Funeral In Chapel Question & Options

[CA Steve]

My mother-in-law recently passed away and funeral arrangements are underway. She lived in a small remote town in the mid west that is one of those places you just can't get to easily and in the middle of winter. Getting there can be difficult if not dangerous, at times, especially for those unaccustomed to traveling in harsh winter conditions on snow or ice covered roads in high mountain passes. The family and friends are scattered all over the country and the world and due to a variety of reasons like distance, military commitments, old age and illnesses, many , if not most family members and close friends are unable to attend the services. We have asked about live broadcasting the services for those who cannot attend and the bishop there has said that no video of chapel services are allowed.

Does anyone know if he is correct? Are there any other options (can we hold it in the cultural hall and video it there?) or maybe even reasons for exceptions?

 

Thanks

[bluebell]

I don't see why you couldn't hold it in the cultural hall and tape it.  Perhaps having it a local mortuary, where it could be taped, and then moving everyone to the church for lunch and reminiscing is an option?

[HappyJackWagon]

Live broadcasting of funerals is a great idea. Not only would it allow for tremendous time and $$ savings, but it allows people to participate when they otherwise couldn't. It's hard to see a downside of that.

I know for a fact that chapel services Can be broadcast. It's done every single time we have a stake conference. We even do it for ward conferences so people can watch from other rooms in the church. I think the bishop should show you where it is absolutely forbidden. If somehow he is right and it is forbidden, I'd look for another location. Limiting loved ones ability to participate because of an unnecessary policy (or a bishop's personal preference) seems unjustified.

[Anonymous Mormon]

I recently attended a funeral where at the beginning they announced that it was being broadcast to a close relative who is a missionary and couldn't attend. I think they said it was being done via FaceBook Live.

I don't think they broke any rules in doing this. So I am guessing it is not explicitly forbidden.

[Duncan]

I attended a baptism here that was live broadcasted to Hungary, so if that was videod then I can't imagine anyone objecting to a funeral, it's not an ordinance or anything

[Tacenda]

57 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

My mother-in-law recently passed away and funeral arrangements are underway. She lived in a small remote town in the mid west that is one of those places you just can't get to easily and in the middle of winter. Getting there can be difficult if not dangerous, at times, especially for those unaccustomed to traveling in harsh winter conditions on snow or ice covered roads in high mountain passes. The family and friends are scattered all over the country and the world and due to a variety of reasons like distance, military commitments, old age and illnesses, many , if not most family members and close friends are unable to attend the services. We have asked about live broadcasting the services for those who cannot attend and the bishop there has said that no video of chapel services are allowed.

Does anyone know if he is correct? Are there any other options (can we hold it in the cultural hall and video it there?) or maybe even reasons for exceptions?

 

Thanks

I made a video of my dad that passed away, it wasn't long at all, and because the music wasn't hymns I guess, I was turned down, where in the not so distant past my former bishop's wife passed away and they allowed a video of her life with modern music, not hymns to play. So I was pretty miffed at another bishop saying no to me. But we showed the video during the luncheon in the cultural hall later on. So I would think the cultural hall would work! I'm so sorry for your loss CA.  ETA: I just realized your situation is totally different then what I just put forth. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Tacenda

[Traela]

The relevant portion of the handbook:

Video recordings and computer or other electronic presentations should not be used as part of a funeral service. Nor should the service be broadcast on the Internet or in any other way. However, with approval from his or her mission president, a missionary may view the funeral services of an immediate family member via streaming.

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

My mother-in-law recently passed away and funeral arrangements are underway. She lived in a small remote town in the mid west that is one of those places you just can't get to easily and in the middle of winter. Getting there can be difficult if not dangerous, at times, especially for those unaccustomed to traveling in harsh winter conditions on snow or ice covered roads in high mountain passes. The family and friends are scattered all over the country and the world and due to a variety of reasons like distance, military commitments, old age and illnesses, many , if not most family members and close friends are unable to attend the services. We have asked about live broadcasting the services for those who cannot attend and the bishop there has said that no video of chapel services are allowed.

Does anyone know if he is correct? Are there any other options (can we hold it in the cultural hall and video it there?) or maybe even reasons for exceptions?

Thanks

I think the bishop is generaly correct.  However, I could see an exception being made.  

By way of example: My daughter spent 10 months as an exchange student in Italy (Sardinia).  She was assigned to a small town quite far away from the nearest branch of the Church (traveling there meant her host family dropping her off to take a bus on Saturday around noon, catching a train, making arrangements to be picked up by a member family and stay overnight with them, then attend church, then immediately get back on the train, then catch the bus again, then have her host family pick her up Sunday evening).  Our bishop, aware of this, and aware that she wanted to participate, authorized me (with the approval of the stake president) to use the "WhatsApp" app on my phone so she could watch Sacrament Meeting remotely.  

Another example: I have a friend who moved to China with his family.  They live in a suburb of Shanghai and have four small children.  There is a branch in Shanghai, but getting there would take several hours via several different buses.  So the branch transmits Sacrament Meeting to them at home (via online broadcast).  My friend and his family (and other families similarly situated) turn the broadcast off during the administration of the Sacrament, and he has permission to administer the Sacrament to his family in their home (it is my understanding that several other families around Shanghai do the same thing).

Your options seem to be:

Re-visit the issue with the bishop and ask him to re-consider (given the exigent circumstances, difficulties in travel, family members spread all over, etc.).  If he declines, contact the Stake President and ask for permission (explain to the SP that you have already spoken with the bishop, and he has declined).

If both the bishop and SP decline to provide an exception to the general rule against recording/transmitting, then you could consider having the service in a funeral home.  It would be a private gathering, not under the auspices of the Church, so you could handle it as you deem fit.

Thanks,

-Smac

P.S. If the bishop and/or SP don't accommodate you, don't hold a grudge.  They are probably just doing what they think is right.

Edited January 3, 2020 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I think the bishop is generaly correct.  However, I could see an exception being made.  

By way of example: My daughter spent 10 months as an exchange student in Italy (Sardinia).  She was assigned to a small town quite far away from the nearest branch of the Church (traveling there meant her host family dropping her off to take a bus on Saturday around noon, catching a train, making arrangements to be picked up by a member family and stay overnight with them, then attend church, then immediately get back on the train, then catch the bus again, then have her host family pick her up Sunday evening).  Our bishop, aware of this, and aware that she wanted to participate, authorized me (with the approval of the stake president) to use the "WhatsApp" app on my phone so she could watch Sacrament Meeting remotely.  

Another example: I have a friend who moved to China with his family.  They live in a suburb of Shanghai and have four small children.  There is a branch in Shanghai, but getting there would take several hours via several different buses.  So the branch transmits Sacrament Meeting to them at home (via online broadcast).  My friend and his family (and other families similarly situated) turn the broadcast off during the administration of the Sacrament, and he has permission to administer the Sacrament to his family in their home (it is my understanding that several other families around Shanghai do the same thing).

Your options seem to be:

Re-visit the issue with the bishop and ask him to re-consider (given the exigent circumstances, difficulties in travel, family members spread all over, etc.).  If he declines, contact the Stake President and ask for permission (explain to the SP that you have already spoken with the bishop, and he has declined).

If both the bishop and SP decline to provide an exception to the general rule against recording/transmitting, then you could consider having the service in a funeral home.  It would be a private gathering, not under the auspices of the Church, so you could handle it as you seem fit.

Thanks,

-Smac

P.S. If the bishop and/or SP don't accommodate you, don't hold a grudge.  They are probably just doing what they think is right.

I suspect you're right. They are trying to follow the handbook.

But that kind of illustrates a possible problem. It seems that "doing the right thing" is often seen as "following the handbook rules" versus being focused on the needs of the individual/family. Is following a handbook rule more important than meeting the needs of the family?

8 minutes ago, Traela said:

The relevant portion of the handbook:

Video recordings and computer or other electronic presentations should not be used as part of a funeral service. Nor should the service be broadcast on the Internet or in any other way. However, with approval from his or her mission president, a missionary may view the funeral services of an immediate family member via streaming.

 

Thanks for sharing that.

I'm curious if anyone has a justification for this kind of policy. What could the purpose be? In other words...Why?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

My mother-in-law recently passed away and funeral arrangements are underway. She lived in a small remote town in the mid west that is one of those places you just can't get to easily and in the middle of winter. Getting there can be difficult if not dangerous, at times, especially for those unaccustomed to traveling in harsh winter conditions on snow or ice covered roads in high mountain passes. The family and friends are scattered all over the country and the world and due to a variety of reasons like distance, military commitments, old age and illnesses, many , if not most family members and close friends are unable to attend the services. We have asked about live broadcasting the services for those who cannot attend and the bishop there has said that no video of chapel services are allowed.

Does anyone know if he is correct? Are there any other options (can we hold it in the cultural hall and video it there?) or maybe even reasons for exceptions?

 

Thanks

For just those that can be there and familiar with the place, it would be nice to have a small service.  For those out of town, why not later meet as a family reunion or in milder weather have a celebration of life 

[rpn]

That is correct (though there may be more flexibility now that civil weddings are allowed in chapels and videos are allowed (if I remember correctly).  So ask the bishop and family to hold the funeral in the cultural hall.

[smac97]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I suspect you're right. They are trying to follow the handbook.

But that kind of illustrates a possible problem.

I disagree.  It's not a problem to have rules of general application.  It's not a problem to follow those rules generally.  

Can those rules be adapted/modified in specified circumstances?  Using common sense and prudence and the Spirit?  Yes.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems that "doing the right thing" is often seen as "following the handbook rules" versus being focused on the needs of the individual/family.

As pertaining to "needs," I agree with you.  Some flexibility is appropriate.

As pertaining to preferences or wants, however, I don't necessarily agree with you.  The CHI is a compendium that reflects long experience in handling matters of Church governance and administration.  

By way of example: A few years back our bishop was approached by the family of a recently-deceased older sister.  Family members wanted to play "Yellow Rose of Texas" during the funeral services.  This seems a lot more like a "preference" than a "need," so the bishop stuck to the policies regarding music used in Church-administered services, but proposed that the family play the song (and any others they liked, within reason) during the luncheon in the Cultural Hall.  The family members accepted this compromise, and were appreciative of it.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Is following a handbook rule more important than meeting the needs of the family?

Maybe, maybe not.  Some flexibility as to "needs" is appropriate.  But that flexibility cannot be unlimited.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing that.

I'm curious if anyone has a justification for this kind of policy. What could the purpose be? In other words...Why?

Funerals held in the church building are administered by the Church.  Decorum and sanctity are important.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

nvm

Edited January 3, 2020 by provoman

[Duncan]

I attended a funeral that had a video presentation and part of it was that 1970's Rasputin song, in the chapel no less, and I don't think anyone got upset. 

[provoman]

 

27 minutes ago, rpn said:

That is correct (though there may be more flexibility now that civil weddings are allowed in chapels and videos are allowed (if I remember correctly).  So ask the bishop and family to hold the funeral in the cultural hall.

I would ask that as an alternative, as the handbook refers to the Chapel.

Or the option that @smac referred and have it at someones home.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

I would ask that as an alternative, as the handbook refers to the Chapel.

Or the option that @smac referred and have it at someones home.

of the gym perhaps? I attended a wedding years ago held in the gym and all kinds of photos and videos and I thought what a genius idea to do it here🤔

[Amulek]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious if anyone has a justification for this kind of policy. What could the purpose be? In other words...Why?

Per Handbook 2, Section 18.6.4, a funeral "conducted by the bishop, whether in a Church building or another location, is a Church meeting and a religious service."

As a Church meeting, the general prohibitions about recording / transmitting are in effect.

The only two exceptions listed in the handbook for broadcasting Church meetings are for (1) conferences and (2) funeral services being streamed for an immediate family member who is currently serving a mission.

As for why there are such strict rules regarding broadcasting, I think it largely has to do with maintaining the reverence / sacredness of the event.

We recently had our annual primary program for sacrament meeting - one of the best, as always - and our bishop had the counselor who was conducting make an announcement reminding everyone that photo and video recording are prohibited. Which (thankfully) resulted in zero cell phones popping up every time someone's kid got up to say a line or sing a song. It was quite nice - especially compared to similar school events where you would think the kids were all celebrities given the number of people crowding for photographs. 

There may be other, more pragmatic reasons as well (e.g., legal issues regarding consent - especially with recording minors). 

 

[CA Steve]

I appreciate all the responses especially Treala who quoted the relevant portion of the handbook. Unfortunately that also seems to exclude the cultural hall.

Being an in law here limits my options because I am not in a position to push for some changes. We have asked about the cultural hall and even moving to a location where broadcasting is an option. For a variety or reasons outside my control both have been turned down. I was hoping to see that this was not covered so directly by the handbook.  It's a shame this cannot be accomodated, as the other options (having another service later on) seem a lot like having a ring ceremony after a sealing. They just are not the same thing. And unlike a temple sealing this policy seems to be penalizing faithful members who are unable to attend for reasons outside their control.

I am undecided about going to the SP. I am not local and do not want to cause conflict between the bishop and my family there.

 

Again thanks for the feedback.

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

As for why there are such strict rules regarding broadcasting, I think it largely has to do with maintaining the reverence / sacredness of the event.

I have to admit I am having a hard time understanding how a privately transmitted funeral to close friends and family members detracts from the reverence or sacredness of the funeral.

[Amulek]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I have to admit I am having a hard time understanding how a privately transmitted funeral to close friends and family members detracts from the reverence or sacredness of the funeral.

Everyone is different I suppose, but for me (personally) I have never been to an event which was being recorded or broadcast where I didn't find such activity distracting. 

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

My mother-in-law recently passed away and funeral arrangements are underway. She lived in a small remote town in the mid west that is one of those places you just can't get to easily and in the middle of winter. Getting there can be difficult if not dangerous, at times, especially for those unaccustomed to traveling in harsh winter conditions on snow or ice covered roads in high mountain passes. The family and friends are scattered all over the country and the world and due to a variety of reasons like distance, military commitments, old age and illnesses, many , if not most family members and close friends are unable to attend the services. We have asked about live broadcasting the services for those who cannot attend and the bishop there has said that no video of chapel services are allowed.

Does anyone know if he is correct? Are there any other options (can we hold it in the cultural hall and video it there?) or maybe even reasons for exceptions?

 

Thanks

A friend of ours  passed, and her son decided to remain in the mission field, so he attended via broadcast. So, I am not sure why it would not be allowed. Maybe they did it because he was on a mission, but we did it. It can be done easily with “FaceTime”. Although we live in Atlanta, Georgia, it snowed, and the funeral had to be put of for a few days. 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I have to admit I am having a hard time understanding how a privately transmitted funeral to close friends and family members detracts from the reverence or sacredness of the funeral.

 

44 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Everyone is different I suppose, but for me (personally) I have never been to an event which was being recorded or broadcast where I didn't find such activity distracting. 

 

I am with CA Steve on this, of course it is dependent on the circumstance. I attended Conference in the Conference Center, and was not distracted by the broadcasting. I have been in local chapels with cameras mounted on the walls - those cameras could be used to broadcast, there is no distraction. So unless the person recording or broadcasting is walking up and down the room or standing in peoples way, I personally do not find recording or broadcasting distracting.

Edited January 3, 2020 by provoman

[CA Steve]

40 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

A friend of ours  passed, and her son decided to remain in the mission field, so he attended via broadcast. So, I am not sure why it would not be allowed. Maybe they did it because he was on a mission, but we did it. It can be done easily with “FaceTime”. Although we live in Atlanta, Georgia, it snowed, and the funeral had to be put of for a few days. 

As the quote from the handbook above says:

2 hours ago, Traela said:

The relevant portion of the handbook:

Video recordings and computer or other electronic presentations should not be used as part of a funeral service. Nor should the service be broadcast on the Internet or in any other way. However, with approval from his or her mission president, a missionary may view the funeral services of an immediate family member via streaming.

I have two kids currently serving in the military who cannot attend. It's a shame their service is seen differently. 

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I have two kids currently serving in the military who cannot attend. It's a shame their service is seen differently. 

In this case it is not seen differently. If they were on their mission they would not stream it to them either. The exception is limited to immediate family which for a missionary would normally mean parents or siblings. You might stretch it to mean grandparents but I doubt that is the intention in the handbook.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Everyone is different I suppose, but for me (personally) I have never been to an event which was being recorded or broadcast where I didn't find such activity distracting. 

 

Really?

Even general and Stake Conferences?