Rebaptism?

[bumpyroad]

I resigned my membership about a year ago, for all the wrong reasons, I have a lot to get sorted in my life before I can get back into The Church (I'd be exed for my current living situation).

My question: once I have my worthiness sorted out, how long do I have to wait before rebaptism, and who has to ok it?

- Bumpy.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Start going back to church and repenting. You will need to talk with your Bishop and very likely your Stake President.

It would also be very good for you to review the steps of repentance. Here is a link for you:

LDS.org - Lessons Chapter - Repentance

[Tonya9]

YO! Bumpy;

Here's my story,

I was an adult convert 20 years ago. Totally Catholic family back to the Second Centry. Ok --- so I made a good start: singles rep, RS chorister, ward organist. Temple endowed the next year and a temple worker. Unfortunately, I became engaged to our wonderful Stake President's first cousin and my bishop's brother-in-law. Everybody warned me about this guy ---a M. Priesthood holder, but I didn't really LISTEN until he hit me in the face so hard it broke my glasses. Soooo, I skyed off and put me exit letter in.

Fast forward 17 hrs. ---this is the REAL hillarious part of the story, my teaching cert. is lapsed, so I take a security officer job. The whole FLIPPIN' guard staff are TEMPLE MORMONS!!!! Haaaaahaaahaa. Including my boss, a retired attorney

and former bishop. Well, bless 'em, they left me alone, but I started talkin' real soon, 'cause I was hurtin', hurtin', hurtin' One failed marriage to non-Mormon who had a cheatin' problem. Two months after starting working there it was CLEAR:\

I hadn't really had a happy full life since I was in the church.

Here's how it usually works, I assume you've already talked to the Missionary dudes, and a bishop. Getting back isn't as fast as when you were baptised but it doesn't take a really long time either, usually. A few months during which time ya go

to services, take the sacrament and just act like you normally did. You interview with your stake president who contacts the First Presidency in SLC. They clear it, which in your case unless you were making out with the stake president's daughter or some other big-time sin, should be a piece of cake. The Missionaries give you a fast review of the discussions, you pick your baptismal people and,,, BINGO, you're back !!! And can have your endowments restomed the next year.

Hope this sorta answers your question. Usually, ward and stake people are more than glad to help you and getting back is a real relief.

It's much to your credit that you didn't stay out as long as I did.

Remember, a lot of Joseph Smith's original friends, real greats in the early church, left and came back.

Good to have you back were ya belong, Bro.

Yours,

Tonya (Catherine)

Edited June 10, 2010 by pam

[bl8tant]

Interesting question (and welcome, btw). I don't know about the process for a former member who asked to have their name removed from the rolls of the Church. In cases where a member is excommunicated, there's a one-year waiting period before the ex'd member can be rebaptized. Before the rebaptism may occur, a disciplinary council must be held, convened by the member's current bishop or stake president (depending on whether a stake or ward council applied the excommunication).

There's a good Ensign article here that may help explain this in more detail.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Unfortunately, no one can say how long the repentence process can take, or how long the Bishop will require you to be in full repentence.

But I do know it's a more gradual process to get all your blessings back. After rebaptism, one brother I knew was first ordained a deacon, then a teacher, then a priest, with spaces of time in between each until he made it all the way to the Melchizedek Priesthood. A new convert would normally go straight to the office of priest unless there is some reason for ordianing him through lower offices at first.

Your Bishop is critical in this as he will be your point of contact.

I think we need MOE (Margin of Error), who is on this site regularly, and his handbook to clarify the role of the Stake in the rebaptism process if he's willing. I don't have one anymore so I can't comment. I believe the STake will definitely be involved as complete restoration of blessings involves the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bishop.

Edited June 10, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Moksha]

I think the First Presidency has to okay reenlisting.

[Rapidmc]

If a person is rebaptised is it possible for them to eventually be temple worthy?

[john doe]

If a person is rebaptised is it possible for them to eventually be temple worthy?

Sure.

[MarginOfError]

Unfortunately, no one can say how long the repentence process can take, or how long the Bishop will require you to be in full repentence.

But I do know it's a more gradual process to get all your blessings back. After rebaptism, one brother I knew was first ordained a deacon, then a teacher, then a priest, with spaces of time in between each until he made it all the way to the Melchizedek Priesthood. A new convert would normally go straight to the office of priest unless there is some reason for ordianing him through lower offices at first.

Your Bishop is critical in this as he will be your point of contact.

I think we need MOE (Margin of Error), who is on this site regularly, and his handbook to clarify the role of the Stake in the rebaptism process if he's willing. I don't have one anymore so I can't comment. I believe the STake will definitely be involved as complete restoration of blessings involves the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bishop.

Unfortunately, I don't have much to add. I'm not comfortable putting time limits on anything, as it will vary from one person to the next. In general, I believe a year is the minimum, but it's all about when the individual is ready. If you were a Melchizedek priesthood holder when you had your name removed, the process will be overseen by your stake president. They'll handle all of the correspondence with the First Presidency and when approval comes, you'll have a baptismal service. Restoration of priesthood and temple blessings will come later, but not necessarily on the same time frame as a new convert.

The only real piece of advice I have is that time frames are irrelevant. The only truly important part of this is that you show a true desire to repent, and come unto Christ. Moving in the right direction gets you more points than being in any one particular spot.

[bl8tant]

If a person is rebaptised is it possible for them to eventually be temple worthy?

Absolutely. That's kind of the whole point: we want every baptized member to live so that they are worthy to enter the temple.

[jayanna]

In fact, a really good friend of mine was x'd and returned. He met with a gen. auth. to receive his priesthood again...he was told that the reason he was ex'd was as if it never happened. He was told that if anybody asked why he was ex'd, not to respond, because it did not matter, it no longer existed.

As if it never happened...a completely clean slate. He goes to the temple all the time :)

The atonement is a miracle every day, for every one.

[Guest mysticmorini]

Unfortunately, no one can say how long the repentence process can take, or how long the Bishop will require you to be in full repentence.

But I do know it's a more gradual process to get all your blessings back. After rebaptism, one brother I knew was first ordained a deacon, then a teacher, then a priest, with spaces of time in between each until he made it all the way to the Melchizedek Priesthood. A new convert would normally go straight to the office of priest unless there is some reason for ordianing him through lower offices at first.

the CHI specifically states that this should not be the case. if worthy the member should be restored to the last priesthood they held or should not receive it at all. its the same with ex'd males they may be rebaptized but will not receive the priesthood if endowed until all their blessings are restored.

[woundedknee]

I am quite convinced that no one on any forum, and even the Bishop I know in Ward boundary where I live, doesn't have much of a clue how it all works for someone who has resigned their membership...not exed.

Many have questions on a number of forums around this topic. It is a frequently appearing topic. One will get every answer in the world, as seen in this thread. Many do know how it works when exed but not a resignation.

People always have questions like whether the resignation/rebaptism stays on ones official membership record or whether only the initial record is just restored. Probably most who resign just stay gone and there aren't too many experiences to tell about, nor likely are there many Ward Clerks or Bishops on the forums with such an experience to tell how it all works. However, like I mentioned, even the Bishop doesn't know exactly how it works. He did mention he could find out. Maybe Greg Dodge could get on a forum and explain it all one day(that will never happen unless he retires). Even better to have it on lds.org or something like that(that isn't likely either). All good questions you ask, though.

the CHI specifically states that this should not be the case. if worthy the member should be restored to the last priesthood they held or should not receive it at all. its the same with ex'd males they may be rebaptized but will not receive the priesthood if endowed until all their blessings are restored.

[slamjet]

They may not know because it may not be that common. I know that I'm going through the process of getting another disciplinary hearing to see if I can be re-baptized and from what I understand, for the Stake President, there is a lot of paperwork and procedures to go through. All the proverbial ducks need to be in a row to proceed. My Stake President has been on the job for about four or five years and I'm the first one he's dealing with for re-baptism.

So hang tight and be patient, you're all learning the ropes together. I know I'm like a bad penny to my Stake President. I need to dial it down and be a bit more patient. In the mean time, I'm taking many people's advice I've received by studying and correcting bad behavior. It's making all the difference in the world for me.

[MarginOfError]

I am quite convinced that no one on any forum, and even the Bishop I know in Ward boundary where I live, doesn't have much of a clue how it all works for someone who has resigned their membership...not exed.

Many have questions on a number of forums around this topic. It is a frequently appearing topic. One will get every answer in the world, as seen in this thread. Many do know how it works when exed but not a resignation.

People always have questions like whether the resignation/rebaptism stays on ones official membership record or whether only the initial record is just restored. Probably most who resign just stay gone and there aren't too many experiences to tell about, nor likely are there many Ward Clerks or Bishops on the forums with such an experience to tell how it all works. However, like I mentioned, even the Bishop doesn't know exactly how it works. He did mention he could find out. Maybe Greg Dodge could get on a forum and explain it all one day(that will never happen unless he retires). Even better to have it on lds.org or something like that(that isn't likely either). All good questions you ask, though.

If I recall correctly, in the 1980's the only way to remove a person's name from the Church records was excommunication. The process of name removal as we know it now was established to streamline things a little. A disciplinary council is a lot of work for someone who doesn't want to show up and wants to be excommunicated. Functionally, however, excommunication and name removal are the same thing; even the same forms are filed.

What's more, Handbook 1, 6.14.4 states that restoration of priesthood and temple blessings is handled the same way as it is for excommunicated members.

I think that should address the issue of whether anyone knows how it is handled for someone who has resigned their membership as opposed to having been excommunicated

[slamjet]

I think that should address the issue of whether anyone knows how it is handled for someone who has resigned their membership as opposed to having been excommunicated

But it does not answer the question on how it is viewed. Being ex'd is an act of mercy. Saying you want out is, well, I dunno. It seems that there is more proving one's self to make sure 1) a person is not treated lightly their church membership and 2) are they really committed to full fellowship and the responsibilities that come with it.

At least in my mind, the customary year wouldn't cut it. But then look where I'm at

[MarginOfError]

But it does not answer the question on how it is viewed. Being ex'd is an act of mercy. Saying you want out is, well, I dunno. It seems that there is more proving one's self to make sure 1) a person is not treated lightly their church membership and 2) are they really committed to full fellowship and the responsibilities that come with it.

At least in my mind, the customary year wouldn't cut it. But then look where I'm at

The handbooks set the timeline as being at least one year from the time of name removal. If a person were to have their name removed and ten years later decide to come back to the Church, there would be no required waiting period. As long as they met the requirements for convert baptism, they could join the Church right away. It's really up to the bishop.

Some caveats:

• If the bishop who enacted the name removal noted any transgressions that warranted disciplinary council, the person may not be readmitted until he or she has satisfied conditions of repentance. This is at the discretion of the bishop.
• If the person has committed any sins that would normally require First Presidency approval for a convert baptism, either before or after name removal, he or she must wait until the First Presidency gives approval before being readmitted.

Otherwise, it's very similar to a convert baptism.

[slamjet]

Got it, thanks.

[woundedknee]

Good reference on the CHI. Thank you. To be more exact I'll go into a bit more detail on name removal. There are obviously others on the forum asking these questions and it might be good to know.

The CHI points out:

1) A year waiting period if need be(depends on the Bishop and seems to refer to one year after name removal action).

2) SP tries to find out if person was in transgression at the time of name removal...or after. Transgression is defined as formally joining another church, teaching apostate ideas, following apostate ideas, plural marriage, teaching incorrect doctrine after being corrected by the Bishop, Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the church or its leaders, etc.

3) Restoration of PH, blessings, and temple handled same as exed.

It appears that there can likely be an official member record annotation of a person who has once asked that their name be taken off the records of the church. So, it could be, depending on the Bishop(and SP), one might not exactly be fully restored I would think. CHI states that the church HQ "...will automatically annotate a person's membership record in any of the following situations:" CHI then lists the situations including name removal as, "...the person has committed one of these transgressions before or after excommunication or name removal."

Annotations MAY be removed if the SP recommends it and IF the 1st Presidency approves it. The one comment I have heard back from two people is that the 1st Presidency may never get around to approving. I wasn't sure on the record but the CHI states it now that I read it. So, the record may never remove an annotation and one will be looked at as "tainted goods" even if they have repented. There is a "Special Comments" section listed in the CHI but it doesn't say too much about that. It just says there may be "special comments" in the membership record.

It all depends on the SP, and Bishop. If the SP, or Bishop thinks that unbelief or attending another church are transgressions, after the Bishop tried explaining things then that may be cause for a disciplinary council. The CHI does not delve into the small details of transgressions. What one Bishop thinks is a transgression another might not. The Bishop and SP are the wildcards here. There are many kinds of SPs and Bishops out there. Some might be merciful and forgiving. Some might be hard hearted. It depends. I have had them both in my life.

For me, I think I was automatically a member of another church, as they count you a member after a few months of regular attendance. So, I probably fail on that one...as I knew this was the church's bylaw. I had long discussions with the Bishop about doctrine before I resigned(Even after that as the next Bishop worked for me and we lunched often. He talked a lot and I disagreed some.). I might fail on the Bishop talk and my unbelief after it is all said and done with. It is highly possible that I could be brought up on charges in a disciplinary council.

Not exactly the same as exed...but some similarities.

If I recall correctly, in the 1980's the only way to remove a person's name from the Church records was excommunication. The process of name removal as we know it now was established to streamline things a little. A disciplinary council is a lot of work for someone who doesn't want to show up and wants to be excommunicated. Functionally, however, excommunication and name removal are the same thing; even the same forms are filed.

What's more, Handbook 1, 6.14.4 states that restoration of priesthood and temple blessings is handled the same way as it is for excommunicated members.

I think that should address the issue of whether anyone knows how it is handled for someone who has resigned their membership as opposed to having been excommunicated

Edited July 8, 2011 by woundedknee

[Suzie]

If I recall correctly, in the 1980's the only way to remove a person's name from the Church records was excommunication. The process of name removal as we know it now was established to streamline things a little.

After a couple of lawsuits.

[Guest Sachi001]

When you say "resigned". Did you mean as in the context of just being in active or asked for your name to be removed from church records?

[woundedknee]

Fairly certain this thread started out as resigned, as in name removal. And that is my context, too. Inactivity would not usually require rebaptism unless a church court was convened after finding out that the inactive person transgressed one of the listed transgressions in the CHI.

When you say "resigned". Did you mean as in the context of just being in active or asked for your name to be removed from church records?

[Carl62]

In fact, a really good friend of mine was x'd and returned. He met with a gen. auth. to receive his priesthood again...he was told that the reason he was ex'd was as if it never happened. He was told that if anybody asked why he was ex'd, not to respond, because it did not matter, it no longer existed.

As if it never happened...a completely clean slate. He goes to the temple all the time :)

The atonement is a miracle every day, for every one.

If being ex'd before getting rebaptised is looked upon "as if it never happened", then why is it that 99.999% of those who are rebaptised never end up becoming a bishop, stake president or higher? I don't know if I'm quite sold that SLC looks on it as if it never happened.

[woundedknee]

I think I am in agreement with you. It would appear it does go with you on your record wherever you go. "Scarlet lettered" as it were. I am not quite sure about the statistic you provide but it seems likely to be the case if one has the mark on their record. I am not saying that it would not happen(I know of no such cases) but I have a hard time believing it would since the record would be a large roadblock. Are you saying that Jesus may forgive, and pronounce one clean, but Church Headquarters Records might not be so kind?

If being ex'd before getting rebaptised is looked upon "as if it never happened", then why is it that 99.999% of those who are rebaptised never end up becoming a bishop, stake president or higher? I don't know if I'm quite sold that SLC looks on it as if it never happened.

[LittleWyvern]

While your question has already been answered I do have an experience I can share. While I was on my mission I taught an excommunicated member who just started coming back to church. He worked with the bishop and was going to be baptized in about a month (he had been coming to church for a while beforehand though) and so we came over and taught him the lessons before he was baptized (by his request) He didn't want this baptism to be really public, because a lot of the ward just thought he was a less-active member coming back to church, so we ended up just having a small baptism with only us missionaries, the bishop, and the ward mission leader (because he helped us teach) there. Using that method, the transition was fairly smooth.