Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/63419/

Family Member A's reasoning sounds like the same line of thought that leads people to be suspicious of organ donation and cremation.

I just have a hard time understanding how anyone who believes in the power to raise the dead could also believe that minor logistical issues could interfere with that power.

I will invest in the restaurant chain.

NerdGirl wrote:I just have a hard time understanding how anyone who believes in the power to raise the dead could also believe that minor logistical issues could interfere with that power.

Nicely put. (And I don't really care where you choose to get buried or whether you want to be cremated, but organ donation saves lives, so I'm troubled when people believe stupid arguments against it.)

If anyone is interested, I searched GospelLink and found a book called "Selected Teachings of Robert J. Matthews," in which there is a chapter titled "Joseph Smith on the Sacred Nature of a burial place." It's a fascinating read, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the topic of burial places. I particularly liked the following paragraph, which is an excerpt from an address by Joseph Smith following the death of Lorenzo Dow Barnes:

"[[It is a privilege to have] our dead buried on the land where God has appointed to gather His Saints together, and where there will be none but Saints, where they may have the privilege of laying their bodies where the Son of Man will make His appearance, and where they may hear the sound of the trump that shall call them forth to behold Him, that in the morn of the resurrection they may come forth in a body, and come up out of their graves and strike hands immediately in eternal glory and felicity, rather than be scattered thousands of miles apart. There is something good and sacred to me in this thing. The place where a man is buried is sacred to me. This subject is made mention of in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures. 2 Even to the aborigines of this land, the burying places of their fathers are more sacred than anything else."

So, Joseph Smith makes it sound like we will be resurrected right where we are buried, and like it would be better to be buried near family. However, I still think the most important part is that we will be resurrected. Being with our families at the time of resurrection would be wondeful, I'm sure, but even if we're buried farther apart, as long as we are sealed we'll be with them anyway. So, my personal opinion is: be buried by family if you can, but don't sweat it if you can't. I don't think the Lord would let you miss out on huge blessings just because you weren't buried in the right place.

According to this page Lorenzo Dow Barnes died in Bradford, England (while a missionary) and was buried in the nearby suburb of Idle. (His remains were later transferred to Salt Lake City, presumably after the death of Joseph Smith.) So, was Joseph Smith speaking ill of Elder Dow for having the misfortune to be buried in West Yorkshire? (That seems a bit harsh.) Or was he putting a positive spin on the people who were dying locally, saying that at least they got to be buried near family or with other saints?

More to the point, won't we be hanging out in spirit paradise for decades or centuries between the time we die and the Resurrection? Wouldn't we get to hang out with our families, then? I'm all for cemeteries and family burial plots for the sake of the living, but I still have a hard time believing it will make much difference to the dead.

I'm not sure of sources outside of the temple offhand, but some of the revealed doctrines of the nature of the resurrection sure seem to me to reinforce the idea of being buried near family whenever possible.

Tao wrote:I'm not sure of sources outside of the temple offhand, but some of the revealed doctrines of the nature of the resurrection sure seem to me to reinforce the idea of being buried near family whenever possible.

....? Now I'm not entirely sure we've been going to the same temple. I asked my friend who is a temple worker if I'm missing something and she doesn't know what you're referring to, either.

chillygator wrote:

Tao wrote:I'm not sure of sources outside of the temple offhand, but some of the revealed doctrines of the nature of the resurrection sure seem to me to reinforce the idea of being buried near family whenever possible.

....? Now I'm not entirely sure we've been going to the same temple. I asked my friend who is a temple worker if I'm missing something and she doesn't know what you're referring to, either.

I'm with chilly on this one.

Oh, I'm so glad it's not just me.

I think I may know what you're talking about, but I've never interpreted it to hinge on proximity.

Katya wrote:According to this page Lorenzo Dow Barnes died in Bradford, England (while a missionary) and was buried in the nearby suburb of Idle. (His remains were later transferred to Salt Lake City, presumably after the death of Joseph Smith.) So, was Joseph Smith speaking ill of Elder Dow for having the misfortune to be buried in West Yorkshire? (That seems a bit harsh.) Or was he putting a positive spin on the people who were dying locally, saying that at least they got to be buried near family or with other saints?

I suspect he was more putting a positive spin on people dying locally than speaking ill of Elder Dow. That's just my opinion, though.

Dragon Lady wrote:

chillygator wrote:

Tao wrote:I'm not sure of sources outside of the temple offhand, but some of the revealed doctrines of the nature of the resurrection sure seem to me to reinforce the idea of being buried near family whenever possible.

....? Now I'm not entirely sure we've been going to the same temple. I asked my friend who is a temple worker if I'm missing something and she doesn't know what you're referring to, either.

I'm with chilly on this one.

Yeah, I work in the temple and have no idea what you're talking about.

Eh, it isn't exactly vital doctrine, one that comes up often, but take some of the sacred things we are given in the temple and start asking yourself 'why' enough times, either you'll see what I mean, or I'm off my rocker.

Either are valid possibilities.

That, or if you happen to know me and see me in the celestial room, I could explain myself more fully.

*Edit: I realized that what I'm thinking of may well not be what many others are focused on here. I'm not advocating that location or condition of the body in any way hampers the resurrection. Yet, as I read the querent, they seem to be summarizing Person A as 'when possible, collocation is preferable.' This thought, like most, can be taken too far. As Katya pointed out, those who would be suspicious of cremation (perhaps as a challenge to God's power to resurrect?) may be doing so from misunderstanding and/or weakened faith in that particular subject. On the other hand, we are also counseled not to seek out cremation unnecessarily. The Ensign did a good (non-doctrinal) article on that portion of the topic, back in Aug of 91.

I suspect I know what you're talking about. Or I have my own theory for why it might be considered nice to be buried near family. Either way. But I suspect that resurrected and glorified beings are capable of covering large distances in very short periods of time, so it probably doesn't matter all that much. If a resurrected being needs to be at a certain place at a certain time, they'll get there regardless of where they were at the time of resurrection.