Please allow me to share some personal experiences as a former Bishop who performed over 25 funerals during my term of service.

First concerning Elder Packer. As usual BKP points out the “proper” order of things. He does this and does it consistently because there is an “order”, it does need to be maintained particularly with the church growing in a rapid global manner. I love all of the “why don’t the brethren follow their own counsel” whines. Just follow. I know it is hard for us average members but try to be above average.

If you do not want to follow a Bishops counsel for your funeral or wedding have it outside of an LDS building. Problem solved. I only had one individual go over my head to the Stake President because her fathers dying request was to have a movie soundtrack theme played at his funeral. He ok’d it and it was the tackiest thing I have ever heard at a funeral.

I never vetoed a family member from speaking except one who was coming back for funeral number two to give another talk. His first talk was so offensive that my counselor had to follow people out of the building to apologize for his remarks. When I heard he was going to speak again I called him and let him know that this was not the gospel of damnation and that if he chose to go down that road again I would shut off the mic and he would be asked to sit down. He gave quite a nice talk.

The funerals that I presided over we rarely touched on the Atonement but focused on the beauty of the Plan of Salvation. I must say I have never seen anyone offended by the message that god loves us all and rewards us all. It is a message of comfort and hope and is to important for any Bishop to leave out of a service in which he presides over.
To me the biggest no no at a funeral is open mic time. This can shave years off a Bishops life.

I think funerals are a time for reflection, laughter, tears and celebration. Because of the experiences I have had dealing with funerals and those that I shared those experiences with I have absolutely no fear of death. I have complete confidence in the Saviors plan.

Trying to follow this advice can lead to unpleasant results. My father’s funeral included talks by his sister (who described his early life), a son (who described life with the family), and a not-active-in-the-church colleague (who described his professional life and contributions). The result was a nicely balanced portrait that the family felt did justice to his memory. Then, because he wanted to fall in line with the Packer rules, an inexperienced bishop who had apparently never met my father got up and gave a generic plan of salvation talk. It was so completely out of place, and was certainly bewildering to those non-members who came to pay respects to their friend. Its only grace was that it was a short sermon. But it was a very awkward ending to an otherwise moving service.

I have already written out an outline for what I’d prefer my funeral to be like, with instructions that if the bishop won’t let the family plan it, then it should be held somewhere else. Holding a service in a chapel is a convenience, not a necessity, for me. Obviously, my surviving family can do whatever they want, but at least I’ve let them know what I want. In my view, a funeral is a place of grieving, remembering (hopefully with love and humor), and finding shared hope at a difficult time; if it doesn’t say something meaningful about the deceased, what’s the point?

And besides, we all know weird things go on in Utah. At least, the GAs now do a better job of acknowledging the rest of the world during general conference as opposed to when they talked about Utah/The US all the time.

“Jeff – I disagree that I quoted anything out of context to deliberately make a point. I did read both talks in their entirety, and the “proof-texted” comments (as you put it) are very clearly the points BKP was making.”

Sorry, if I offended you, but I still think that is the case. After all, those talks were give 21 and 13 years ago, respectively. If funerals had been a serious on-going problem, like missionary farewells, there would have been a 1st Presidency letter about it by now. It might have be localized to Utah, where everything seems to occur in the extreme, including baby blessings. But, BKP’s talks were only his “unique” delivery of what has been in the General Handbook for many years.

Nevertheless, it has been interesting discussing of what some what for their own funerals that is somewhat outside of the LDS mainstream.

I agree with both of you.

When I read the talks in their entirety I did get an expanded view of his message. But the quotes stand out to me in the talk just as much as they do in Hawkkgrrrl’s post.

I think because I am familiar with Packer’s delivery when he is laying down the law I can put this in better context with other talks he’s given when I read the complete talks. Like Bruce R. McConkie I think he exaggerates his points at times.

To me, he is saying in regards to funerals – We need to get a handle on funerals. They are getting out of control because bishops aren’t doing their job. Families have free reign and are taking away from the conservative nature that should exist in all meetings. Listen to me because I am an apostle (Sorry, I had to throw that in there).

Ray,

I have thought about that quite a bit. I think it would make a good post.

Holden,

The phrase “The Unwritten Order of Things” really bothers me too. I love Elder Packer, but I see this as him suggesting that his views are

“The Unwritten Order of Things” has been a sore spot with me ever since I first read it a couple of years ago. I didn’t even finish reading Hawk’s post (sorry, Hawkgrrrl) before posting. I went to an online version of the talk, picked out the quotes that bother me most. After posting, I finished the original post and saw that the three quotes that have bugged me were in her story.

To me they are the salient points because they are so out of touch with how almost everybody feels about funerals. Along with my feelings when I read the talk, I had to just scratch my head and think how in the world can someone be so out of touch with the human heart.

I want whatever my husband and his children think is best. They are who really matter. A few words about me and things that I liked and loved, a few scriptures, and lots of beautiful songs and soloists willing to sing some of those beautiful hymns. And laughter. Laughter existed at my grandpa’s LDS funeral. It was a gorgeous day outside and people were happy and laughing…It didn’t seem too light-hearted. It was simply a testiment of people’s joy about what is ahead of us. He lived a good life. That’s what I’d like for people to experience at my funeral.

“I completely understand church leaders wanting to ensure gatherings in the chapel are kept sacred and reverent. I would prefer the approach be Bishop’s honoring the family’s desires as much as possible while still keeping the service appropriate.’

Like I said in the first comments. My first reaction to Hawk’s proof-texted excerpts was very negative. But I took the time to read both talks and didn’t think that Elder Packers remarks were that bad. I suspect many here did not read the talks but only the selected quotes from each talk. I think he would not be dismayed with how most LDS funerals are conducted.

This would not be unlike the policy that stakes are not to have standing choirs, which was aiming at semi-pro choirs with tours and CDs, but hit my stake which can only put together a choir when there’s a specific plan to perform for stake conference or the like in an effort to follow that policy. Or the youth-oriented lesson manuals that counseled the youth to make sure to have non-member friends that every youth I know of outside the Jello Belt laughed at.

I agree, and in fact I think that is probably what Elder Packer is trying to say. He isn’t known for being politically correct or tactful. That’s just never been his style. But that is okay, because the church needs different kinds of leadership to reach different people.

“I completely understand church leaders wanting to ensure gatherings in the chapel are kept sacred and reverent. I would prefer the approach be Bishop’s honoring the family’s desires as much as possible while still keeping the service appropriate.”

I think that is what happens a majority of the time.

That said, I really hope my family doesn’t want to spend mine preaching the gospel. Unless I haven’t contributed any humorous anecdotes to the family canon… Which is a possibility…

I don’t want to be embalmed, which means no open casket, so it seems kind of pointless to have the traditional funeral-in-the-chapel. If my family wants to do that- it’s fine I guess, I won’t be there. For the sake of my grandchildren/great grandchildren It had better be short and sweet.

What I really want is a quick burial, and then a big party. After my great grandmother’s funeral we gathered at the church for ham and funeral potatoes (comfort food) and then we all talked about grandma and things we loved about her, and it was so enjoyable, and did a lot more for those of us who missed her so much than sitting in a chapel. Some of the stories were spiritual and some were funny, but all of them reminded us how much grandma loved us, and how she loved serving others.

Considering it is now a Church standard to tell a personal story and joke in every talk, even General Conference, I would hope humor was allowed. But I have no problem with the Bishop putting his foot down if the family wanted Dane Cook to give a 15 minute stand-up eulogy.

…although if Dane Cook was willing to do my eulogy I would prefer that over having it in the chapel.