are still alive. I have no problem if a person does not want a religious ceremony if that offends their beliefs. But for a person to say they do not want "any kind of service" is selfish and, in a way, cruel to those who survive. The closure for those who survive serves an important emotional/psychological function.
Now if the deceased wants to control some aspects of the service, or institute a theme so that the deceased can be remembered as he/she wants, that is okay. Go ahead and leave instructions that the memorial service should be a drunken orgy if you want to be remembered as a party animal. If you want to be remembered as a simple soul, then instruct that the gathering is to be just people gathering to swap memories with no music or other trimmings. But to deny the survivors the comfort of any kind of a memorial service is just cruel.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes, finding out what they =exactly= mean is the way to go. The number of options for after a death is just about infinite. It is worth having other family on hand for this; someone may well say, "But what about me, Mildred? Don't you want to be buried beside me?"
Then, have them write it down. If the knowledge does not exist where it can be found by the survivors, it might as well never have been. (I assume that the bereaved survivors may not know to immediately consult you; if that's the plan then -you- write it down, unless you are immortal.)
If they really truly want to ensure that what they wants happens, it is possible to pre-plan one's funeral. Again, the sky's the limit. You can buy the coffin, organize the service, decree the hymns, all while you're above ground.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I definitely want a humanist funeral with celebrant, I don't trust the church not to own the funeral.
Isn't it more a matter of trusting the minister who performs the ceremony?
In my case, I'd like someone who knew and liked me, and who was willing to mention God during the service. Unless my family were to organise some very original DIY thing the kind of person most likely to oblige would be an ordained minister.
However, the truth is that no one really knows us completely, and most clergy probably don't even know most of their members all that well. You could argue that a 'Christian' funeral inevitably prioritises orthodox theology, to the extent that an unorthodox Christian might have a more honest, if less theologically aware, funeral at the hands of a humanist celebrant....
Humanist funerals are outside my sphere of cultural understanding, though.
[ 05. August 2016, 14:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
If the person has ideological/religious reasons for it, I suppose I'd try to follow their request unless there were overriding reasons against it (like a bunch of living mourners who would absolutely freak out psychologically). But if it's just modesty or shrinking from being the center of attention even after death, IMO suck it up and deal. You're dead, we love you, and what you won't know won't hurt you.
I've known too many people who just can't seem to get past the grieving without the help of some kind of service to mark off this phase of their life (and yes, they said so, months or years later). If they need it, I say give it to them.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
My father was one of those "no service," people and he left his body to Marshall University's medical school so we really had nothing to do but take in the obituary which he had written himself months earlier.
I really didn't feel that we had less closure than we did at my mother's traditional, open casket service and burial. I had the privilege of sitting at my father's bedside during his final days and last moments, while my mother had gone suddenly with a stroke. It was those lucid minutes together that meant the most to me. Mother's big funeral with people all around that I need to play hostess to was nerve wracking and I couldn't wait for it to be over.
My husband plays trumpet in the local veteran's honor guard and goes to several graveside services a week. He and his fellow old soldiers stand in uniform at gravesides in the 95 degree heat this summer and below zero in the winter. I just know one of them is going to fall in the open grave some day, but they all love giving those final military honors to their fellow vets. What I find unforgivable is the pastors who talk at the graveside for up to 45 minutes while everyone stands in misery. What on earth are they thinking?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
But for a person to say they do not want "any kind of service" is selfish and, in a way, cruel to those who survive. The closure for those who survive serves an important emotional/psychological function.
While I tend to agree with you, I wonder to what extent we have been psychologically conditioned by the fact that a Funeral or Memorial Service is normative? If we had never invented them, wouldn't we have learned to find "closure" in different ways?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
But for a person to say they do not want "any kind of service" is selfish and, in a way, cruel to those who survive. The closure for those who survive serves an important emotional/psychological function.
While I tend to agree with you, I wonder to what extent we have been psychologically conditioned by the fact that a Funeral or Memorial Service is normative? If we had never invented them, wouldn't we have learned to find "closure" in different ways?
Yes but we haven't, and it's cruel to expect our survivors to invent one. And if we had, they would probably have said, "Don't do the Hingblat for me" and we as survivors would be in the same position.
[ 05. August 2016, 16:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I'm not actually sure what the definition of a funeral is.
When my mother died, I was the only living relative, she had outlived all her old friends, and the last thing I wanted was to have to arrange a church service when there would only be me and a priest there, and sing hymns by myself in an otherwise empty church and so on.
I did ensure that a priest was in attendance on the day of the burial, so we had some prayers in the funeral parlour and he attended at the graveside to commit her body to the earth. I arranged for two Masses to be said at her old parish church. I knew I wouldn't be able to attend either of them but it gave me some peace of mind to think that they would be said in an old familiar place, and maybe there might even be some elderly resident in the congregation who would recognize her name.
From time to time I still feel guilty that she didn't have a proper funeral service beforehand, but I'm not sure what else I could have done and I know she'd understand why I did it this way.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It does seem cruel to actually forbid a service. I'm not interested in my own, but if they want to get hammered down at the old Bull and Bush, go for it. No, hang on, that's not a service, well, whatever.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
However, she left me her dining room table and, on the anniversary of my baptism when she made the promises for me, I have a few friends over for a dinner and think of her as I offer hospitality to them.
That really is lovely.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
In the situation we had 6 years ago, some of the people (they were relatives, a difficult species of people) were looking at an urn of ashes in the living room and some of them avoiding the room. Not knowing, and having arrived 2 days post-death, I just the idea that something was required, so got the Anglican order for funeral (whatever it's called) and printed out from the internet segments I thought no-one would fight over (don't need the pentacostals, anglicans and agnostics duking it out), and we took the ashes to the lake nearby and I 'led' a service of sorts as a lay person. Overruling the deceased's wishes. No-one family has ever talked about it negatively, nor really positively. Just okay-ish. A priest told me it was a Good Thing to have done. But priests are bred to say Nice Things about Such Things, aren't they? The ethics of overruling the dead never discussed.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Gah, just look at the worrying going on in this thread. Did I do enough or too much or against someone's wishes? There's something to be said for a strict, formal, universal service.
I remember the ship's Ken said that he told his priest that he wanted the traditional service for his church, no changes, nothing modern. (Or something like that, it makes me sad that he isn't here to correct me like he did so many times.) That sounds good to me. Whatever Lutheran ministers usually do if it doesn't take too long. I don't want my relatives to have nervous breakdowns because they think they have to stand up and say something. I've already decided on cremation because, my son, king of all worriers, would worry about worms or whether I was really dead or not if it was a burial.
Ariel, you did a fine job. I think I speak for all parents everywhere when I say, No worrying!
(I worry about the worrying.)
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
A friend died, the family put out word there would be no funeral, only a private burial, so don't come. My friend had friends all over the world who would have hopped a trans-ocean flight to be there, a few came in spite of being told not to.
I can understand wanting out of town people to stay away so the locals don't have to deal with logistics of getting info out to out of towners where to be what time, will there be enough parking, field phone calls asking updates on info or vaguely asking "can I help?" when these people are strangers to the family.
Grief is bad enough without having to help a bunch of strangers.
In a small town church community, everyone is local, everyone knows where the funeral home and cemetery are, people who say "I'm so sorry" to survivors are people the survivors know. And no one has to help funeral attenders find transportation and a place to get a meal or stay the night before traveling home.
Cultures change for a reason.
I will undoubtedly have no funeral because I have no family, and family are the people who arrange funerals because the family want one.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
My father has said that he doesn't want a full service. No minister, no hymns. He wants 8 named people to gather at the funeral home with the coffin and each of us say something in turn. And that's it.
I have told him that I am deeply unimpressed, and might not attend. My main objection is that in the immediate aftermath of his death someone (and I've told him it won't be me, so presumably my mother) will have to tell various relatives that the funeral is for close family only, and that despite a relationship going back decades, regular phone calls, visits etc they are not close enough to be regarded as close family. I can only imagine the ripples of hurt which this will cause within the wider family. It will probably reduce the amount of family support available to my mother in the early days of widowhood.
If I did go, what would I say to the other seven people? I get on perfectly well with my brother but we are not geographically close and our contact over the last twenty years has been limited. I'm guessing he will lean towards weepily sentimental. I love my father dearly but will probably lean towards humorous anecdote. If it was a room full of people, there would at least be a buffer, a middle ground. As it is I imagine me feeling awkward when my brother spoke, and him feeling awkward when I spoke.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
And a few days later I end up doing a traditional funeral straight from the BCP.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It does seem cruel to actually forbid a service. I'm not interested in my own, but if they want to get hammered down at the old Bull and Bush, go for it. No, hang on, that's not a service, well, whatever.
What's the service like down at the Bull and Bush?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Re. OP I would say such a request is cruel and selfish.
Simply for the reason that we didn't choose to impact on the lives of those we knew who survived us, we just did.
So given that definition of logic how are we to deny those individuals the right to make some formal, and to them appropriate acknowledgment of our death?
It is entirely acceptable that someone, living in a taken-for-granted Christian based society, might make the request that they do not wish to be seen dead in a church. Pun intended.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
A previous bishop of mine used to lecture his clergy on the "correct" way to preach, celebrate etc. When laying down the law on how to take funerals, he made it quite clear that eulogies were nasty modern inventions that should not permitted. "When I die, if any of you give a eulogy at my funeral I will come back to haunt you." It was an effort, but I managed to stop myself saying, "No fear of that, my Lord".
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
As a lawyer involved in drafting Wills, I am sometimes asked to include a direction that the testator does not want a funeral ceremony. Leaving aside the fact that funeral directions are not legally binding (in England), I try to talk them out of it for the reasons that other shipmates have given and encourage them to discuss the matter with their family.
Of course, a funeral ceremony does not have to inolve a religious element. One testator left a sum of money to pay for a "joyous party" to be held in his memory. The family told me that this involved a large quantity of alcohol!
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I think that the funeral is for both the deceased and for the friends and family who remain.
Who knows whether the person who died is, as so many near death experiences describe, able to see the people gathered and hear the prayers being said?
There is hope of eternal life in a Christian service, unlike a 'humanist' funeral for a family member I attended, in which we were firmly instructed to commit him to memory. I still shudder.
I think that the flow of a service with set liturgy has the right pace, it celebrates and says goodbye, smiles and weeps, and helps to move people on rather than leaving them to cling on.
It is cruel to ask those who love you not to hold a funeral service, imv.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
However, she left me her dining room table and, on the anniversary of my baptism when she made the promises for me, I have a few friends over for a dinner and think of her as I offer hospitality to them.
That really is lovely.
And a good example of how creative thinking and good communication can help resolve this dilemma. "Closure" does not have to come thru a formal service-- perhaps the departed doesn't like the idea of lots of people dressed in formal clothes sitting around dourly intoning sad-sounding words in a church or funeral hall. So, perhaps the mourners could remember the departed thru service in a favorite cause-- whether it's clearing trails in memory of an avid hiker, or sorting library books for a reader, or painting inner-city schoolrooms for a retired teacher. And perhaps, after a day of service, the mourners might go out for a meal together.
"I don't want a funeral" should be the beginning of the conversation, not the end.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
A friend of a friend had a wife who collected teapots. There were enough of them to fill a rented storage unit. When the lady died, there was a funeral. Too late, the widower realized what he should have done. He should've emptied out that storage unit, and given a teapot to every attendee at that funeral. Then everyone would have had a memento, and he himself would have painlessly cleared out the entire unit in one afternoon.
Yes, originality is highly to be desired.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
If I found funerals distasteful, I'd probably just say to the person likely to be in charge, "Do whatever you want. I won't be around anyway."
My great aunt once was going on and on about the teensy details and worrying about costs to my gran. My grandmother finally said tartly, "Enough! Stop worrying- the family'll plant you!"
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
However, she left me her dining room table and, on the anniversary of my baptism when she made the promises for me, I have a few friends over for a dinner and think of her as I offer hospitality to them.
That really is lovely.
And a good example of how creative thinking and good communication can help resolve this dilemma. "Closure" does not have to come thru a formal service-- perhaps the departed doesn't like the idea of lots of people dressed in formal clothes sitting around dourly intoning sad-sounding words in a church or funeral hall. So, perhaps the mourners could remember the departed thru service in a favorite cause-- whether it's clearing trails in memory of an avid hiker, or sorting library books for a reader, or painting inner-city schoolrooms for a retired teacher. And perhaps, after a day of service, the mourners might go out for a meal together.
"I don't want a funeral" should be the beginning of the conversation, not the end.
Who is the departed to tell the mourners how to find closure?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Who knows whether the person who died is, as so many near death experiences describe, able to see the people gathered and hear the prayers being said?
It is not something that can be easily studied in an ethical manner, so it is currently difficult to have a definitive answer. However, what is known doesn't strongly indicate this is a real phenomenon for people who truly die. So the decedents wishes are irrelevant compared to the survivors.
quote:
It is cruel to ask those who love you not to hold a funeral service, imv.
Those who remain are the ones who might wish closure so it is best their decision. IMO, guidance on how one wishes one's funeral to be conducted are only relevant in how they might help the attendees.
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on
:
In my understanding, originally the funeral was an opportunity to remind those left alive to think of their latter ends. So I have more than once had requests from die-hard Presbyterians that nothing personal be said at their funerals. To which we have acceded.
On the other hand I have sat with the dying and planned their services to the last detail. In one case so much so, that we seriously considered holding the service when the man could still come to it himself (alive). But we didn't as a) people would have found it weird, and b) what would we do when he did die?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cathscats:
In my understanding, originally the funeral was an opportunity to remind those left alive to think of their latter ends.
Interesting. Looking at the Orthodox funeral service, the purpose is clearly to sing them into the next life. This includes asking for forgiveness for their sins, but if the sins of the still-living are mentioned, it's so brief I don't recall, and I've sung a few.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This comes up when talking to people and when reading the obituaries. How bound are we to honour this request?
I have a personal connection to the issue as well, having had a relative 6 years ago assert this before death.
In my opinion, if that is what the person has stated that iswhat s/he wants, it would be disrespectful and/dor selfish of the living to do something different. If those still living feel a lack of 'closure' or feel some personal hurt, then that is their problem to deal with and not the dead person's, especially if, as I presume, they would have known the dead person well enough anyway to understand.
I certainly do not want there to be any funeral and my family and friends know this. There will be a few unavoidable expenses - fridge space somewhere and cost of (cheapest) coffin and cremation - but otherwise give money to the young.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IMO, guidance on how one wishes one's funeral to be conducted are only relevant in how they might help the attendees.
Not sure I agree. I want an Orthodox funeral, because I'm Orthodox, and that's how we dispatch our dead.
Which I guess contradicts what I've been saying on this thread about the wishes of the dead. I would certainly never say, "give me an Orthodox funeral but don't do anything else. No memorial service, no potluck where you kvetch about what a jerk I was, no gathering at the local watering hole to raise a pint in my honor."
I think the wishes of the dead of the "no less than" variety are somehow more reasonable than those of the "no more than" variety, especially if it's "no more than nothing." People seem to need to be able to grieve in company.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
Most of the funerals I'm familiar with are of people who are very much a part of a loving church family, well known to the minister, and really are a joyful thanksgiving for a life.
Our minister specifies that if anyone apart from the family eulogist wants to speak, they should give notice of their wish and their tribute should be no longer than one quarto page.
A church service, if a non-member wants it as a formality, must be pretty grim.
I think I see my own funeral as in some ways my farewell to my friends, with Donne's 'Death be not proud' (even if Donne's theology wasn't mine exactly) and Henley's 'Margarita sororae'..
I wasn't able to go to that of a former atheist colleague, who wrote his own death notice on the lines of 'Just letting you know that I'm off...' Come to think of it, I don't know if he had a funeral.
Then there was a dear Scots friend, who dropped out of sight when attacked on many fronts by terminal cancer, not wanting folk to remember his ravaged body, and may have had a family funeral. So a few weeks later the minister got a bottle of Scotch and held a wake in the church lounge. His children paid for a memorial seat by the stream where I go for my bush walk, and in the summer I sit there for a while (not in winter when the seat is wet).
GG
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Wonders will never cease! For about the first time ever, I agree with SusanDoris!
I think it is very disrespectful to go against the wishes of the deceased. There's nothing to stop anyone doing it of course, but how could you get 'closure' (whatever that really means) if you knew you were doing exactly what the deceased said they didn't want? Or, possibly worse, if you hid that fact from other people for your own self interest?
Seems very wrong to me.
M.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm thinking of my nearest and dearest, who are the people I would most need/want to grieve for anyway. They get no respect from me in life, why should death be any different?
(Okay, okay, but you know what I mean...)
More seriously, though, I would tend to honor the wishes of the dead person unless and until they conflict with the needs of the living. The dead are presumably past caring, but the living are not. I'm a bit shy (yes, really) and would doubtless say "no funeral" or "hole in the wall service" if left to my own wishes, but I've seen the pain that causes many people--and so I've already told my son that he can do what he darn well likes, it's all okay with me.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cathscats:
In my understanding, originally the funeral was an opportunity to remind those left alive to think of their latter ends. So I have more than once had requests from die-hard Presbyterians that nothing personal be said at their funerals.
FWIW, I'm very familiar with the Presbyterian preference for nothing personal—usually meaning absolutely no eulogy—at funerals or memorial services. But I've never heard that attributed to wanting people to think of their own deaths, nor have I experienced any Presbyterian funerals that went that route. I've always heard that the reason for the no eulogies approach is because the focus is supposed to be on the worship of God—to riff off of Marc Antony, we come to bury the deceased, not to praise him or her. We praise God. In the funeral context, that means praising God for the promise of the resurrection and giving thanks for the life of the one who has died.
A practice surviving over time while reasons for the practice have changed, maybe?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I certainly do not want there to be any funeral and my family and friends know this. There will be a few unavoidable expenses - fridge space somewhere and cost of (cheapest) coffin and cremation - but otherwise give money to the young.
In the interests of the OP, let's explore that further...
I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want a religious service. And the notion of not wasting a lot of money on a vessel to hold a decomposing body similarly has a practicality that fits.
To explore it more, though... is it the notion of a typical funeral service you dislike or something broader than that? Would you, for example, object to your friends or loved ones getting together for a simple meal to exchange stories? Or would there be a cause you care about they could contribute (either financially or thru volunteer labor) in your honor?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Most of the funerals I'm familiar with are of people who are very much a part of a loving church family, well known to the minister, and really are a joyful thanksgiving for a life.
Our minister specifies that if anyone apart from the family eulogist wants to speak, they should give notice of their wish and their tribute should be no longer than one quarto page.
A church service, if a non-member wants it as a formality, must be pretty grim.
I've done a lot of funeral services where the deceased is a non-church goer of unknown religious sentiment, but one or more family members is a faithful member of my congregation.
A funeral is imho no time to unpack the thorny issue of universalism vs exclusivism and the ultimate destiny of non-believers.
It is, however, as Nick T suggests, a time to come together and worship the living God. So that's what we do. We usually have a eulogy that simply talks about the person's life and what will be remembered. Then we worship. We pray together-- mostly for comfort for those who mourn.
[ 06. August 2016, 14:26: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
In my opinion, if that is what the person has stated that iswhat s/he wants, it would be disrespectful
Why? How? Especially from your philosophy, the person no longer exists at all. You cannot disrespect something that no longer exists. What you disrespect is the still living people who cared for the deceased when they were still alive.
Even from a Christian or Buddhist POV where death is not the end, the person has done what they have and put themselves into whatever state they are in. We are not changing that.
Now, if one belongs to a system of belief which states that their deity(s) need cajoling or placating to allow the dead person to proceed to the next stage, then I will not tell them they are wrong. For them, the funeral truly is, in part, for the deceased.
quote:
selfish of the living to do something different. If those still living feel a lack of 'closure' or feel some personal hurt, then that is their problem to deal with and not the dead person's,
That is precisely what a funeral is.
I have in mind a ceremony that would represent me. However, the only reason I would write it up would be if I felt those remaining would have no ideas themselves or to make it easier for them.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I want an Orthodox funeral, because I'm Orthodox, and that's how we dispatch our dead.
Your community is Orthodox, at least one of the communities you belong to, so this makes sense for them
I am struggling to see why, from a Christian POV, any service matters at all the the dead person. It can have no benefit, or lack any benefit, to the dead person.
That the living would feel disrespectful is understandable, so a service is to respect their feelings.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
My perspective on funerals runs in the direction of considering 3 parties. The deceased, the living and God. God doesn't need anything from us. The dead doesn't either. The living do. If you're atheist, you still have 2 of the 3.
I recall extremely well the funerals of loved ones. There's a sense I derive of something transcendent. Do atheists do transcendence? Things bigger than the self? I know they do yoga. Perhaps a yoga funeral.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
In my opinion, if that is what the person has stated that iswhat s/he wants, it would be disrespectful and/dor selfish of the living to do something different. If those still living feel a lack of 'closure' or feel some personal hurt, then that is their problem to deal with and not the dead person's, especially if, as I presume, they would have known the dead person well enough anyway to understand.
In my opinion, it is selfish of the person to decree that their survivors may not meet together to remember them. It's disrespectful to the needs of the living. It's spitting in their faces to say, "when I am gone, I am still going to forbid you from doing what you want. I am going to prevent you from using our society's most common form of seeking closure and insist you do it some other way. Fuck you."
[ 06. August 2016, 16:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In my opinion, it is selfish of the person to decree that their survivors may not meet together to remember them. It's disrespectful to the needs of the living. It's spitting in their faces to say, "when I am gone, I am still going to forbid you from doing what you want. I am going to prevent you from using our society's most common form of seeking closure and insist you do it some other way. Fuck you."
Supposing the deceased had been brought up in a particular religious tradition, suffered at the hands of it, absolutely hated it, but the rest of the family had not had that experience and still firmly believed in it. Suppose that relationships had been strained with some family members because of it.
Suppose also that the deceased had been quite adamant that s/he would not have a funeral from that tradition. And suppose that the family were equally adamant that the deceased had to have it because the person had clearly misinterpreted the tradition during their lifetime/been unreasonable/would go to Hell if they didn't get a proper funeral (i.e. in the family tradition). And that no secular alternative or anything but a funeral in the specified tradition would be acceptable.
Would you still think it selfish of the deceased not to want a funeral?
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
PS: Twilight - thank you!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Would you still think it selfish of the deceased not to want a funeral?
It would be selfish of both parties, but one of them no longer exists, so it doesn't matter.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
If you can persuade the person before they die that it would be unfair to the living to deny them a funeral, then there will not be a decree 'no funeral', will there?
When my mother died, she left no instructions or desires for a funeral. My brothers and I thought about what she might like, not what we might like. In the end, it probably came to the same thing (brief and conventional), but that wasn't where it started. I wonder how you can purport to remember someone with love and respect when you are doing exactly what they've said they don't want.
M.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I wonder how you can purport to remember someone with love and respect when you are doing exactly what they've said they don't want.
M.
just to play devil's advocate... we do things against the wishes of people we love & respect all the time when they're living. We will get a tattoo/ change religions/ choose a career or spouse/ contrary to our parent's wishes all the time, even tho we still claim to "love and respect" our parents. So what is it about "last wishes" that seem to be particularly binding?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I wonder how you can purport to remember someone with love and respect when you are doing exactly what they've said they don't want.
M.
Love and respect doesn't require agreement with every thought and position.
Love and respect should go both directions.
The ones left are the ones still having something to deal with.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In my opinion, it is selfish of the person to decree that their survivors may not meet together to remember them. It's disrespectful to the needs of the living. It's spitting in their faces to say, "when I am gone, I am still going to forbid you from doing what you want. I am going to prevent you from using our society's most common form of seeking closure and insist you do it some other way. Fuck you."
Supposing the deceased had been brought up in a particular religious tradition, suffered at the hands of it, absolutely hated it, but the rest of the family had not had that experience and still firmly believed in it. Suppose that relationships had been strained with some family members because of it.
Suppose also that the deceased had been quite adamant that s/he would not have a funeral from that tradition. And suppose that the family were equally adamant that the deceased had to have it because the person had clearly misinterpreted the tradition during their lifetime/been unreasonable/would go to Hell if they didn't get a proper funeral (i.e. in the family tradition). And that no secular alternative or anything but a funeral in the specified tradition would be acceptable.
Would you still think it selfish of the deceased not to want a funeral?
I didn't say funeral. I said "meet together to remember them." That doesn't have to be a funeral.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
My mother was and is not a religious person. It would be disrespectful to give her a religious funeral, not because she has asked us not to, which she has, but because it would be in some sense denying who she was and chose to be.
I do plan to throw a party and invite all her friends, and if somebody wants to get up and remember something about her, I will not stop them. I will not have any kind of prayer or sermon or other religious trappings, because she did not choose those things while alive.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
I don't want a funeral or any kind of service - but I'm happy if you party, or give something to a charity you support, or remember me in your prayers.
If you ignore my requests I'll never know (or if by chance I do, I won't be cross).
But be loving to my wife and console her if she's still around. That's what's important to me.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
But be loving to my wife and console her if she's still around. That's what's important to me.
This.
And this is why I often find myself providing a religious service for a bereaved Christian when the deceased had no such religious sentiments. We won't pretend the deceased had a faith s/he never professed, and we won't speculate about their eternal destination. But we will come alongside the widow/ widower/ orphaned children to provide love and prayers-- which may or may not happen in the context of a religious service.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
This can go too far. I have seen too many homilists claim that they were the only person at the deathbed when the deceased made a last minute decision for Christ. I suspect more than one of these was made up to console the living.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I wonder how you can purport to remember someone with love and respect when you are doing exactly what they've said they don't want.
M.
just to play devil's advocate... we do things against the wishes of people we love & respect all the time when they're living. We will get a tattoo/ change religions/ choose a career or spouse/ contrary to our parent's wishes all the time, even tho we still claim to "love and respect" our parents. So what is it about "last wishes" that seem to be particularly binding?
I think last wishes are particularly binding precisely because the dying person wont be there to catch you out and punish you if you go against them. Particularly if you have promised, or even just implied agreement, then you are on a sort of honor system to keep up your end. Whether the dead person knows if you've kept the promise or not, you know.
I might get a tattoo, even though my mother hates them, but If I had promised my mother to never get one, then that's a different story. Sure, she is probably in a place where she can't know and won't care, but she cared when she made you promise and she trusted you to keep that promise, even after she was unable to see you.
My father cut out his estranged son from his will and made me promise not to give any of the inheritance to him. I stuck by that promise -- for several years, after which the inherited money was well mixed up with our money -- and then I gave my brother a lump because he needed it.
I would not have just gone dead set against my father's wishes. He wanted to make a posthumous point about how much that brother had hurt him and I didn't think it was my place to interfere with that.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This can go too far. I have seen too many homilists claim that they were the only person at the deathbed when the deceased made a last minute decision for Christ. I suspect more than one of these was made up to console the living.
It can. But that's where the commandment on lying comes in.
We've been to any number of Buddhist funerals for Christians (often deathbed baptisms). We just shrug our shoulders and let the family get on with it. Why create friction?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That kind of situation is where I do my best to avoid agreeing to carry out something I have major disagreements with. A will is a special case, particularly when you have no idea what's in it--but when it comes to verbal wishes, I will either say "no" at the time or simply change the subject in a really obvious way. I don't want to fight with someone sick or grieving, but darned if I'm going to un-invite my sibling to a funeral either.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This can go too far. I have seen too many homilists claim that they were the only person at the deathbed when the deceased made a last minute decision for Christ. I suspect more than one of these was made up to console the living.
agreed. But I haven't seen anyone suggest this (and in my post I specifically excluded that)
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
just to play devil's advocate... we do things against the wishes of people we love & respect all the time when they're living. We will get a tattoo/ change religions/ choose a career or spouse/ contrary to our parent's wishes all the time, even tho we still claim to "love and respect" our parents. So what is it about "last wishes" that seem to be particularly binding?
When someone's alive the relationship is still fluid and to some extent negotiable, and either of you may change your stance on something, argue about it, talk it over, etc. When they're dead, that last chance has gone. You have no further contact with them, and if you cared about them, then honouring their last wishes is the last thing you can do for them, the last gift you can ever give them. That marks the end of your relationship with them.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
and if you cared about them, then honouring their last wishes is the last thing you can do for them, the last gift you can ever give them.
Rubbish. They are dead. Gone. No longer in existence on this world. Even if they could look back from Heaven, you think in their perfected state they would care that you attend your still living human need?
quote:
That marks the end of your relationship with them.
How is this not the exact opposite of what you are saying above? If death ends the relationship, then you can give no honour or dishonour, they can receive no such gift.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rubbish. They are dead. Gone. No longer in existence on this world. Even if they could look back from Heaven, you think in their perfected state they would care that you attend your still living human need?
Yes.
quote:
How is this not the exact opposite of what you are saying above? If death ends the relationship, then you can give no honour or dishonour, they can receive no such gift.
Well, ok, maybe you've never lost anyone you cared about. Grief is not a matter of logic nor is it entirely rational.
I will be marking my mother's birthday later this month. She may be dead, but I'm still going to light a candle and do something she'd have enjoyed in memory of her. Yes, it's stupid, yes, it's irrational, yes, it's ridiculously irrelevant, superfluous and meaningless.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am struggling to see why, from a Christian POV, any service matters at all the the dead person. It can have no benefit, or lack any benefit, to the dead person.
That the living would feel disrespectful is understandable, so a service is to respect their feelings.
Maybe there are some RCs who still believe that having a funeral mass is important for the soul of the dead person?
In general, I think a funeral is important to Christians in the sense that it allows the Christian community to thank God for a life well-lived and for the deceased's influence and presence in our lives. A 'good' funeral is also a sign of respect for the deceased. Jesus was strong on the importance of valuing people.
A funeral also forces the rest of us to face up to the reality of death - something that we find harder and harder to do, even though our religion is death-focused to a certain extent.
Obviously, Christianity doesn't teach that a funeral is necessary for one's salvation. I don't think, though, that a desire to avoid having a funeral has much to do with wanting to rediscover a 'pure' religion, shorn of unnecessary rituals. It's probably more a sign of ambivalence towards the claims of Christianity. Perhaps it reflects a sense that death is nothing but failure; and why would you invite a bunch of people to witness your failure?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
But this thread isn't about wanting to have a funeral, it's about wanting to NOT have a funeral.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
That's what we've been talking about, isn't it?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The interesting question for me would be why a Christian would want to forgo a funeral. The anti-funeral friend I mentioned above describes herself as 'Church of England', but never attends services and has little interest in what happens in worship. In her case, I suppose that 'CofE' implies an identity, not a set of public rituals. So a funeral with rituals that she has no cultural or theological stake in would serve no purpose for her.
Does anyone know of actual churchgoers who refuse to have a funeral? What has their reasoning been?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Well, ok, maybe you've never lost anyone you cared about. Grief is not a matter of logic nor is it entirely rational.
I am not denigrating any part of the grief process, just stating that it is for the living and not a bit of it is for the dead.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe there are some RCs who still believe that having a funeral mass is important for the soul of the dead person?
It is inconsistent with the Christian concept of God to think s/he need convincing of the true goodness of the dead. Which is what you say as well:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Obviously, Christianity doesn't teach that a funeral is necessary for one's salvation.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But this thread isn't about wanting to have a funeral, it's about wanting to NOT have a funeral.
ISTM, it is about respecting the dead person's wishes v. serving the living's wants.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In my opinion, it is selfish of the person to decree that their survivors may not meet together to remember them.
You don't need a funeral service in order for people to meet together to remember the dead.
One of my aunts did not want a funeral. When she died the family got together to remember her. When a woman at my church died, her family decided to have the funeral in the place where she had lived for many years before she moved to Blacksburg. Those of us who knew and loved her met in a coffee shop and talked about her. This did bring closure. I would have preferred to attend a funeral service. but this was the family's choice.
Moo
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That's what we've been talking about, isn't it?
The interesting question for me would be why a Christian would want to forgo a funeral. The anti-funeral friend I mentioned above describes herself as 'Church of England', but never attends services and has little interest in what happens in worship. In her case, I suppose that 'CofE' implies an identity, not a set of public rituals. So a funeral with rituals that she has no cultural or theological stake in would serve no purpose for her.
Does anyone know of actual churchgoers who refuse to have a funeral? What has their reasoning been?
Sure, many of my congregants have said something like that. Lots of different reasons: some deplore the expense or the formality, some dislike the somber tone. And I find many laity don't know the difference between a "funeral" and a "memorial" and don't like the idea of their dead body being on display.
In all these cases it has more to do with a very specific idea about what a "funeral" entails so the deceased-to-be is generally open to creative alternatives such as we've discussed here. The more difficult situations are where the deceased is a nonbeliever, possibly hostile to religion, but the bereaved spouse or children are believers who crave the support of their Christian community.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
A friendship or relationship in no wise ceases merely because the person is dead. Lighting candles is a fine thing. So is considering what someone who is no more might think of things. We internalize little bits of others' personalities in our thoughts and feelings. I expect love becomes branded on our neurons such that its scars are never erased. Practiced little interactions, meaningless things really, baked into our brains.
No one sings "what a friend we no longer have in Dead Jesus". (Not that I like the hymn or its other sentiments.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
A friendship or relationship in no wise ceases merely because the person is dead. Lighting candles is a fine thing. So is considering what someone who is no more might think of things. We internalize little bits of others' personalities in our thoughts and feelings. I expect love becomes branded on our neurons such that its scars are never erased. Practiced little interactions, meaningless things really, baked into our brains.
No one sings "what a friend we no longer have in Dead Jesus". (Not that I like the hymn or its other sentiments.)
He sort of rather resurrected. My grandparents, not so much.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In my opinion, it is selfish of the person to decree that their survivors may not meet together to remember them.
You don't need a funeral service in order for people to meet together to remember the dead.
Moo
You may need to go back and read what I have said on this thread if you think that this in any way refutes my point(s).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But this thread isn't about wanting to have a funeral, it's about wanting to NOT have a funeral.
ISTM, it is about respecting the dead person's wishes v. serving the living's wants.
It is about respecting the dead person's wishes as regards their desire to not have a funeral or other kind of service. We really haven't moved that far from the thread title, except for illustrative purposes.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In my opinion, it is selfish of the person to decree that their survivors may not meet together to remember them.
You don't need a funeral service in order for people to meet together to remember the dead.
And that gets us back to the tile of the thread, specifically that "or any kind of service" part. As I said above, I have no problem with the deceased insisting on "no funeral." If you don't want your body laid out for people to gawk at, I support you to the hilt. My mother insisted on a closed-casket "viewing" and we complied. But when the request goes beyond "No funeral" to "not any kind of service" (meaning no memorial service) then I object. The deceased has no right to insist on that. For the reasons stated above. Because I hate repeating myself.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe there are some RCs who still believe that having a funeral mass is important for the soul of the dead person?
It is inconsistent with the Christian concept of God to think s/he need convincing of the true goodness of the dead.
But the idea that God needs to be convinced of the true goodness of the dead is not at all what the RC doctrine of purgatory is about.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But the idea that God needs to be convinced of the true goodness of the dead is not at all what the RC doctrine of purgatory is about.
I'm wasn't addressing Purgatory, but the necessity of prayer for the dead.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But this thread isn't about wanting to have a funeral, it's about wanting to NOT have a funeral.
ISTM, it is about respecting the dead person's wishes v. serving the living's wants.
It is about respecting the dead person's wishes as regards their desire to not have a funeral or other kind of service. We really haven't moved that far from the thread title, except for illustrative purposes.
IMO, that is the same thing, in essence. My arguments regarding whose desires are paramount are the same, regardless.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But the idea that God needs to be convinced of the true goodness of the dead is not at all what the RC doctrine of purgatory is about.
I'm wasn't addressing Purgatory, but the necessity of prayer for the dead.
But in RC understanding, prayers (and Masses) for the dead are directly tied to Purgatory. It is because of Purgatory—or perhaps more accurately, the purgatorial process—that prayers are offered for the dead to start with.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But the idea that God needs to be convinced of the true goodness of the dead is not at all what the RC doctrine of purgatory is about.
I'm wasn't addressing Purgatory, but the necessity of prayer for the dead.
But in RC understanding, prayers (and Masses) for the dead are directly tied to Purgatory. It is because of Purgatory—or perhaps more accurately, the purgatorial process—that prayers are offered for the dead to start with.
OK, I think a Purgatory tangent is food for another thread.
I am saying that it is not consistent with how Christians present God to say the dead need prayer.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am saying that it is not consistent with how Christians present God to say the dead need prayer.
Yes, I get that's what you're saying. But based on what you've posted, you seem to be saying it based on a misunderstanding of why those Christians who do pray for the dead (which is a majority of Christians) do so.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am saying that it is not consistent with how Christians present God to say the dead need prayer.
Yes, I get that's what you're saying. But based on what you've posted, you seem to be saying it based on a misunderstanding of why those Christians who do pray for the dead (which is a majority of Christians) do so.
Is it really true that the majority of Christians pray for the dead? Reformed Christians emphatically do not. I realize Reformed is not the majority, but I didn't think they were the only ones...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Is it really true that the majority of Christians pray for the dead?
Given that the majority of Christians are Catholics, yes, at least in theory.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
This brings back memories of 30 years ago when I was working with the AIDS support group in Boston. In preparing us to advise phone callers they talked about a number of cases where the gay person was dying of AIDS and wanted to be buried without a Christian service in a plot shared with their (then non-legal) partner. The family which hadn't spoken to them in a decade or two wanted to drag the body back to the family town and bury it as a perennial bachelor with homophobic Christian services.
Unfortunately, the law in Massachusetts gives the family the right to dictate how the body is disposed of even if the person had other plans. In several case the lawyers helped make wills that said; if you honor my wishes you get a chunk of cash left to you in my will, if you do otherwise it goes to a gay charity.
It seemed to work but to me it felt like having to buy your corpse back from those who oppressed you all your life.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Palimpsest,
Granted, it isn't going to always be cut and dry. If the family wins, it would not hurt the dead person.
It would have had an effect on her/his friends, certainly a negative for the LGBT+ community, and that would be bad.
Again, that is about the living.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Funerals are for the living, I agree (using this term to include memorials, remembrance meals, whatever). Why do the living want a funeral? To remember the dead person? A rite of passage? To satisfy your own proper desire to mourn their loss?
So why would you want to do any of that in a way they have specifically said they don't want? It just makes no sense to me.
M.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Look at it from the other side. Why would a person set forth conditions on mourning them that didn't respect the people they loved?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
My father has said that he doesn't want a full service. No minister, no hymns. He wants 8 named people to gather at the funeral home with the coffin and each of us say something in turn. And that's it.
I have told him that I am deeply unimpressed, and might not attend. My main objection is that in the immediate aftermath of his death someone (and I've told him it won't be me, so presumably my mother) will have to tell various relatives that the funeral is for close family only, and that despite a relationship going back decades, regular phone calls, visits etc they are not close enough to be regarded as close family. I can only imagine the ripples of hurt which this will cause within the wider family. It will probably reduce the amount of family support available to my mother in the early days of widowhood.
If I did go, what would I say to the other seven people? I get on perfectly well with my brother but we are not geographically close and our contact over the last twenty years has been limited. I'm guessing he will lean towards weepily sentimental. I love my father dearly but will probably lean towards humorous anecdote. If it was a room full of people, there would at least be a buffer, a middle ground. As it is I imagine me feeling awkward when my brother spoke, and him feeling awkward when I spoke.
To expand on this: my father is not a man who likes fuss. He didn't having a retirement presentation at his own request, he does not want us to mark his 80th birthday. I can accept that he doesn't want a fussy funeral. He is not a church goer - I can accept that he doesn't want any form of religious service, no minister, no hymns, no readings.
My objection is to his idea that in lieu of a funeral service, eight of us will gather in a small room at the funeral home with the coffin and each of us will say something about him. For that to happen, my mother will have to tell people she loves that they are not to attend, and not to support her. I'm closer to my cousin than my brother (reasons of geography mainly) but my cousin won't be there.
My brother cries at funerals; I don't. I suspect he thinks me cold-hearted; I envy his easy emotion. I have a vision of my brother weeping in one corner with his family, while I reminisce and laugh with my family in another. Mum will be stuck alone between us. Expand the numbers to about 20 (still a small funeral) and everything would be so much easier.
I suspect what I will do, if I am actually faced with this, is to turn up, but keep quiet. Then I'll have a dinner at home and invite all the people I love who would have wanted to attend the funeral and we'll drink a toast, and look at old photos, and laugh and think fondly of him.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Wonders will never cease! For about the first time ever, I agree with SusanDoris!
Thank you for saing, much appreciated. Back in May, Enoch agreed with me too! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I certainly do not want there to be any funeral and my family and friends know this. There will be a few unavoidable expenses - fridge space somewhere and cost of (cheapest) coffin and cremation - but otherwise give money to the young.
In the interests of the OP, let's explore that further...
I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want a religious service. And the notion of not wasting a lot of money on a vessel to hold a decomposing body similarly has a practicality that fits.
To explore it more, though... is it the notion of a typical funeral service you dislike or something broader than that?
Thank you for your post. It’s the latter. A typical funeral service having, as it does, a religious theme of a ‘soul’ going on to some kind of after-life where God might be is something I have never believed, even when still a believer in god, especialy as all objective evidence points to the opposite conclusion. I understand the reasons for this ingrained idea, since our species, knowing it is going to die, has imagined an alternative, perhaps more ‘comforting’, scenario. The distinct advantage of humanist services is that they face up clearly to the fact that when we die, that’s it, the end! Among my friends and contemporaries there is a growing acceptance of this. Quite a few are widows whose husbands had traditional CofE funerals, and they themselves assume their families will do the same for them, but as far as I know not one of, for instance, a group I belong to, really believes they will ‘see their husbands again’. quote:
Would you, for example, object to your friends or loved ones getting together for a simple meal to exchange stories? Or would there be a cause you care about they could contribute (either financially or thru volunteer labor) in your honor?
I would not be able to object, of course!! However, as I have pointed out to my sons, my close friends and siblings do not live around here for a start, they are old too which makes travelling difficult. I’ll do my best to see them as often as I can while we’re all still alive. As far as I know, the suggestion that money would be better going to a charity is becoming more prevalent these days. I would not specify, but I think my friends might donate something towards the NLB, knowing how I value the talking book and braille services provided.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Is it really true that the majority of Christians pray for the dead?
Given that the majority of Christians are Catholics, yes, at least in theory.
Yes, that's where I was coming from with "majority." Add in the Orthodox and (many) Anglicans. (If I recall correctly, Luther and Wesley both approved of the practice, though I can't say the extent to which it is practiced among Lutherans or Methodists.)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
IME as a Methodist, British Methodism doesn't (officially) offer prayers for the dead, beyond the funeral celebrant asking God to accept the deceased into his care. I don't do it myself.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
In my opinion, if that is what the person has stated that iswhat s/he wants, it would be disrespectful
Why? How? Especially from your philosophy, the person no longer exists at all. You cannot disrespect something that no longer exists. What you disrespect is the still living people who cared for the deceased when they were still alive.
If I had been asked to deal with the formalities etc when a person, A, died, and A had made it clear that s/he did not want a funeral, then if I did not do as A had asked, I would not be acting with respect to A. If others around him/her said that I should go against A’s wishes, they would be the ones showing a lack of respect to A. quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I recall extremely well the funerals of loved ones. There's a sense I derive of something transcendent. Do atheists do transcendence? Things bigger than the self? I know they do yoga. Perhaps a yoga funeral.
All human beings have a huge variety of experiences during their lives, all of which involve the brain and its abilities. An experience which those who believe there are spirits or something outside of the human imagination might call transcendant; atheists would know were part of the superbly adaptable brains we have and appreciate them as such.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
I pray for people I love (and for some of those I don't). Why should I stop doing so just because they are dead, and so beyond our time?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Mass for the Dead is not necessarily the same as a funeral Mass.
For Catholics both the living and the dead can be enclosed in our circles of prayer. In a sense the living do not need our prayers as God is always present, nor in a sense do the dead ,but we pray for both the living and the dead to remind God that we care about them. Even then he doesn't really need reminding, but we need reminding that we should remember others before God.
Purgatory is just a name which is given to a state, rather really than a place, just as Heaven is more a state than a place.
'To our departed brothers and sisters and to all who were pleasing to you at their passing from this life, give kind admittance to your kingdom.
There we (also) hope to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory.' is one of the prayers for the dead in the Roman Mass.
This is an example of a prayer which a Christian could say at any time. It does not have to be at a funeral.
It is not unknown in Catholic parishes for no public (funeral)Mass to be offered for a deceased person as the relatives do not wish this to happen or would feel uncomfortable in being present. It does not stop devout Christians from praying for the deceased and also in believing that their prayers can only bring about good for both the living and the dead.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I personally think the wish for no funeral should be observed if that's what the person wished for. I would have no option to follow their wishes if I were executing their Will, because it's a legal document. So surely there is still a moral obligation - moreso, even? - to follow someone's wishes even though not framed legally? And if I gave this out as my wish, I really would hope my loved ones (should there be any by then) would respect me enough to respect my final wishes.
I really don't think it's good enough to say 'we can ignore that particular request because Fanny-Anne is dead'. It mattered to her, and whether we agree or not, it should matter to us; even if it requires us to struggle with alternative forms of memorialising her.
However. Having brought up the subject of the Will, that analogy in itself could be said to challenge what I've said above, in this respect. The legally enforceable Will disposes -hopefully with clarity and without contest - of the possessions of the deceased, as being theirs to do with as they pleased even now that they are dead.
Whereas it could be argued that the deceased has less of a right to say how others should now inherit the grief of their loss, in forbidding them a place to grieve in a formal, public safe space. That is, how the deceased is memorialized, or said farewell to is not solely a 'possession' of the deceased to be disposed of, but the living experience of those left behind who have needs to be fulfilled so that they may grieve healthily.
The support of 'presence' that such a service (religious or not) provides for mourners is not to be underestimated.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To explore it more, though... is it the notion of a typical funeral service you dislike or something broader than that?
Thank you for your post. It’s the latter. A typical funeral service having, as it does, a religious theme of a ‘soul’ going on to some kind of after-life where God might be is something I have never believed, even when still a believer in god, especialy as all objective evidence points to the opposite conclusion. [/QB][/QUOTE]
That's a typical funeral, perhaps. Why not ask for an atypical funeral? I don't suppose V.I. Lenin's funeral had a lot of God-talk. The Soviet Union being officially atheist and all that. Yet he had an official state funeral.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
If I had been asked to deal with the formalities etc when a person, A, died, and A had made it clear that s/he did not want a funeral, then if I did not do as A had asked, I would not be acting with respect to A. If others around him/her said that I should go against A’s wishes, they would be the ones showing a lack of respect to A.
You are merely stating your position, you are not explaining it.
A is dead and cannot be disrespected. What you are potentially disrespecting is your memory of and feelings towards them. And those of the other people who knew and cared for A.
A was disrespecting her/his loved ones when setting forth conditions which would not account for how they feel.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
If I had been asked to deal with the formalities etc when a person, A, died, and A had made it clear that s/he did not want a funeral, then if I did not do as A had asked, I would not be acting with respect to A. If others around him/her said that I should go against A’s wishes, they would be the ones showing a lack of respect to A.
You are merely stating your position, you are not explaining it.
I think I will have to ask you to say why I have not explained it. I think my position is based on the fact that I would do what I hope others would do were the positions reversed, and I think this position is based on basic, good morals. quote:
A is dead and cannot be disrespected.
Ttrue, A cannot know if anyone is showing a lack of respect towards him/her or his/her wishes.
quote:
What you are potentially disrespecting is your memory of and feelings towards them. And those of the other people who knew and cared for A.
A was disrespecting her/his loved ones when setting forth conditions which would not account for how they feel.
Hmmmm, thank you, and apologies, but I don’t think I’ll try and untangle that!
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
........A was disrespecting her/his loved ones when setting forth conditions which would not account for how they feel.
That's how I view it.
The only circumstances where someone could be justified in catagorically ruling out any formal gathering after her or his death would be if they knew for a fact there would be sharp discord between the next of kin following their demise.
Therefore setting out such a final request could be seen as not so much selfish, but an action to protect others.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think I will have to ask you to say why I have not explained it. I think my position is based on the fact that I would do what I hope others would do were the positions reversed, and I think this position is based on basic, good morals.
You have not explained why it matters to a person who no longer exists and why treating their wishes is a better moral choice than dealing with people who still do.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
lilBuddha
Thank you - back tomorrow.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You have not explained why it matters to a person who no longer exists and why treating their wishes is a better moral choice than dealing with people who still do.
What exactly are you saying when you say they no longer exist? You mean at the instance of their death they just wink out of being completely, there is no afterlife, no presence in Heaven, no discarnate spirit, no nothing, just complete annihilation with merely an empty uninhabited corpse left as a reminder?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
For those who say that the deceased's wishes are paramount; what would they do if they were me? Dad is very much alive and has stipulated this eight people in a room scenario. I have told him I think he is being unfair, to stipulate that my mother must not have the support of her brother, to whom she is close, and I must not have the support of my cousin.
My mother has told Dad that she supports his wishes but has told me privately that telling her brother that he cannot attend the funeral because he is not "close family" will break her heart. I feel that she should tell Dad this, but she won't. I think that if Dad really thought about it, he would change his mind.
I have joked to Dad that if he wants to avoid fuss, he is going the wrong way about it. I envisage a massive fuss as people are told they aren't "close" enough to attend the funeral. I expect to be fielding phone calls from all and sundry, who will assume that there has been some falling-out, some gossip, some story behind the "only 8 people" funeral.
Of course, I might be worrying about nothing. Possibly Mum is agreeing with Dad now but has absolutely no intention of following his wishes.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
For those who say that the deceased's wishes are paramount; what would they do if they were me? Dad is very much alive and has stipulated this eight people in a room scenario.
I'd do it. I'd have the eight people in the room at the funeral home and everybody who wanted to come would be welcome at the graveside for the actual burial (or scattering of ashes), and for a wake/reception afterwards with speeches and reminiscences welcome.
On a purely practical note, you can only fit so many people into a room in a funeral home at one time and you are not usually there for long.
Your father may, of course, change his mind nearer the time. People do. Unless he's specified his wishes in his will things can still change.
[ 07. August 2016, 18:22: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Dad has specified no wake, no reception and the same eight people only at the graveside.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I have been to two funerals at the funeral home Dad plans. They have two rooms; the larger holds easily 100 people, I think the smaller holds about 30.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
For those who say that the deceased's wishes are paramount; what would they do if they were me? ...
My mother has told Dad that she supports his wishes but has told me privately that telling her brother that he cannot attend the funeral because he is not "close family" will break her heart. I feel that she should tell Dad this, but she won't. I think that if Dad really thought about it, he would change his mind.
I have joked to Dad that if he wants to avoid fuss, he is going the wrong way about it. I envisage a massive fuss as people are told they aren't "close" enough to attend the funeral. I expect to be fielding phone calls from all and sundry, who will assume that there has been some falling-out, some gossip, some story behind the "only 8 people" funeral.
Of course, I might be worrying about nothing. Possibly Mum is agreeing with Dad now but has absolutely no intention of following his wishes.
I don't think they're paramount, but if you can bring yourself to do it (or if your mother can), I'd tell him honestly that you foresee a huge amount of hurt feelings and family feuding, and if he still insists on going through with this, he personally needs to notify the people-to-be-left-out about what he wants (namely, that they be left out) and deal with the fall-out himself. It would be far better for him to do this while living (yeah, yeah, I know I'm in total fantasy-land here, there's not a person in a thousand willing to do that), but the next best thing would be a handwritten signed statement saying that he is insisting upon this (this to be spelt out) and that you-all have no choice in the matter.
The best-case scenario would be that he hears this and suddenly realizes the shitstorm he's letting you in for--and bends. But if not, at least you'd have something to photocopy and hand out along with your personal "We wouldn't have done it this way, but..."
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In my opinion, it is selfish of the person to decree that their survivors may not meet together to remember them. It's disrespectful to the needs of the living. It's spitting in their faces to say, "when I am gone, I am still going to forbid you from doing what you want. I am going to prevent you from using our society's most common form of seeking closure and insist you do it some other way. Fuck you."
Supposing the deceased had been brought up in a particular religious tradition, suffered at the hands of it, absolutely hated it, but the rest of the family had not had that experience and still firmly believed in it. Suppose that relationships had been strained with some family members because of it.
Suppose also that the deceased had been quite adamant that s/he would not have a funeral from that tradition. And suppose that the family were equally adamant that the deceased had to have it because the person had clearly misinterpreted the tradition during their lifetime/been unreasonable/would go to Hell if they didn't get a proper funeral (i.e. in the family tradition). And that no secular alternative or anything but a funeral in the specified tradition would be acceptable.
Would you still think it selfish of the deceased not to want a funeral?
We live in a society that has rituals to help us let go of our dead. It doesn't really matter which one, but most of us need them, usually it is the one that means something to us. If a relative has such a bad experience then you can do it differently, they can specify don't have and X or Y funeral - but to say you can't have anything yes is selfish and controlling.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
I don't see why the deceased has to know to be disrespected. I don't understand your view, lilBuddha, that the dead can't be disrespected.
M.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
...the next best thing would be a handwritten signed statement saying that he is insisting upon this (this to be spelt out) and that you-all have no choice in the matter.
I agree, because that might be one way of making him focus on the issue. Get him to work on it in detail. Once you have it in writing, you can then legitimately pass the buck.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
For those who say that the deceased's wishes are paramount; what would they do if they were me? Dad is very much alive and has stipulated this eight people in a room scenario. I have told him I think he is being unfair, to stipulate that my mother must not have the support of her brother, to whom she is close, and I must not have the support of my cousin.
My mother has told Dad that she supports his wishes but has told me privately that telling her brother that he cannot attend the funeral because he is not "close family" will break her heart. I feel that she should tell Dad this, but she won't.
I tend to agree with Lamb Chopped that the deceased's wishes are not paramount, and I think her advice is good. But frankly, given what you've said, I think I'd tell him myself that mom is going along with him to support him, but that you know how hard it will be for her not to have her brother there supporting her. Same with you and your cousin.
I think I'd be tempted to tell him you're sorry, but you can't do things exactly like he wishes, and please don't ask you to. I'd tell him he can trust you to keep things like he would want them—no fuss, no clergy, no religion, etc.—but that you will need to have the support of some people beyond his other 6 to get through it.
Of course, I say all of that without knowing your dad, so I may be way, way off.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You have not explained why it matters to a person who no longer exists and why treating their wishes is a better moral choice than dealing with people who still do.
What exactly are you saying when you say they no longer exist? You mean at the instance of their death they just wink out of being completely, there is no afterlife, no presence in Heaven, no discarnate spirit, no nothing, just complete annihilation with merely an empty uninhabited corpse left as a reminder?
That would seem to be what Susan Doris, an avowed atheist, believes happens.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
... But when the request goes beyond "No funeral" to "not any kind of service" (meaning no memorial service) then I object. The deceased has no right to insist on that. For the reasons stated above. Because I hate repeating myself.
So how do you feel about the Mormon practice of posthumously baptizing dead Jews? Do the Jews have the right to insist on that not happening?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What exactly are you saying when you say they no longer exist? You mean at the instance of their death they just wink out of being completely, there is no afterlife, no presence in Heaven, no discarnate spirit, no nothing, just complete annihilation with merely an empty uninhabited corpse left as a reminder?
My comment was addressed to Susan Doris whose POV suggests no belief in anything after death.
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I don't see why the deceased has to know to be disrespected. I don't understand your view, lilBuddha, that the dead can't be disrespected.
M.
It would depend on your POV, I suppose.
From an atheist* POV, they cease to exist in any way, shape or form. So there is nothing to disrespect.
Buddhism** does not believe in the existence of a soul, per se. So, again, there is nothing to disrespect.
Christianity teaches an all-loving, all-knowing God. Such a God would know the state of a person's soul and would not need reminding. Such a God would love that soul and would not need cajoling to accept it into Heaven. So respect or disrespect in a Christian context is irrelevant to the soul of the deceased.
M, can you explain to me exactly what effect you think disrespect would have to the deceased?
*Well, most. Probably. There are some who would call themselves atheist but spiritual.
**Buddhist practice varies, so I will not speak for all adherents, but it doesn't fit with the Buddha's words.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So how do you feel about the Mormon practice of posthumously baptizing dead Jews? Do the Jews have the right to insist on that not happening?
That is disrespectful to the living Jews.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I think we need to respect their memory.
Whatever we believe happens to them after death, mere dust or glorious Angel or something else, it doesn't matter. The thing which really lives on is the memory of them, so we should respect this.
If their wish was no funeral, then no funeral. Find another way to mark their passing of which they would have approved.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
lilBuddha, I couldn't put it better than Boogie has. I don't think it has anything to do with whether the person knows or not or whether it has an effect on them. I don't understand why you think it has to. It's nothing to do with whether you think a person is extinguished or lives on in some other form.
It seems a very simple matter of doing what someone specifically requests or ignoring that wish. Particularly if you say you want to remember someone or grieve for them and then purport to do it by ignoring their wishes.
M.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
... But when the request goes beyond "No funeral" to "not any kind of service" (meaning no memorial service) then I object. The deceased has no right to insist on that. For the reasons stated above. Because I hate repeating myself.
So how do you feel about the Mormon practice of posthumously baptizing dead Jews? Do the Jews have the right to insist on that not happening?
They posthumously baptise anyone so they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven - but it's up the dead person whether or not they accept the Baptism.
I think it's a bit meh. My sister has been doing our family history. Anyone who does this will eventually end up at the Mormon record office in East Grinstead. Their belief in baptising the dead means they're THE source for geological info.
Most of our lot have been baptised. As some of them were staunch Anglicans, others Catholics and others atheists, they would not be impressed by the idea of being baptised a Mormon.
Tubbs
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think I will have to ask you to say why I have not explained it. I think my position is based on the fact that I would do what I hope others would do were the positions reversed, and I think this position is based on basic, good morals.
You have not explained why it matters to a person who no longer exists and why treating their wishes is a better moral choice than dealing with people who still do.
From my atheist point of view, whatever the living do certainly has no effect whatsoever on, and matters not at all to the deadperson. Of those who believe in anything after death I do not know how many also believe that the dead person will know what is going on in their name. It would be interesting to hear how believers consider this question.
As for it being a better moral choice to comply with the dead person’s expressed wishes, then we are talking about the conscience of the living who must take personal responsibility for their actions, are we not.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think we need to respect their memory.
Any need or desire resides within the living. That memory is ours.
Any relationship we have with people is two-way. Do you respect and love your husband and son by acceeding to their every wish and they no thought of you?
Most funerals and memorials I've attended were shaped, at least in part, by the deceased. By their desire or by what the living knew of them. But this is still for the living. This is still a ritual of grief that that those still alive need.
Why is it more loving to acquiesce to the one who no longer has any wants instead of the mental wellbeing of the many who still do?
And if a person has generated such feeling in others that they wish to mourn them, then not gathering is paying service to their words instead of honouring who they actually were.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I wonder if I may add a somewhat tangential question? If not suitable for this thread, I could ask it separately.
How obliged do you feel to attend a funeral? I mention this because, being in the age group I am, I more regularly hear people say something like, 'I/we have to go to a funeral...' Personally, I do not feel under any obligation to attend and have not attended several because of the complications of getting there and, in my case, being a bit of a problem, needing guiding all the time.
Most of my friends are in my age group and any one of us could be the next one to go. Depending on circumstances, I know that their families will quite understand mydeclining to attend some funerals.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As for it being a better moral choice to comply with the dead person’s expressed wishes, then we are talking about the conscience of the living who must take personal responsibility for their actions, are we not.
You claim to bow to the rational, and yet you take a position that is not.
The only reason to bow to the words of a person who no longer exists is that it might help the grieving process of those who still do.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Most of our lot have been baptised. As some of them were staunch Anglicans, others Catholics and others atheists, they would not be impressed by the idea of being baptised a Mormon.
The problem comes in when it's not Anglicans but Jews being baptised. Christians have been oppressing, killing, torturing, and genociding Jews for 1600 years. Among the oppressions felt strongly by the Jews is the Christian message that they're not good enough for G-d. That they need to accept Christian baptism to be in good standing with their own G-d.
Now add into this mix Mormons, an offshoot of Christianity if not part of it (depending on whom you ask), baptizing dead Jews without permission because otherwise they won't be saved. In a sense it has nothing to do with the dead person being baptised, and everything to do with every dead Jew since Constantine that the Christians have murdered or tortured, and the memory of them carried by all the living Jews.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Dad has specified no wake, no reception and the same eight people only at the graveside.
Ay up North East. If I may be familiar. Let him specify what the hell he likes, agree to ALL of it with a solemn vow and a blood signature.
And THEN do what the HELL you like. The dead don't own themselves.
So, are you of a certain philosopher's family or do you come with your own source code?
[ 08. August 2016, 17:58: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Or he could inform himself, the 8 he wants present and more importantly those he does not want present,
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Or he could inform himself, the 8 he wants present and more importantly those he does not want present,
Perfect! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
So how do you feel about the Mormon practice of posthumously baptizing dead Jews? Do the Jews have the right to insist on that not happening? [QB] [QUOTE]They posthumously baptise anyone so they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven - but it's up the dead person whether or not they accept the Baptism.
I think it's a bit meh...
Most of our lot have been baptised. As some of them were staunch Anglicans, others Catholics and others atheists, they would not be impressed by the idea of being baptised a Mormon.
Not unlike the OP request, my husband has strongly requested our Mormon daughter not posthumously baptize him. I, otoh, despite believing it absolute rubbish, think that if she doesn't baptize me that indicates she has no desire to see me in the hereafter...
[ 08. August 2016, 19:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
sorry... messed up the html and couldn't fix it before window closed.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
To clear up a couple of technical points:
1. Several mentions up-thread of funeral/burial/whatever instructions 'in the will.' That doesn't work, as wills are typically not probated until some time after funeral/burial/whatever. One needs to leave specific, written instructions, BUT NOT IN THE WILL. BTW, at least in the US, after one's death the body is the property of the next of kin. (Ref: 'The American Way of Death.')
2. Mormons are big on acquiring genealogical info, but their data bases cannot be used to prove legal descent, as they require no documentation or proof for the data they enter. (Their interest is entirely related to their singular baptismal doctrine.)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think we need to respect their memory.
Any need or desire resides within the living. That memory is ours.
Any relationship we have with people is two-way. Do you respect and love your husband and son by acceeding to their every wish and they no thought of you?
Most funerals and memorials I've attended were shaped, at least in part, by the deceased. By their desire or by what the living knew of them. But this is still for the living. This is still a ritual of grief that that those still alive need.
Why is it more loving to acquiesce to the one who no longer has any wants instead of the mental wellbeing of the many who still do?
And if a person has generated such feeling in others that they wish to mourn them, then not gathering is paying service to their words instead of honouring who they actually were.
The memory is ours. That includes the memory of their wishes regarding a funeral. Knowing that we went against their strongly held wishes won't generate peace for anyone.
There are other ways of marking, mourning or celebrating a person's life/death without holding a funeral/wake etc.
I would be creative. Plant a tree, build a garden, hold a fundraiser for their favourite charity, take their ashes to a special place. There are endless things that can be done to help the grieving. Knowing we went against their heartfelt wishes wouldn't be one of them imo.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Does anyone know of actual churchgoers who refuse to have a funeral? What has their reasoning been?
Sure, many of my congregants have said something like that. Lots of different reasons: some deplore the expense or the formality, some dislike the somber tone. And I find many laity don't know the difference between a "funeral" and a "memorial" and don't like the idea of their dead body being on display.
In all these cases it has more to do with a very specific idea about what a "funeral" entails so the deceased-to-be is generally open to creative alternatives such as we've discussed here.
Disliking the 'sombre tone' is interesting. In the UK there's a trend for funerals - even in the CofE - to be 'joyful' events. Not everyone appreciates the development, but it appears to be a strong feature of contemporary British life.
I assume that religious people in the UK are less likely to be a part of this trend because they've been acculturated to traditional church rituals and music through churchgoing. Demographic and psychological factors may also mark a distinction between what churchgoers and nonchurchgoers deem to be acceptable for a funeral.
In terms of expense, most British Christians, like British people in general, are likely to be cremated, which is cheaper than being buried.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Or he could inform himself, the 8 he wants present and more importantly those he does not want present,
Perfect!
I think that would create the fuss he is so keen to avoid! In fairness to Dad he has always said that he doesn't want a big funeral, and I've always agreed. Its only recently that he has thought further and decided the details of his funeral. I love my dad and he knows my views on his eight people plan. The snag is that my mother has told me she's not happy, but she hasn't told him that. I think if she told him he was being unfeeling he'd change his mind. It could be that mum has no intention of complying with his wishes and my angst is pointless!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Disliking the 'sombre tone' is interesting. In the UK there's a trend for funerals - even in the CofE - to be 'joyful' events. Not everyone appreciates the development, but it appears to be a strong feature of contemporary British life.
I assume that religious people in the UK are less likely to be a part of this trend because they've been acculturated to traditional church rituals and music through churchgoing. Demographic and psychological factors may also mark a distinction between what churchgoers and nonchurchgoers deem to be acceptable for a funeral.
hmmm... I would expect the exact opposite. In the US anyway, the "celebratory" funeral is often associated with the gospel message of resurrection. Sometimes it goes to far, as if Christians don't suffer and grieve like everyone else, or the fact that you're loved one is "in a better place" should somehow mean you're not sad. But overall, at least here, the trend has come more from religious people than non-religious.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
The thing is that the deceased made plans while alive. If you want to tell them that you're going to ignore their wishes and do what they don't want because that's what you want to do, go ahead. It seems rather selfish but hey, you are the position to judge their desires are based on a legitimate desire to avoid these people or some unworthy purpose. Me, I'd just do what they wanted.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Another thing is, though, that lots of people say "Oh, I don't want a funeral" and when you probe, you find out they are a) just being modest and/or b) testing to find out whether you will object and thus prove you really care, or c) thinking purely of the financial aspects of it and not the emotional costs or benefits to survivors. I'm thinking here of my mother, who says airily, "Oh, just cremate me as cheaply as you can and pour my ashes over a rose bush." Um, yeah, Mom. That's not what you did for your parents, and you were the one with the decision-making power in those cases. Nor does it make any sense--what freaking rose bush did you have in mind? Because the only one at home is in a pot, and I can tell you right now I don't intend to have your ashes sitting right there under the kitchen window. Plus ashes have a certain bulk, color, and composition to them, and don't just magically vanish into the environment overnight when placed in a single spot that a squirrel may dig up later (don't ask me how I know this). And I'm fairly sure the cemeteries around here that accept ashes won't accept them poured over a random rose bush (none of which they will have, anyway--everybody round there does nothing but greenery).
As a result, every time she says something like this, I take it to mean "Oh, don't bother about little ole me." Which is bullshit. If she were actually serious about these wishes, she'd answer my freaking questions on the subject with concrete answers instead of dancing around with "you know, there's no need for that," and "whatever rose bush, anything will do" and "you know you don't have to go to any trouble." It makes me want to yank my hair out.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Or he could inform himself, the 8 he wants present and more importantly those he does not want present,
Perfect!
I think that would create the fuss he is so keen to avoid!
He'd only be avoiding it by dying and not being around to face it!
Tell him that. Ask him to write down his wishes in detail, with reasons and to invite replies. Then email it to everyone concerned. That way he'll be able to sort out his own small funeral, without you having to endlessly explain.
Then, if there happen to be 10 rather than 8 present at the actual occasion, will anyone really mind?
Personally I think death is rather like birth, in that what we think will bother or upset us doesn't, but other unexpected things do.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Or better still - show him this thread ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
As someone who officiates at a lot of funerals I tend to go along with what the family wants; even if my heart sinks at some of the requests. My concern is to provide support to the living. Only rarely do I draw the line and refuse to co-operate. Such as the time recently when I buried a suicide and the family wanted to play a recording of " I did it my way".
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
I have been thinking about this a lot, and I have come to the conclusion that in my mind there are definitely two different aspects to the events immediately after death, and I feel differently about them.
The first is the religious aspect.. funeral rites of whatever faith the departed practiced, if any. I think that should definitely be up to the departed if they have any preference, and if that preference can be accommodated. Most religious ceremonies have some element of helping the deceased on his/her way to the next life, whatever that may be, and who is anyone else to say that these beliefs do not reflect the truth? if the deceased believed them, or conversely, did NOT believe them, and wanted (or didn't) that they take place, then as much as possible, that should be honored. Even if the family is very devout, and believe that without those rites the deceased is doomed to hell (or whatever), the time to discuss that is before death. their beliefs don't, I think, trump the beliefs and desires of the departed when it comes to religious practice.
But most traditions have a non-religious element to them, and of course those who do not practice a religion still may want to honor a departed loved one. These non-religious commemorations/wakes/whatever you call them, whether private or public, whether joyful or mournful, are more about the bereaved than the departed, and I dont' think the departed should have much say over how others choose to remember them. I mean, sure they can express a preference, but in the end that's all it is. One of course hopes that family and departed have similar views on how to do things, or family WANTS to do whatever the departed wanted, as a way to remember them, and that's great. but even then, what family does can't control what others do. family may not host a wake, but friends may still choose to gather at a favorite drinking hole and raise a glass in honor of the departed. the way people honor the departed is individual as well as communal, and no one can dictate how individuals will remember them after they are gone.
I do realize that in many other tradition these two events (religious ceremony/wake) can be combined, and that elements of the religious ceremony can be "customized" (favorite hymn etc.), and I honestly don't know how I feel about that, since it's so far out of my own experience (For us, the service is the service (or rather services.. there are several that usually occur), and no real room for customization. seems like it wouldn't be hard to customize a service to meet the desires of the departed, but not sure where the line is. For me the two are separate, and serve very different functions, and thus whose desires should prevail are also different.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
They posthumously baptise anyone so they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven - but it's up the dead person whether or not they accept the Baptism.
I think it's a bit meh. My sister has been doing our family history. Anyone who does this will eventually end up at the Mormon record office in East Grinstead. Their belief in baptising the dead means they're THE source for geological info.
Most of our lot have been baptised. As some of them were staunch Anglicans, others Catholics and others atheists, they would not be impressed by the idea of being baptised a Mormon.
I have to say the genealogical records, which are online, have been a great help in tracing my family back as far as 1660 but they'd have hated the thought of being baptised as Mormons.
I wouldn't have thought posthumous baptism would count if there's no body and no grave. It would be like attempting to do it online.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
They posthumously baptise anyone so they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven - but it's up the dead person whether or not they accept the Baptism.
I think it's a bit meh. My sister has been doing our family history. Anyone who does this will eventually end up at the Mormon record office in East Grinstead. Their belief in baptising the dead means they're THE source for geological info.
Most of our lot have been baptised. As some of them were staunch Anglicans, others Catholics and others atheists, they would not be impressed by the idea of being baptised a Mormon.
I have to say the genealogical records, which are online, have been a great help in tracing my family back as far as 1660 but they'd have hated the thought of being baptised as Mormons.
I wouldn't have thought posthumous baptism would count if there's no body and no grave. It would be like attempting to do it online.
Even when there is a body/grave, the baptisms are done vicariously-- the Mormon friend/relative is the one getting dunked. So the presence or absence of the body is irrelevant.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I. funeral rites of whatever faith the departed practiced, if any. I think that should definitely be up to the departed if they have any preference, and if that preference can be accommodated. Most religious ceremonies have some element of helping the deceased on his/her way to the next life, whatever that may be, and who is anyone else to say that these beliefs do not reflect the truth? if the deceased believed them, or conversely, did NOT believe them, and wanted (or didn't) that they take place, then as much as possible, that should be honored. Even if the family is very devout, and believe that without those rites the deceased is doomed to hell (or whatever), the time to discuss that is before death. their beliefs don't, I think, trump the beliefs and desires of the departed when it comes to religious practice.
I guess (based on conversations upthread) it's not the majority of Christians, but for at least a significant group of Christian traditions (e.g. Reformed) have absolutely no element of "helping the deceased on his/her way to the next life"-- in fact it's specifically prohibited (wherever they're going, they're already there). The point of the funeral/memorial is, as noted above, for the living-- to provide love, care, and prayers for the grieving relatives.
This gets sticky when the departed is not religious and the grieving ones are. But I still think it's appropriate for the Christian community to come around our bereaved congregants in love and prayers, in a way that feels appropriate to the bereaved person, even if the departed thinks it's pure hokum. I do agree that funerals should never attribute faith to someone who had none, nor is this the place to speculate on the eternal destiny of a departed non-believer. But it IS a time to come around the bereaved in love and support-- and when the bereaved is a Christian, that's going to include things like Scripture and prayer. And casseroles. Lots and lots of casseroles.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
The alleged "Horror of Fuss" about funerals reminds me of CS Lewis' take on "Horror of Calories" as a form of the sin of Gluttony. Excessive focus on The Thing to be Avoided winds up creating the very thing one is trying to avoid... in this case, fuss.
IIRC the advice about Gluttony was to stop making either the intake or the avoidance such a big deal, and simply do the decent thing. Eat your food gratefully, and not too much of it, and otherwise shut up about it.
Letting your relatives do the decent thing - whatever they believe that to be, in their time and place - seems the right course of action to me. Attempts to control and avoid fuss seems to produce the exact opposite.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
My sister has been doing our family history. Anyone who does this will eventually end up at the Mormon record office in East Grinstead. Their belief in baptising the dead means they're THE source for geological info.
God was able from these stones to raise up children of the Tubbs family?
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
From my atheist point of view, whatever the living do certainly has no effect whatsoever on, and matters not at all to the deadperson. Of those who believe in anything after death I do not know how many also believe that the dead person will know what is going on in their name. It would be interesting to hear how believers consider this question.
I tend to the view that the dead don't know what is going on in their name. The dead are unreachable, beyond us. We cannot know. They cannot know. They are elsewhere. In glory. In eternity. I can't imagine anyone who has passed into the Beyond would be fussing about what or what doesn't happen at their funeral. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I am overwhelmed by the finality of death. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'd make a good atheist. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But, I am not. And I have no plans to convert to atheism any time soon. I like Jesus too much. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How obliged do you feel to attend a funeral? I mention this because, being in the age group I am, I more regularly hear people say something like, 'I/we have to go to a funeral...' Personally, I do not feel under any obligation to attend and have not attended several because of the complications of getting there and, in my case, being a bit of a problem, needing guiding all the time.
Another good question, SusanDoris.
It's not an obligation for me to attend a close friend's funeral, but a privilege. I hope that doesn't happen again for a very long time though.
When it comes to church friends and relatives, it depends. I have felt obliged to attend the funerals of a number of relatives - but not in every case.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
imho, it is again about the living and not the dead. Your presence or absence is not likely to impact the dead much. If attending would bring comfort to you or to the bereaved family, go. If not, don't.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
]In my opinion, if that is what the person has stated that iswhat s/he wants, it would be disrespectful and/dor selfish of the living to do something different.
I'm confused. If there is no soul to continue, and thus no afterlife, how is the deceased person offended by the holding of a funeral they didn't want?
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Fr Weber, how does disrespect suddenly turn into offend?
M.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Well, if there's disrespect, somebody has to be offended by it (presumably, or why would it be an issue?). I suppose some of those surviving might be offended by the dead person's wish not to be memorialized.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Even when there is a body/grave, the baptisms are done vicariously-- the Mormon friend/relative is the one getting dunked. So the presence or absence of the body is irrelevant.
I'm just trying to visualize how this works with regard to the parish registers that the LDS Church put onto their website. I suppose they must do it in batches. Otherwise I could see if the Mormon volunteer is dunked for each person to be baptized in turn, it could make for a very wet day.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
They're done in the Temple not the local wards that are open to visitors so we'll never know. But since access to a LDS Temple can be limited even for faithful Mormons by either the "bishop recommend" or geography I imagine they are lumped together for convenience. My guess is that the Mormon surrogate enters the water but once but then is dunked under once for each vicarious baptism
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Fr Weber, how does disrespect suddenly turn into offend?
M.
How does it matter, when the dead person can feel neither?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'm just trying to visualize how this works with regard to the parish registers that the LDS Church put onto their website. I suppose they must do it in batches. Otherwise I could see if the Mormon volunteer is dunked for each person to be baptized in turn, it could make for a very wet day.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
They're done in the Temple not the local wards that are open to visitors so we'll never know. But since access to a LDS Temple can be limited even for faithful Mormons by either the "bishop recommend" or geography I imagine they are lumped together for convenience. My guess is that the Mormon surrogate enters the water but once but then is dunked under once for each vicarious baptism
It's perhaps worth noting that the baptisms aren't done in the context of a service, either. They're simply part of the ordinance work that goes on in a temple. So, a faithfully Mormon with a Temple Recommend and a free day might decide to spend the day at the temple doing ordinance work. On arrival, they'd go into what amounts to a really white locker room* to change into temple clothes (also all-white) and then present themselves to the person overseeing baptisms by proxy. (A picture of temple rooms here.) If they had specific dead relatives or friends to be baptized for, then they may do those. Otherwise, they'll work from a register maintained by the Church.
* I've actually been in the local temple when it was open to the public, before dedication, and seen the locker room, as well as the ordinance and sealing rooms and the Celestial Room. What I've described in terms of procedure is based on what we were told on the tour.
[ 09. August 2016, 22:35: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Even when there is a body/grave, the baptisms are done vicariously-- the Mormon friend/relative is the one getting dunked. So the presence or absence of the body is irrelevant.
I'm just trying to visualize how this works with regard to the parish registers that the LDS Church put onto their website. I suppose they must do it in batches. Otherwise I could see if the Mormon volunteer is dunked for each person to be baptized in turn, it could make for a very wet day.
An informative link about this.
It looks like you line up, wait your turn to get into the baptismal pool, then get dunked as many times as you have people to be proxy-baptised for, and then go dry off. 10 to 20 proxy-baptisms per person, per day.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, if there's disrespect, somebody has to be offended by it (presumably, or why would it be an issue?).
Are we, or are we not, followers of the "committed adultery with her in your heart" guy?
Quite apart from anyone feeling offense, I'd say one of the biggest issues with disrespecting someone is what enacting that disrespect does to your own character.
(I don't personally have a problem with ignoring some funeral requests, FTR, or consider that necessarily disrespectful.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Are we, or are we not, followers of the "committed adultery with her in your heart" guy?
Jimmy Carter???
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Are we, or are we not, followers of the "committed adultery with her in your heart" guy?
Jimmy Carter???
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Are we, or are we not, followers of the "committed adultery with her in your heart" guy?
Jimmy Carter???
(ETA: Oops. Seem to have tied with Mousethief...)
[ 10. August 2016, 06:09: Message edited by: St Deird ]
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
My opinion of it is that disrespecting someone has nothing to do with whether the person knows or is offended. In fact, possibly it's more important not to disrespect someone who doesn't know, as they cannot defend themselves.
I don't think it's anything to do with being a Christian, either.
We obviously have quite different views on this.
M.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
So, are you of a certain philosopher's family or do you come with your own source code?
I tried to pm rather than have a tangent on the thread, but your PM box is full, Martin. I'm neither philosopher nor computer programme, but a
woman from north-east Scotland. Technically I'm more of an aul wifie but this is the interwebs; I might be young and fair of face for all you know.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Thanks for all replies. I have realised that this isn't actually my problem. Dad knows I won't be making any of the awkward "you're not invited" phone calls. If Mum isn't happy, it's up to her to sort it out. I will go along with Dad's wishes, without actively facilitating them. At least Dad has said, so I know what to expect. Hopefully, the eight-people-in-a-room-with-the-coffin is still many years in the future.
This has been worrying me, so I'm very grateful to no prophet for starting the thread.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Are we, or are we not, followers of the "committed adultery with her in your heart" guy?
Committing sins in your heart is not about the people you don't actually commit sins against, it is about you.
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
My opinion of it is that disrespecting someone has nothing to do with whether the person knows or is offended. In fact, possibly it's more important not to disrespect someone who doesn't know, as they cannot defend themselves.
Again you miss the point. They have no need to defend themselves because they do not exist. At least not in any way that matters to respect. They are beyond any worldly considerations.
If you have a belief system that says they do, I am not speaking to that. I assumed you are Christian.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Their memory exists and that's what matters imo.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Their memory exists and that's what matters imo.
Are you then, dishonoring their memory if you get a tattoo/ change religions/ choose a spouse or career contrary to their wishes? Why is the funeral the sole repository of our respect/disrespect?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Their memory exists and that's what matters imo.
That memory isn't the dead person's, it is yours.
If the people that loved the person feel the need to gather in memory, then honouring them is exactly what they are doing.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Their memory exists and that's what matters imo.
Are you then, dishonoring their memory if you get a tattoo/ change religions/ choose a spouse or career contrary to their wishes? Why is the funeral the sole repository of our respect/disrespect?
Because a tattoo etc would be be about me, the funeral or lack of it is about them.
If one of my relatives has expressly asked to have no funeral or service I would feel very bad, and sad if I didn't comply with their wishes, if possible. It's about love, I think. We loved them. And want the last thing we do for them to be as close as possible to what they wanted.
Like I said earlier, there are other ways of honouring their memory. Hold a fundraiser for their favourite charity, plant a tree, have a bench erected etc.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Their memory exists and that's what matters imo.
That memory isn't the dead person's, it is yours.
If the people that loved the person feel the need to gather in memory, then honouring them is exactly what they are doing.
And remember that this was exactly what they didn't want?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, if there's disrespect, somebody has to be offended by it (presumably, or why would it be an issue?).
Are we, or are we not, followers of the "committed adultery with her in your heart" guy?
I certainly am. On the other hand, though, SusanDoris is not (as she never tires of reminding us). So my question was meant to clarify her objection on the grounds of disrespect to the dead : specifically, whether it actually had any moral foundation or whether it was just the usual knee-jerk reaction to anything that might have religious content.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Their memory exists and that's what matters imo.
Are you then, dishonoring their memory if you get a tattoo/ change religions/ choose a spouse or career contrary to their wishes? Why is the funeral the sole repository of our respect/disrespect?
Because a tattoo etc would be be about me, the funeral or lack of it is about them.
Arguable. I and others here are arguing that the funeral isn't really about them-- it's about comforting & supporting the bereaved.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If one of my relatives has expressly asked to have no funeral or service I would feel very bad, and sad if I didn't comply with their wishes, if possible. It's about love, I think. We loved them. And want the last thing we do for them to be as close as possible to what they wanted.
But again, why is that different from disobeying their wishes about tattoos/religion/spouse/career? If you love them, would you not want to what they wish?
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Like I said earlier, there are other ways of honouring their memory. Hold a fundraiser for their favourite charity, plant a tree, have a bench erected etc.
If you reread the thread, you'll see that these are all options that have already been suggested (by me, as well as others) as viable alternatives for those who object to traditional and/or religious services. But the question is what to do with those who specify NO remembrance of any kind.
[ 10. August 2016, 16:09: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Their memory exists and that's what matters imo.
That memory isn't the dead person's, it is yours.
If the people that loved the person feel the need to gather in memory, then honouring them is exactly what they are doing.
And remember that this was exactly what they didn't want?
Then what they wanted is insufferably selfish. How dare they tell other people how to assuage their sorrow? Was the deceased this much of a control freak in life?
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
lilBuddha, I don't think I am missing the point. I know you're saying that the person no longer exists and I don't think that makes any difference. It is still disrespectful.
We obviously disagree on this.
M.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then what they wanted is insufferably selfish. How dare they tell other people how to assuage their sorrow? Was the deceased this much of a control freak in life?
I opted for cremation a long time ago with the proviso that my ashes should be scattered, preferably from a hilltop on a windy day. I did this because I absolutely did not want a fixed spot in a cemetery where people could come and be miserable. I wanted them to feel that I was liberated into the atmosphere, dispersed, could be in a lot of different places, was at one with the earth, nature, etc etc.
Things have changed since the death of my last close relation. I'll still be cremated, but the ashes can be sprinkled on my mother's grave instead. The wind and rain will see to it that they don't linger. There will be no close family to mourn me, anyway.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I did this because I absolutely did not want a fixed spot in a cemetery where people could come and be miserable.
I absolutely think you get to say what happens to your remains. But why do you think people who visit a grave in a cemetery (or a niche in a columbarium) would be miserable?
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But why do you think people who visit a grave in a cemetery (or a niche in a columbarium) would be miserable?
I haven't noticed many people rejoicing and looking happy at the sight of a grave, but YMMV. We probably ought to rejoice that someone is dead and free from pain, the travails and ills and sorrows of this world and all that, but for some unfathomable reason, it often doesn't seem to work out like that.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, if there's disrespect, somebody has to be offended by it (presumably, or why would it be an issue?).
Offending someone when they're alive, and disrespecting their wishes after they're dead are two very separate and different things. A dead parent may, in life, have expressed a wish to her surviving child that that child follow a certain course of action. If the child chooses not to do that, s/he's disrespecting those wishes. Perhaps nobody is offended - obviously not the deceased - but clearly non-observence of the expressed wish is dis-respect.
Whether it is to be seen as disrespecting a person (albeit a dead person) or merely their wishes is maybe another question. Though I think it can be argued that the dead - or their memory - can certainly be treated with disrespect, even though they are unlikely to have suffered the least offence from it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
lilBuddha, I don't think I am missing the point. I know you're saying that the person no longer exists and I don't think that makes any difference. It is still disrespectful.
We obviously disagree on this.
M.
WHat I am going to write is not intended to be dismissive or disrespectful, but I am trying to understand the rationale behind your POV.
To me, it does not appear to be rational or logical.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WHat I am going to write is not intended to be dismissive or disrespectful, but I am trying to understand the rationale behind your POV.
To me, it does not appear to be rational or logical.
If, in the privacy of my bathroom, I defecate on the US flag, I am being disrespectful of it. If nobody finds out, it doesn't make it less disrespectful.
Because it's about what I feel and what I'm doing - it's not about how the flag feels.
If I defecate on the US flag, and then publicly display the evidence, my disrespect is likely to cause widespread offence.
Because the offence is all about how my American neighbours feel about their flag.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WHat I am going to write is not intended to be dismissive or disrespectful, but I am trying to understand the rationale behind your POV.
To me, it does not appear to be rational or logical.
If, in the privacy of my bathroom, I defecate on the US flag, I am being disrespectful of it. If nobody finds out, it doesn't make it less disrespectful.
Because it's about what I feel and what I'm doing - it's not about how the flag feels.
If I defecate on the US flag, and then publicly display the evidence, my disrespect is likely to cause widespread offence.
Because the offence is all about how my American neighbours feel about their flag.
You are not disagreeing with me. Are you thinking you are?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are not disagreeing with me. Are you thinking you are?
As far as I can see, nobody is actually disagreeing with anyone. You and M. seem to me to be saying more or less the same things whilst saying that you don't understand the other's POV.
So I was hoping that someone would disagree with what I said, so I could find the place where the two of you differ in substance.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are not disagreeing with me. Are you thinking you are?
As far as I can see, nobody is actually disagreeing with anyone. You and M. seem to me to be saying more or less the same things whilst saying that you don't understand the other's POV.
So I was hoping that someone would disagree with what I said, so I could find the place where the two of you differ in substance.
Rereading it, I actually do disagree with you a little.
When you say this:
quote:
If, in the privacy of my bathroom, I defecate on the US flag, I am being disrespectful of it.
You are never being disrespectful of the flag, but of living people of particular ideology.
That is just reiterating my basic point about dead people, though.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But why do you think people who visit a grave in a cemetery (or a niche in a columbarium) would be miserable?
I haven't noticed many people rejoicing and looking happy at the sight of a grave, but YMMV.
It does, I think. I guess I rarely see rejoicing as such. But similarly I rarely see people who are miserable, except perhaps soon after the time of the death of someone who died too young. Frankly, I love cemeteries—older ones, at least. (The newer ones, with all identical markers, flat to the ground are too sterile for my taste.) For me cemeteries are places of peace, comfort and connection. I'm glad to have a chance to visit my parents' graves, where they're surrounded by grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. I like making sure they're well-tended, or placing seasonal flowers there. It's a sacred place for me, and a tangible reminder of the communion of saints.
But consider the source for me, I guess. I grew up going to a church surrounded by a cemetery. (One block away was another church surrounded by one of the most beautiful churchyard cemeteries around.) My mother's instructions were that family and friends were to gather at the grave to bury her, and then we were to go to the church for a service of thanksgiving and witness to the resurrection. (This is the pattern in our family.) She was also clear that brightly colored clothing was to be encouraged. We sang "Joy to the World" at her memorial service.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But why do you think people who visit a grave in a cemetery (or a niche in a columbarium) would be miserable?
I haven't noticed many people rejoicing and looking happy at the sight of a grave, but YMMV. We probably ought to rejoice that someone is dead and free from pain, the travails and ills and sorrows of this world and all that, but for some unfathomable reason, it often doesn't seem to work out like that.
As Tolkien said, "Not all tears are an evil." Every year my daughter and I visit the graves of our ancestors and the place where we scattered the ashes of her siblings. We don't go there to be jubilant. But there's more to life than being jubilant. It is very shallow to think that the only reason one might do something is that it makes one happy. One can do something not because it feels good, but because it feels right.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
It's not the funeral that's making people sad, it's the loss. And they'll feel just as sad, just as bereaved, if there is no funeral. What they will have, if they do have a funeral (or some sort of gathering) is the comfort of having friends and family come around them, and, if they are believers, the comfort of hearing prayers and words of Scripture.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As Tolkien said, "Not all tears are an evil." Every year my daughter and I visit the graves of our ancestors and the place where we scattered the ashes of her siblings. We don't go there to be jubilant. But there's more to life than being jubilant. It is very shallow to think that the only reason one might do something is that it makes one happy. One can do something not because it feels good, but because it feels right.
Indeed, and for me at least, that feeling of rightness feels good, not in the sense of making me happy but in the sense of shalom. God is found there.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Indeed, and for me at least, that feeling of rightness feels good, not in the sense of making me happy but in the sense of shalom. God is found there.
I can go with that. This is of course in contrast to what was said above,
quote:
a fixed spot in a cemetery where people could come and be miserable.
I might add that if you don't give people a fixed spot to come and mourn, they will MAKE one. Witness the shrines at the side of the road that appear when someone is killed in a road accident. And these aren't created just once and left to rot. People come regularly to replace flowers, teddy bears, etc.
People seem to NEED a fixed place. Not all people, perhaps. But the flowers on graves one sees on Memorial Day show it's not just my daughter and me.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
We sang "Joy to the World" at her memorial service.
Please tell me it was the one about the bullfrog?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
We sang "Joy to the World" at her memorial service.
Please tell me it was the one about the bullfrog?
Ha! No, I'm afraid (though I can remember her humming it).
My mother loved Christmas, and anyone who knew her knew that. When she died and we were meeting with the minister about the service, we got to talking about her love of Christmas. We decided that "Joy to the World," which is based on part of Psalm 98, would work just fine for her February funeral. She would have loved the joy of it, and the third verse in particular ("no more let sins and sorrow grow") seemed appropos.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I might add that if you don't give people a fixed spot to come and mourn, they will MAKE one. Witness the shrines at the side of the road that appear when someone is killed in a road accident. And these aren't created just once and left to rot. People come regularly to replace flowers, teddy bears, etc.
People seem to NEED a fixed place. Not all people, perhaps. But the flowers on graves one sees on Memorial Day show it's not just my daughter and me.
Hence the reason my husband and I each plan to be cremated, and have our ashes scattered somewhere significant to us.
I still remember the day we scattered my grandfather's ashes, several months after his funeral. It was solemn in parts, but also festive and picnicky. It meant our last bit of farewell to him was pleasant, which I've always valued.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People seem to NEED a fixed place. Not all people, perhaps. But the flowers on graves one sees on Memorial Day show it's not just my daughter and me.
The more mobile we get, the harder this gets. I can identify fixed spots where all the relatives I have known are buried / had ashes spread / are commemorated. They're all in different parts of the UK. I could spend a day on a plane, and then a week or so driving from spot to spot, but I'd just feel tired and frazzled.
It would be lovely to go and walk in my grandmother's favourite place to remember her, and perhaps to stop and sit for a while on the bench with her name on, but it's not very practical as the bench is 4000 miles away.
So instead we remember her when we do things she would have enjoyed, or when we use things that she used to own.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It's a huge leap from "it's hard for me to reach my mom's grave" to "my mom shouldn't have a grave at all."
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's a huge leap from "it's hard for me to reach my mom's grave" to "my mom shouldn't have a grave at all."
Is there a functional difference between a grave you can't visit and not a grave? I don't think so.
Usually, of course, somebody can visit it - there are probably relatively local friends and relatives too - but if nobody's going to visit it, what is the grave for?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's a huge leap from "it's hard for me to reach my mom's grave" to "my mom shouldn't have a grave at all."
Is there a functional difference between a grave you can't visit and not a grave? I don't think so.
Usually, of course, somebody can visit it - there are probably relatively local friends and relatives too - but if nobody's going to visit it, what is the grave for?
How do you know nobody is going to visit it? It's not like it's in the Punjab or something. Hell, even if nobody now living can be arsed to go there, your great great great great grandchildren may want to visit. Or future historians may wish to study when all our ridiculous electronic records are gone.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I might also add, why does the difference have to be functional? Could not graves have meaning beyond the merely utilitarian?
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Nope, lilBuddha, I can't see we're saying the same thing. I don't get (I believe I understand what you're saying intellectually) why you say you can't be disrespectful of someone who no longer exists.
It makes no sense to me. Of course you can.
Is it the cessation of existence that makes the difference or the not knowing? Would It be OK to go behind someone's back, say, if they never knew about it?
M.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
For those who are saying that it doesn't matter what the dead wanted, do you also feel that it's fine, as far as legally possible, to ignore their wishes for the disposal of their estate and possessions? They're dead now so we can ignore their will...
All of those who discount the wishes stated by the now dead are ignoring the fact that the wishes were made when the person was alive, and they may have taken comfort in knowing that what they wanted was going to happen. I've known a number of people who hated the religion they were raised in because of its homophobia and did not want to be a figurine in some diorama made by family they disliked which would exclude the partner and friends they cared about.
[ 11. August 2016, 07:11: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Usually, of course, somebody can visit it - there are probably relatively local friends and relatives too - but if nobody's going to visit it, what is the grave for?
A dead person has to be put somewhere, which is what the grave is for.
I won't be visiting my mother's grave much (it's in a different country, for a start). But it was very important to her that she should be buried in the same cemetery with her parents and grandparents. It was a provision of her will. We'd talked about it when she was alive and I'd promised her that I'd see that her wishes were fulfilled. If I make a promise I keep it, as far as possible.
Of course, if it hadn't been in her will I suppose I could have arranged for her to be cremated and interred locally but the emotional cost would have been something else. I couldn't have done that and felt comfortable about it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Complying with someone's wishes is different - imo - if the wishes are for themselves (or, when dead, their funeral).
If my Mum asked to be taken to visit a place she wanted to see I would comply with her wishes as much as I possibly could, out of love and respect for her.
If she asked me to visit that place because she thought I ought, but I wasn't interested I'd either say 'no thanks' or 'maybe one day'.
The same with funerals, people are not being controlling when they give their wishes for the own funerals, or non-funerals.
We comply with their wishes out of love and respect - and because we know that we'd feel bad if we didn't. Of course, if their request is financially or otherwise impossible then that's a different story.
If it's discussed while they are still alive then negotiation is always possible as in the example above of the Dad who stipulated eight people only - he can be asked to do all the informing and discussion about it, to make things less awkward for everyone else.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Nope, lilBuddha, I can't see we're saying the same thing.
I do not believe I said we were.
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I don't get (I believe I understand what you're saying intellectually) why you say you can't be disrespectful of someone who no longer exists.
Same way one disrespect Father Christmas.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The same with funerals, people are not being controlling when they give their wishes for the own funerals, or non-funerals.
Please explain how it is not controlling to say "Do this and not that." You are precisely seeking to control someone else's actions.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Making a request or a wish could be 'controlling' if it were combined with some kind of force or emotional blackmail.
But requests and wishes for what happens after we die are so common they couldn't, surely be dubbed 'controlling' except in exceptional circumstances.
There is absolutely no legal requirement to hold a funeral ceremony. You are completely free to recognise a death with the minimum of fuss, or to hold whatever form of farewell the person asked for. Whether you do so depends, I suppose, on your relationship with them and how much you care about their wishes - and if you don't agree with them - their wishes over your own.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Same way one disrespect Father Christmas.
He doesn't no longer exist. He never existed in the first place. Which is a bit different from someone who was a living human being to someone who has ceased to live.
You really don't believe in life after death do you? That's the only way I can interpret your posts on this subject.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Same way one disrespect Father Christmas.
He doesn't no longer exist. He never existed in the first place. Which is a bit different from someone who was a living human being to someone who has ceased to live.
You really don't believe in life after death do you? That's the only way I can interpret your posts on this subject.
I am arguing from to POV.
One is that a person ceases to exist and the other, which IMO includes Christianity, that whatever constitutes the afterlife has no more connection to the still living. And, even did it, the dead are not in a state where the living's opinion would matter.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Making a request or a wish could be 'controlling' if it were combined with some kind of force or emotional blackmail.
But requests and wishes for what happens after we die are so common they couldn't, surely be dubbed 'controlling' except in exceptional circumstances.
And yet the opinion most commonly expressed on this thread is that their wishes SHOULD control us. We're being icky awful naughty survivors if we don't kowtow to their wishes after they've shuffled.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either we can do whatever we want and their wishes are so much wind, or they're being controlling, via guilt manipulation if nothing else. There's really no middle ground. If their wishes have any bite on us at all, if we are under any obligation (moral, if not legal) to follow their wishes, then by giving us such wishes they are being controlling.
[ 11. August 2016, 23:11: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
lilBuddha, I'm not sure it's worth carrying this on as I think we are talking past each other.
However, here goes. To me, it doesn't matter whether someone knows or not, you are still disrespecting them (using 'disrespect' as a verb is really horrible, isn't it?) Therefore, to me it doesn't matter whether the dead survive in some manner or not. One can still be disrespectful of them.
I don't, however, equate 'no longer exists' with 'never has existed'. I do believe my parents existed, whether or not they do now. Sadly, I concluded when I was quite young that I don't believe Father Christmas has ever existed*.
I did ask whether you believe that being disrepectful of, say, a friend behind their back is acceptable if they don't find out?
M.
*Yeah, yeah, St Nicholas.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Making a request or a wish could be 'controlling' if it were combined with some kind of force or emotional blackmail.
But requests and wishes for what happens after we die are so common they couldn't, surely be dubbed 'controlling' except in exceptional circumstances.
And yet the opinion most commonly expressed on this thread is that their wishes SHOULD control us. We're being icky awful naughty survivors if we don't kowtow to their wishes after they've shuffled.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either we can do whatever we want and their wishes are so much wind, or they're being controlling, via guilt manipulation if nothing else. There's really no middle ground. If their wishes have any bite on us at all, if we are under any obligation (moral, if not legal) to follow their wishes, then by giving us such wishes they are being controlling.
I don't agree, things are rarely 'all or none' and, like I said, some discussion and negotiation is often possible before they die.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I think there is plenty of middle ground on the issue as people are often vague about what their nearest and dearest do after their death.
Sometimes people stipulate burial over cremation, (or the other way round), I personally think it would be disrespectful to deliberately go opposite to such a wish.
Re. OP, if someone forbids any formal acknowledgment or ceremony following their death then presumably that would include a few friends or relatives getting together for a drink, or cup of tea, and talking about the departed? Or is that simply getting ridiculous.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Making a request or a wish could be 'controlling' if it were combined with some kind of force or emotional blackmail.
But requests and wishes for what happens after we die are so common they couldn't, surely be dubbed 'controlling' except in exceptional circumstances.
And yet the opinion most commonly expressed on this thread is that their wishes SHOULD control us. We're being icky awful naughty survivors if we don't kowtow to their wishes after they've shuffled.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either we can do whatever we want and their wishes are so much wind, or they're being controlling, via guilt manipulation if nothing else. There's really no middle ground. If their wishes have any bite on us at all, if we are under any obligation (moral, if not legal) to follow their wishes, then by giving us such wishes they are being controlling.
This is too simplistic I think. Are we never to express our hopes, then, for what happens after our death - outside of the Will situation of course - because that is 'controlling' and manipulative? Or are some post-mortem requests more justifiable than others; how are they to be graded, and who gets to say which survivors are 'icky and naughty' for ignoring them, and which are being perfectly reasonable?
Am I right to observe my dead mother's request to reconcile with an estranged sibling and wrong to observe her other request that she have no flowers at her funeral, or even no funeral at all? If I allow the one and not the other, who's being controlling? If I refuse to let her 'guilt' me into abandoning the convention of a service, based on the principle of not being controlled and manipulated by her, then I should also, by principle, refuse to let her 'guilt' me into offering forgiveness and reparation in a relationship that requires healing.
It's really not as black and white as you make it sound.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
"Please bury me in my favorite bicycle shorts" is quite a different thing from "do not under any circumstances get together with other people to mourn me." Asking somebody to do something versus forbidding them to do something -- can no one else on this thread see the difference in how controlling the latter is?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I did ask whether you believe that being disrepectful of, say, a friend behind their back is acceptable if they don't find out?
Kinda depends.
The how is important. If I think something but never say it or allow it to influence my interactions, then no. If I say it to others, then yes. Because it then affects their interactions with others.
But it is still not that simple. Our interactions with others, especially our friends, are dynamic and should be multi-directional.
I do not know about your friends, but mine are not perfect. I do not respect everything all of them do.* Nor do I accede to all their wishes and desires. Especially not when that will have a negative effect on others. The best-good for all involved should be the intention.
That will sometimes be messy and imperfect.
*Part of this will also be my own imperfection, of course.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
can no one else on this thread see the difference in how controlling the latter is?
I agree that dictating what the living, grieving loved one should do is controlling. And shows massive disrespect and unconcern for those still living and feeling. It is a far worse sin than ignoring the wishes of a dead person could ever be.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I can see how some people might think it unreasonable. But I think 'controlling' is much too strong a word. I see where you're coming from, Mousethief, and can even imagine a manipulative person setting up conditions for their demise which they know will inflict difficulty, even pain, for their loved ones. Maybe even in an attempt to somehow remain in control, even though dead! I guess we all know people like that.
But I think intent to be controlling, and to what extent the loved ones submit to being controlled are what matters, in this case.
If my next of kin made this request, I'd regret it terribly. But I wouldn't think of them as controlling, even if mistaken or selfish. But then I'd probably find a way to justify to my conscience, my response to their request, whatever that is. So control just doesn't come into it. It would be my decision and I would take responsibility for it.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
OK, last shot, because I'm losing the will to live about this.
Macarius and I have invited friends to dinner tonight. One of them is vegetarian. My part of the cooking has been to make a gooseberry fool. I wanted to crush up amaretti biscuits into it but when he did the shopping, Macarius couldn't find any that said they were suitable for vegetarians. The ingredients don't say what shortening was used. My friend would never know if I used them (I suppose she might ask, but I doubt it). But although she wouldn't know, I think it would be disrespectful, unfair and downright unpleasant if I did.
I can be all those things and more as of course I am not perfect, neither is she. But whether she is or isn't wouldn't make it any less disrespectful on my part.
It's the breach of trust.
M.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I don't think that is a good parallel, but I do not feel like going further down that path at the moment.
Back to the OP.
You appear to be saying that it is morally better to ignore the wishes of the living, to cause them grief now and potential lasting distress for the sake of someone who can no longer be affected.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
OK, last shot, because I'm losing the will to live about this.
Macarius and I have invited friends to dinner tonight. One of them is vegetarian. My part of the cooking has been to make a gooseberry fool. I wanted to crush up amaretti biscuits into it but when he did the shopping, Macarius couldn't find any that said they were suitable for vegetarians. The ingredients don't say what shortening was used. My friend would never know if I used them (I suppose she might ask, but I doubt it). But although she wouldn't know, I think it would be disrespectful, unfair and downright unpleasant if I did.
I can be all those things and more as of course I am not perfect, neither is she. But whether she is or isn't wouldn't make it any less disrespectful on my part.
It's the breach of trust.
M.
That's a good example of a dilemma, gets me thinking.
I think I'd probably solve it by asking the person about the biscuits and if they are okay to use*. In the situation of someone who is dead it's harder to discern the response, though if you know the person well, you can generally know pretty much what the response would be, even if their death means a direct response isn't possible to a question.
(Notwithstanding I find rigid vegetarianism trying and that I think it subordinates politeness: that one shouldn't ask after ingredients or be otherwise fussy about what someone graciously cooks when invited to their home, except if there is a real health concern. But then, I'm currently posting about in Hell how I fail to assert myself across situations, and thus probably have unrealistic expectations of others. I have eaten many a perogi and zimne nogi I'd rather avoid [tasteless Ukrainian dumplings and pigs feet in jelly].)
*Here, it'd be listed as "lard" and "vegetable oil/based shortening" or "[partially] hydrogenated vegetable oil". Lard is hard to find as an ingredient except in store-boughten pie crusts.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You appear to be saying that it is morally better to ignore the wishes of the living, to cause them grief now and potential lasting distress for the sake of someone who can no longer be affected.
Did you make a promise to the deceased? If so, you are bound by your promise. Assuming you didn't:
As far as considering the wishes of the living goes, are you sure you're counting right?
There was a case a year or so ago that I remember of a teenage trans woman who, IIRC, committed suicide after prolonged bullying. Her family (who were conservative Christians) buried her under her male birth name, dressed her as a man for the funeral, showed older photos of her as a boy, and generally suppressed the trans woman that she thought she was in favour of they young man they wished she was.
The relatives were undoubtedly much comforted by this act - to have buried her as a woman would have caused them significant distress.
The young woman's friends, on the other hand, were completely horrified by this, and saw it as a betrayal of everything that the young woman had gone through.
As far as I see it, respecting the dead young woman means you should bury her as the person she was, regardless of how much pain this causes you. Only being concerned with the living means you should consider the feelings of the family and friends, perhaps in some kind of weighted sum, and choose to bury her as a man or woman depending on which will cause least pain.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
LC,
That is a case where someone is going to be distressed whatever the circumstance. And, the family probably did not fully respect her in life.
Her friends and the trans community will feel the pain of this, she will not.
The family is showing lack of respect for what she was, and for those who are in a similar position.
Again, living people's problems.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The family is showing lack of respect for what she was, and for those who are in a similar position.
Again, living people's problems.
So the correct action should be determined by measuring the total pain of each choice? The trans woman with lots of friends and few family gets buried as a woman, and the trans woman with few friends and lots of conservative family gets buried as a man?
I don't think that's the right thing to do, but it seems to me to be the logical consequence of your position.
Posted by Baker (# 18458) on
:
The thing I've done to help things along when I get nailed to the perch, is to have my funeral planned out already, with specific instructions about the music, and which prayers to use. It will be straight out of the ECUSA Book of Common Prayer. The only two things slightly out of the ordinary is the the pre-service musis is not to be soft and solemn, the organist is specifically instructed to play like they are practising for a concert, loud and celebratory. Also, no viewing for me. Throw me in the box and nail it shut.
I have the plans on file at the church, and when I handed them to the cathedral dean he sighed and said "I wish more people did this" Since I'm the only Episcopalian in my family I figure I'm doing any survivors a favor.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The family is showing lack of respect for what she was, and for those who are in a similar position.
Again, living people's problems.
So the correct action should be determined by measuring the total pain of each choice? The trans woman with lots of friends and few family gets buried as a woman, and the trans woman with few friends and lots of conservative family gets buried as a man?
I don't think that's the right thing to do, but it seems to me to be the logical consequence of your position.
The right thing to do is to bury her as a woman.
I am simply saying that doing otherwise will not hurt her, because she is past that.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You appear to be saying that it is morally better to ignore the wishes of the living, to cause them grief now and potential lasting distress for the sake of someone who can no longer be affected.
Did you make a promise to the deceased? If so, you are bound by your promise. Assuming you didn't:
As far as considering the wishes of the living goes, are you sure you're counting right?
There was a case a year or so ago that I remember of a teenage trans woman who, IIRC, committed suicide after prolonged bullying. Her family (who were conservative Christians) buried her under her male birth name, dressed her as a man for the funeral, showed older photos of her as a boy, and generally suppressed the trans woman that she thought she was in favour of they young man they wished she was.
The relatives were undoubtedly much comforted by this act - to have buried her as a woman would have caused them significant distress.
The young woman's friends, on the other hand, were completely horrified by this, and saw it as a betrayal of everything that the young woman had gone through.
As far as I see it, respecting the dead young woman means you should bury her as the person she was, regardless of how much pain this causes you. Only being concerned with the living means you should consider the feelings of the family and friends, perhaps in some kind of weighted sum, and choose to bury her as a man or woman depending on which will cause least pain.
As others have noted, there is a disconnect here between what would cause pain to her family, and what would cause pain to her closest friends-- friends that may even have become surrogate family in the face of (I assume from the context) the lack of acceptance from her family.
But even w/o that, this is a "hard case". And, as they say, "hard cases make bad law." The right thing to do in this case is to bury her as she would would wish to be remembered-- i.e. to honor her wishes. But that may not be the right thing to do in every situation.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
You keep assuming there's no pain for the deceased. But prior to dying they may feel pain on what their family will do with them.
The whole thread makes me wonder if there's a deathly equivalent to the marriage tradition of eloping. (By the time you read this I will have been planted in a location that will not be disclosed to you....)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
There is no deceased prior to death.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am arguing from to POV.
One is that a person ceases to exist and the other, which IMO includes Christianity, that whatever constitutes the afterlife has no more connection to the still living. And, even did it, the dead are not in a state where the living's opinion would matter.
I came back to this to re-read it, but I still remain quite unimpressed to discover that you are apparently holding two points of view for the sake of it, instead of, as I had at first assumed, a sincerely held belief of your own. I will not engage with you any further on this thread.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
So, you are saying that - either way - the dead don't matter at all?
I agree, in the sense that what the living do will have no effect on the dead whether they go to dust or something else.
But I am arguing that the memories of the living do matter. Those closest to the deceased will be the ones carrying out their wishes (or not) and how they feel matters.
If the deceased was rather selfish in their choices then disregarding those choices won't help the people who are left to find peace imo, far from it. Knowing we have carried out their final wishes will help.
My parents left no instructions at all, so we had to guess what they would have liked.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I agree, in the sense that what the living do will have no effect on the dead whether they go to dust or something else.
But I am arguing that the memories of the living do matter. Those closest to the deceased will be the ones carrying out their wishes (or not) and how they feel matters.
If the deceased was rather selfish in their choices then disregarding those choices won't help the people who are left to find peace imo, far from it. Knowing we have carried out their final wishes will help
I think that's too black-and-white. If, for example, the deceased uses their near-sacred-status "last wish" to manipulate you into indulging their grudge/revenge fantasy-- say, not inviting your sibling-- participating in their feud will only cause you more pain. Breaking with it might bring you the peace you need, and the comfort of reconciliation in a fragmented family.
As with most things, it depends. We've heard good examples here of when honoring last wishes is good, and helpful, and needed. But it's not true in every situation. Just as in life-- sometimes it's a good idea to listen to your parents/honor their wishes-- sometimes it's not. "Last wishes" are no more sacred or perfectly healing than any other wishes.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am arguing from to POV.
One is that a person ceases to exist and the other, which IMO includes Christianity, that whatever constitutes the afterlife has no more connection to the still living. And, even did it, the dead are not in a state where the living's opinion would matter.
I came back to this to re-read it, but I still remain quite unimpressed to discover that you are apparently holding two points of view for the sake of it, instead of, as I had at first assumed, a sincerely held belief of your own. I will not engage with you any further on this thread.
It is, of course, your right to engage or not. But I am confused. Why does it matter if I am arguing my belief? Most people on this board are Christian or Christianish. We have a few Buddhists as well.* So I am arguing within those POV because that is what is relevant and polite. If we were to merely state belief, this would hardly be a discussion board.
*And atheists, but since that is not a codified belief system, it is difficult to have a blanket discussion. I did engage Susan Doris but that is from reading previous posts, I have a sense of her POV.
As far as the pagan(s), I do not know enough about her/their particular system(s) of belief.
[ 13. August 2016, 13:51: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If the deceased was rather selfish in their choices then disregarding those choices won't help the people who are left to find peace imo, far from it.
How does this statement even make sense? I do not mean that in a rude way, it is truly baffling.
quote:
Knowing we have carried out their final wishes will help.
This is what will help you, not everyone. With no censure or offence intended, you are merely stating what will make yourself most at ease.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I'm trying to say that nobody's perfect and may make funeral/non funeral choices which feel selfish to those left behind.
I'm saying that complying, if possible, with their last wishes will - hopefully - bring more peace to those left behind than not doing so. I've no idea how I would feel if it happened to me. I'm simply trying to imagine what would be best in an incredibly sad situation where the deceased and their next of kin are so at odds as to what they want too happen.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm trying to say that nobody's perfect and may make funeral/non funeral choices which feel selfish to those left behind.
I'm saying that complying, if possible, with their last wishes will - hopefully - bring more peace to those left behind than not doing so. I've no idea how I would feel if it happened to me. I'm simply trying to imagine what would be best in an incredibly sad situation where the deceased and their next of kin are so at odds as to what they want too happen.
But again, you are generalizing from your experience to every person in every circumstance. Just because complying with "last wishes" in one situation brings peace does not at all mean it would bring peace in every situation. It's a complex though experiment, with too many variables to make a sweeping one-size-fits all decree.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
That's why I said "if possible". There are plenty of circumstances where it would not be possible.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
That's why I said "if possible". There are plenty of circumstances where it would not be possible.
"If possible" denotes to me "if you have the ability." But there are plenty of circumstances where you have the ability to comply with last wishes, but it would not bring peace. One can disinvite a sibling or ask the sibling to hide his/her sexuality, for example, at the request of a homophobic parent. It is within your ability to do that-- it's "possible"-- but I very much doubt that would bring peace.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It is dreadfully easy to wind up at odds with the to-be-deceased over funeral wishes. All that needs to happen is for the not-yet-dead to specify that close family member X be barred from the service.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
I'm still of the opinion that when it comes to religious observance (or lack thereof) the beliefs of the departed should trump the beliefs of the bereaved (and the opposite for non-religious commemorations, whether instead of, or alongside the religious).
I saw several posts stating that the departed is unaware of what is happening (either because they are "asleep in the lord", or happily in heaven not caring what goes on on earth, or simply because there is no such thing as life after death). And that's fine.. but I think what the DEPARTED thought about that should matter. let's say I belie there is no life after death, but my mom believes there is, and further, that the departed can and do know what is done at a funeral. should my belief trump hers? what if I'm wrong?
It works the other way, too, I think. the point is that the departed had some belief about the afterlife, and what ceremony is appropriate, and regardless of whether or not I think it's as real as the ground beneath my feet, or as imaginary as santa, my beliefs are not the ones that matter here. it's not even about respect. it's about whose version of the unknown/unknowable matters, and since it's the departed soul which is in question, doesn't it make sense that their beliefs about it are the ones that matter? if they think that unless they are buried with a sword the Valkyries won't come take them to Valhalla, I think it's up to me to make sure a sword goes into their grave with them, even if I think it's all a crock. If they think dead is dead, and I think if we don't have a proper service they will burn in hell, again, my beliefs aren't the ones that matter.
non-religious commemoration is a different matter, and while I should think those who love the deceased would want to comply with their wishes as much as is reasonable, in the end, how they remember someone is not up to that person to decide. Remembrance is what *I* do (if i"m the survivor), not what the deceased does.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I'm still of the opinion that when it comes to religious observance (or lack thereof) the beliefs of the departed should trump the beliefs of the bereaved (and the opposite for non-religious commemorations, whether instead of, or alongside the religious).
For the most part I agree. I would certainly agree that anything that smacks of suggesting that the departed had religious belief when none was in evidence is wrong, wrong, wrong. As is speculating about the eternal location of the departed, or using their death as an opportunity for hell-scare evangelism. Just. Don't. Go. There.
I do think, though, that when the person(s) closest to the departed (the "inner circle" of grieving) is a person of faith, it's acceptable, appropriate even, for those person(s) to seek comfort in their community. Which may mean some sort of service where there are Scripture and prayers not for the departed but for the comfort and peace of the bereaved.
(Conversely, I have been to many funerals of relatives who were men and women of faith, but whose non-believing adult children chose to give them very secular funerals with no mention of the faith that was such an important element of the deceased lives. I found that sad, but it was their choice to make).
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
[quot]I do think, though, that when the person(s) closest to the departed (the "inner circle" of grieving) is a person of faith, it's acceptable, appropriate even, for those person(s) to seek comfort in their community. Which may mean some sort of service where there are Scripture and prayers not for the departed but for the comfort and peace of the bereaved.[/quote]
Well, OK, fair enough I guess, if it has no implications for the departed. I would definitely distinguish that from a true funeral. As you say, if it's explicitly for and about the bereaved and not the departed. They can seek comfort of that sort on their own, and in that case I would group it with the non-religious "wake" or other such commemoration.
quote:
(Conversely, I have been to many funerals of relatives who were men and women of faith, but whose non-believing adult children chose to give them very secular funerals with no mention of the faith that was such an important element of the deceased lives. I found that sad, but it was their choice to make).
I also find that very sad, and while technically is is their choice to make, I think morally it's wrong to do so. I would be very upset (and yes, I believe there would be a "me" to be upset) if my family chose not to have an Orthodox funeral for me. They can do whatever the heck they want at a wake, and they can even have other services in other religions if they want (I don't mind, to me they are meaningless), as long as all the proper rites of my own faith are observed, as much as reasonable. I would feel more than upset, I'd feel like I was deprived of something. It's not my belief that I won't "get into heaven" if the right rituals aren't said, but I do think that it would have an impact on me, at least in the short term. I can't say what that impact is, just that somehow there would be one.
My preference is for a "green" funeral. MY daughter knows this. I have also made sure that she knows that she should not go to any great lengths to make sure it happens. if getting a cardboard casket is difficult, no problem, get the cheapest one that is available. if a "green" cemetery is not available locally, fine, just use whatever the parish generally uses. She knows what I would prefer, and also that the preference is not so strong that I want her (Or whoever ends up dealing with things.. I say her because if it happened tomorrow, she'd likely be the one) to go to great lengths to make it happen. I just don't care THAT much.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
yes, my sentiments are very similar to yours. I've had similar conversations with my daughter, who, as I noted upthread, may very well chose to undergo a vicarious LDS baptism on my "behalf". So be it. But I have other preferences that I hope she will honor-- including a recognition of my faith. But what will be will be, and most of all, I hope she will find comfort (assuming she needs comfort and isn't dancing on my grave! )
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0