dprh

Hi Friend!

If the person is an endowed Melchizedek priesthood holder, the bishop can help, but I believe it is the Stake President who will be the main contact.  Also, after he is baptized again (for some reason "re-baptized" doesn't seem right to me) he will have to wait a year or more before applying to have his priesthood and temple blessings restored.

“Unless you make yourself equal to God, you cannot understand God: for the like is not intelligible save to the like. Make yourself grow to a greatness beyond measure, by a bound free yourself from the body; raise yourself above all time, become Eternity; then you will understand God. Believe that nothing is impossible for you, think yourself immortal and capable of understanding all, all arts, all sciences, the nature of every living being. Mount higher than the highest height; descend lower than the lowest depth. Draw into yourself all sensations of everything created, fire and water, dry and moist, imagining that you are everywhere, on earth, in the sea, in the sky, that you are not yet born, in the maternal womb, adolescent, old, dead, beyond death. If you embrace in your thought all things at once, times, places, substances, qualities, quantities, you may understand God.” -Giordano Bruno, Italian Dominican Friar / Astronomer, burned at the stake by the Roman Inquisition, Feb 17, 1600
 
Sometimes I think that many of the Saints think that Jehovah and the Holy Ghost were similar to us in the Pre-mortal existence.
In reality they were not like us.  Jehovah was spectacularly different.  He was already God.  He knew the mind of God the Father.  And He was like unto God - Abraham 3:24.  And He had already created worlds without number -Moses 1:33.
If you read the scriptures carefully, in places it certainly appears that Jehovah had a corporeal body. See Ether 3:8, D&C 107:53-55, Moses 7:4, Genesis 6:9
 

I don't think you understand the point.  Joseph Smith as a MORTAL sinned, obviously, but he existed before he was Known as Joseph Smith. The Holy Ghost has not gotten their body yet, they are still a spirit, the same as others who are spirits in the pre-existence and have not yet received their bodies (or in theory, those who have died but not yet been resurrected).
The same with Adam, who was Michael the Archangel prior to his coming to earth and after his coming to earth. 
As Children of Humans are Humans, Children of gods are gods.  They may not be exalted, but that heritage of theirs helped them to build this earth (at least that is a belief some believe in that are Latter-day Saints).  (refer to the Book of Abraham).
The idea is that the Godhead is composed of three beings.  This can be seen as a Heavenly First Presidency.  My feeling on this then would be that Adam as Michael, before he came to this Earth was part of that Presidency of Three individual beings.  If he was part of that presidency, and the Holy Ghost is as well (as default being a member of the this Heavenly Presidency), than that would mean that Michael, by default, would have been the Holy Ghost in that organization at the beginning.
Obviously, when he came to earth, and was a Mortal Adam, he could not have been the Holy Ghost, thus the idea that another was called to be the Holy Ghost in his stead.
Now, that is obviously opinion, as nothing in the Bible or Book of Mormon confers that Adam was part of the Godhead or part of the First presidency.  There is nothing to even say that he was part of this three fold governing body that we can find in the scriptures, thus anything dealing with the idea that he would have been part of a First Presidency of Heaven is, obviously, something that is of my own opinion and not particularly with scriptural basis.  The same could be stated of Joseph Smith also being the Holy Ghost at any point in his pre-mortal existence.
However, there is nothing that says they could not have been either.  I will say that I do not feel that the scriptures as you read them back up this idea of mine where I feel that the Father, the Son, and Michael were the ones who organized and created the Earth, and thus you are free to disagree with that idea and my opinion of it.  (though as per prophets, we do know that Michael/Adam did help to make this world, though at least one also infers we also helped to make this world).
However, as far as I can see and understand, nothing you have posted actually goes contrary to this idea either, nor my ideas of who the Holy Ghost could have been.  There is some of it that I cannot discuss my reasons for my opinions on HOW I formed these opinions, at least in this forum or public locations or outside specific and certain areas that I have aforementioned, but that said, even if it is speculation, it is something that we can agree we simply don't see eye to eye upon.

I'm not speculating.  No where in the scriptures, temple, or anywhere does it say that the Holy Ghost has a body of flesh and bone or even of flesh.  It says nowhere that he is a resurrected being. 
There ARE locations where one could have an inference that Adam was part of the Godhead.  It was so strongly felt by Brigham Young that he gave talks about it that inspired people on the non-doctrinal interpretation of his statements to create the Adam-God theory. It is from these statements that we get various other items regarding eternal families, genealogy, temple work, and the eternal nature of the Father and our ability to become like him.
What this appears is that you are confusing THE GOD with Godhead, and the FATHER with gods, as well as Exaltation with being the Children of God.  You have a different interpretation and as such, we probably will not see eye to eye on this (as I think I've stated several times previously to this).
Your interpretation and belief on this seems to be at odds with what my belief is.
As I said, my speculation on Michael also being the Holy Ghost during a period of his pre-existence is not contradicted by anything that I can see.  You have not really posted anything from the LDS beliefs that contradicts this idea (though from your personal belief...sure...but not from the official teachings of the church) as far as I can see.
It never states that for godhead one is required to have a body of Flesh.  In fact, as per the Lord in the New Testament, a verse I already quoted, he says something very different than that.

I do not intend to argue nuances of doctrine as much as principles that are and must be true.  Jesus was a member of the G-d head from the very beginning of the plan of salvation and all associated covenants long before he was born of Mary.  He was the Great I AM of the Old Testament and the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Sometimes I have a difficult time trying to figure out terms used by people.  For example, when you say "Fully Divine" - I do not understand what difference you are trying to describe (or make) that is so unworthy from singular term "Devine"?  For me the adverb "Fully" adds nothing to the conversation and appears to be meaningless.
 
The Traveler

No, I'm saying I won't discuss things discussed in the Temple outside of it.  I cannot go into more detail than that on this subject specifically right now, as far as I can tell.  However, for your answer to your question, that's the best place you are going to get it.  It's not an invalid item that I have suggested.
If you say there are only THREE (and without discussing the temple, how did you arrive at that idea?) who were before the beginning of the World...who were they?  I will say, there are three members of the Godhead...is that who you are referring to?
As reference to Adam in creation and his noble heritage (and ours as well).
the Man Adam from Churchofjesuschrist.org
footnote excerpt from this link of the PoGP student manual

I mirror a similar idea, though not as organized as you.
If we view with logic that the First Presidency was originally the Father, the Son, and Michael the Archangel...it would also go to reason that if Michael was the third member of that Presidency in Heaven, than he would have also filled the role of the Holy Ghost.
In that likewise, I had heard a rumor that Joseph Smith likewise had fulfilled the role of Holy Ghost at some point prior to his mortal existence. 
It would thus seem to me that it is indeed a calling as made, though how it is done is beyond my ken.  I don't have an organization or any other item, and have at times theorized that maybe there are multiple beings aiding a primary leader of it?  I do not know, but it does seem to reason that the Holy Ghost may be a position that changes in who holds it as per a calling or some other similar item.

I have a pet theory that is probably wrong, but it makes sense to me.
The Holy Ghost is a position, the spirit that fills the position changes.  Every spirit needs to gain a body to progress toward exaltation.  It doesn't seem fair to me to have one being that while in the Godhead would be eternally held back from all the blessings of Heavenly Father.
When our world was first created, I believe Adam/Michael filled the role as the third member of the Godhead.  When he was given a body, another spirit was 'called', I imagine it was Enoch.  
By extension, I also believe that the "Holy Ghost" is an organization.  That other spirits are granted a type of Priesthood power to act in the name of the Holy Ghost, similar to how mortals with the Priesthood can act in the name of Jesus Christ.  This is the method that allows multiple people around the globe to experience the Holy Ghost's influence at the same time.
Alma 18:35  talks about "a portion of the Spirit" dwelling in Ammon shows that the Holy Ghost is ....divisible? would that be the correct term? 
2 Nephi 32:3 says that "angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost."  This is where my idea of the Holy Ghost type priesthood came from.
Again, probably wrong, and if shown, I'll chalk it up to fan theory shot down.  

My wife and I used to use a lot of pre-workout and/or weight-loss supplements. that we later discovered had green tea. One of them even had "coffee extract". That's something to watch out for in those things as it's quite common.

@Mores From what I gather, you think Gator said he thinks it's better to be "A" in real life and "B" online than "B" in real life and "A" online.  When what he said was he respects people who are "A" online and in real life rather than "A" online and "B" in real life.

With such energetic, loving, well-intentioned characters, it's hard not to see parallels between Parks and Rec and every ward you've ever been in. Through crafts, close friendships, a love of nature, strong couples, and hard work, the hallmarks of Parks and Recreation share a lot of similarities with life as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1. When you get a calling you feel completely unqualified for but it goes ok: NBC The Lord doesn't call the qualified, He qualifies the called...especially the shoeshinists. 2. When the Young Women get an opportunity to play volleyball with the Young Men: NBC 3. When you go on Trek and realize you were definitely not meant to live in the 1850's: NBC 4. When you want your first date outfit to be equal parts modest and irresistible: NBC 5. The college couples with the cheapest, cheesiest (and most adorable) love stories: NBC 6. When your Relief Society is truly all it's cracked up to be: NBC 7. When you're three months from returning home from your mission and in complete denial: NBC Put...
View the full article

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-word-of-wisdom-august-2019
 
Looks like the Cappuccino machine will languish on my Amazon wish list.
I don’t see any commentary on alcohol /gasp
The kids just chunked the Green Goodness almost full bottle into the trash.
And hey I’m a competent physician.  CBD oil anyone?

mahaha
Undead Rogue -  over 100,000 HKs
Don’t ever type
/played
when your wife is looking over your shoulder.

Dude. The Word of Wisdom is totally a CLASSIC! Not even Herod's server could make Daniel and Nephi smoke the peace pipe!

As a teenager, I complained to my mother about an older sibling's very obvious pretense of being all mature and grown-up. Mom told me something very wise that has stuck with me through my life: "Sometimes people need to fake being some way until they grow into it."
Everyone understands and approves of the idea of genuineness. But a patient man is often an impatient man who holds his tongue. A loving man is often an angry, uncharitable man who holds his temper. This is how we begin to act like Christ. I do not consider such sincere efforts to be hypocrisy; quite the opposite. And I do not believe that there is any virtue in being a jerk in person as well as online instead of only online.
In my experience, personal and otherwise, people who try to be kind in person eventually learn to try to extend that to their online persona. It's a facile and ultimately false argument to maintain that those who are less kind online than in person are hypocrites.

Thank you for the response. The Father doesn't change. The Son doesn't change. It would be the same for the Holy Ghost.
"We also know They are three distinct persons through the events at Christ’s baptism—when the Father bore witness of His Son and the Holy Ghost descended from heaven like a dove—and when Christ prayed to the Father as He offered the great Intercessory Prayer...Even though the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct personages."
I agree, "necessary" is probably not the best word. What I am referring to is that the Lord specifically said I will send a "Comforter" that was not at this moment, due to the Son's presence, there. Much like the Spirit of Christ in relation to Christ. The influence, his testament, was still there, but in light of the Son's presence he was not fully there. Even if born, his influence would still be there, much like the Spirit of Christ which is in all things although the Son is not present.
Another thing to consider is do the other worlds that Heavenly Father have the same Holy Ghost that we do?  If so, then He can't receive a body until after all the worlds reach Millennial status.  Which I don't think will ever happen.
I, personally, don't see much difference between this and the Son, Savior, being the Savior of more than our world. As the Son fulfilled his duty, the Holy Ghost will fulfill his duty to the end, whatever that is for him.

First, @Anddenex, thanks for the feedback.  
Article of Faith #1. 
I don't see anything in that short statement that says the Holy Ghost will always be the same being.  I think of it similar to saying I believe in the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 
This states the fact that the Holy Ghost doesn't have a physical body.  I don't see that it means it has to be the same being the whole time.
I don't think I agree with the statement that the Holy Ghost wasn't necessary during a period of time.  He was still present but not in the same influence.  Christ told Peter that the Holy Ghost bore witness to him which is what will stand against the gates of hell. 
I have considered that the Holy Ghost will be born during the Millennium.  And I think it might be, but I wonder about the timing. It seems he would have to be the very last body born on this earth before it gains its Celestial glory, otherwise, anyone born afterward won't be able to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  
Another thing to consider is do the other worlds that Heavenly Father have the same Holy Ghost that we do?  If so, then He can't receive a body until after all the worlds reach Millennial status.  Which I don't think will ever happen.

Just as a thought - I do not recall anybody being released from a temporary calling of "Holy Ghost" and second counselor in that presiding divine presidency.  Nor do I remember anybody new being sustained to that calling.
 
The Traveler

My son told me some very interesting stuff last week. He recently got his degree in something called bioinformatics, which is the intersection of biology and computer science. At BYU, bioinformatics is actually a College of Life Sciences degree, not a part of the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (which houses the Department of Computer Science). So my son took quite a few biology classes, and he loved them, especially the genetics classes. We've had many hours of conversation about the stuff he learned, about histones and such. All very fascinating. The field has certainly moved along in the last 30 years since I was actively studying it.
Anyway, we got to talking about taxonomy, which is how organisms are classified. For example, dogs are a type of wolf, so dogs and wolves are closely related. Dogs and coyotes are more distantly related, dogs and foxes more distantly still. Dogs and cats are related, but there's a long, long distance between them*.
*So the taxonomy goes something like this: Among hunting mammals with claws and teeth for killing and eating other animals (Carnivora), there are two general types, cat-like (Feliformia) and dog-like (Caniformia). Dogs and cats split at this point. In the dog-like part, which includes wolves, bears, skunks, raccoons, walruses, and seals, among many others, there is a classification specifically for animals that are, let's say, very dog-like (Canidae). Two of the most common types of these animals include the fox-like (Vulpes) and the wolf-like or very very dog-like (Canis). This is where dogs and foxes split. Among the wolf-like, all the members there can interbreed to some extent, so they're all closely related. Coyotes are more distantly related to dogs than are wolves; in fact, dogs are today considered a type of wolf. When I was a boy, I learned that dogs were of the species Canis familiaris, which means "familiar dog", while wolves were of the species Canis lupus, or "wolf dog". These days, domestic dogs are classified as Canis lupus familiaris, which I suppose means "familiar wolf dog". The point is that the scientific community has recognized that there is no good point in dividing wolves and dogs, at least as far as genetic diversification goes. Dogs are truly just a subtype of wolves, a subtype that is much friendlier and more tractable and trainable.
The asterisked comment above describes a taxonomy that was originally based on, basically, what animals looked like. These days, we're actually much more concerned with an animal's genetic ancestry than with the shape of its claws. This has resulted in many changes to the so-called evolutionary tree, some subtle, some earth-shaking.
(By the way, counterintuitive and even ironic though it may seem, BYU has a very strong and respected evoutionary genetics program. You will find Saints of many stripes among the faculty of the Life Sciences college, including some of the most Christ-like individuals and Church leaders you are likely to find anywhere. But you won't find any evolution deniers.)
So anyway, my son was telling me about recent (to me) changes in taxonomy among reptiles. Turns out that it was recognized many years ago that birds should be classified as a type of reptile, and that in fact (for instance) crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards or snakes. (So take that, @MormonGator!) Fascinating reading on e.g. Wikipedia, if you're interested in this type of thing. Crocodilians and birds are the modern descendants of the prehistoric, meat-eating, terrifying dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus Rex. Absolutely amazing to think about, but actually quite believable when you look at a chicken's foot and realize that it's a one-twentieth scale model of the gigantic, terrifying feet you see in the dinosaur bones at the Museum of Natural History.
Every Thanksgiving, I am wont to laugh maniacally at the cooked turkey on the table and say something like, "You ruled the world while we cowered underground! What do you have to say NOW? Oh, how the tables have turned!" But there is a deeper underlying point here. Taxonomy was originally developed just to try to sort out animals into different types that were somehow functionally "related" to each other. But we've known for a long time that different types of animals really are related to each other, literally. So taxonomy has naturally segued into not merely a differential description of what animals look and act like, but a family tree describing the ancestral relationship of animals to each other. If I were of a mind to do so, I could dwell on ideas of how taxonomic reclassifications are an example of the spirit of Elijah.
Anyway, I find it fascinating. As a child, I learned of I guess it was six types of backboned animals: Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, bony fish, and cartilaginous fish. Turns out that's not really a very good description of things. I look forward to see what tomorrow will bring in such areas of study.

Much better question.  We don’t know.  But if you are asking me to make an assumption...
It likely has to do with how judgement of mankind will progress and stewardship.
Part of D&C 88 describes how many of the archangel trumps will call forth mankind into their heavenly realms: Celestial, Terrestrial, etc.  This is a judgement.
And as already posted, Mormon 3:19 (See also 1 Ne 12:9-12 & D&C 29:12)  describes the hierarchy of Nephite disciple stewardship and judgement.
Although Enoch only presided over 3 generations here on Earth, he was translated and has stewardship over, most likely, the largest group of mankind.
“And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah 300 years and begat Sons and Daughters, and all the days of Enoch were 365 years, and Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.” Now this Enoch God reserved <un>to himself that he should not die at that time and appointed unto him a ministry unto terrestrial bodies of whom there have been but little revealed. He is reserved also unto the Presidency of a dispensation, and more shall be said of him and terrestrial bodies in another treatise. He is a ministering Angel, to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation (emphasis mine)  "History, 1838–1856, volume C-1 [2 November 1838–31 July 1842] [addenda]," p. 17 [addenda], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed August 14, 2019, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-2-november-1838-31-july-1842/552
 "Many have supposed that the doctrine of translation was a doctrine whereby men were taken immediately into the presence of God, and into an eternal fullness, but this is a mistaken idea. Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters He held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets, and who as yet have not entered into so great a fullness as those who are resurrected from the dead" (TPJS, p. 170).  (emphasis mine)   "Instruction on Priesthood, 5 October 1840," p. 7, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed August 14, 2019, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-on-priesthood-5-october-1840/13
 

You provide an interesting thought mordorbund. Would Enoch actually be the second dispensation or Noah? And would the actual 7th archangel be the prophet who ushers in (probably better said, holds the keys of the priesthood when Christ comes again) the second coming, Millennium.
We know Enoch was over some dispensation, but that doesn't make him a dispensational head (Similar to the Jaredite dispensation).
The point you make as having two dispensational heads living is poignant.

I would say the following scriptures make this theory hard:
1) Article of Faith #1
2) Doctrine and Covenant 130: 22 (the Holy Ghost is a single individual, three distinct beings in the Godhead)
Our earth life presidencies reference the Godhead. Death is the only reason these positions change. We also have note of a time where the Holy Ghost was not necessary. The Millennium seems a plausible time where the Holy Ghost would receive a body as the Son will reign personally on the earth.

Adam was 622 when Enoch was born and had another 308 years to go. You've got 2 dispensational heads operating at the same time. If Enoch is there because of apostasy, we're missing the account of Adam's falling away and returning in time to bless his posterity - including Enoch - in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman.