Rebaptism?

[slamjet]

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.

If I remember correctly, there are functions and employment in the church that are affected by whether one has been ex'd or not. So I'm not sure if 100% absolution (for lack of a better term) by the church is realistic. I know there is a mark on the records if sexual attacks have been committed. I'd be interested to know what else a re-baptized member is not permitted, involved with or employed as. I believe seminary teacher is one, but I only know by anecdotal stories.

[Vort]

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.

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?

I'm not sure I understand the fuss.

I am an active Latter-day Saint, born and raised in the Church and from pioneer stock on both sides of my family. I served a mission, I have been active my whole life, I have paid tithing on every penny I ever earned, I have never been subject to any Church discipline, I have held a temple recommend continuously since receiving my endowment at 19 (except for short periods after my recommend expired and I hadn't gotten it renewed). I and my wife were virgins when we married and have never been with any others. I have held numerous callings, have never refused a calling, and have endeavored to fulfill my callings. I am a reasonably regular and diligent home teacher. In short, I am a run-of-the-mill, never-got-in-trouble, active Latter-day Saint.

Yet I have never held any significant leadership position. I am approaching 50 and am an elder, not a high priest. At this point, it looks very likely that I never will hold any leadership position and there is no indication that I will ever be ordained a high priest.

Does Salt Lake have some deep, dark dirt on me from my forgotten childhood that has gotten me blacklisted? Am I handicapped from progressing in the gospel or receiving the blessings God has in store for me, just because my leaders have deemed me somehow unfit for leadership positions?

Or should I just be grateful that the Lord allows me to walk into the chapel each Sunday, worship with my fellow Saints, and even hold a calling that allows me to contribute to the kingdom in some small way?

If those who have been excommunicated and then come back never get called to leadership positions, they can join all the rest of us down in the congregation and just be thankful to be a part of the kingdom, figuring out how best to sustain and uplift those who are called to such positions.

[MichaelPAGuy]

I resigned in October 2007. I lost the priesthood and everything else. I had to wait a whole year until I could get rebaptized. During that time I had to meet monthly with my bishop and my stake president. I had to receive permission from my stake president saying that I could get baptized again. In November 2010 I received all of my blessings back that I had lost when I resigned. However, this had to come from approval from the First Presidency. Yes it was a long wait, but in the end it was worth it. two months after receiving my blessings back I was married in the Anchorage, AK temple.

[slamjet]

If those who have been excommunicated and then come back never get called to leadership positions, they can join all the rest of us down in the congregation and just be thankful to be a part of the kingdom, figuring out how best to sustain and uplift those who are called to such positions.

I'm not sure if I should mention that I'm ex'd and have a Stake calling; Assistant Stake Technical Specialist which is basically an Assistant Stake Clerk position. Granted, I was active and working with the Stake President for at least two years before they called and set me apart for this. It was a desperation calling.

But I think you should keep in mind that, at least for me, I'm going to be so glad to be back into the fold, that I could careless if I have a calling or not. I need re-baptism and my blessing back so I can attend the temple and continue to progress and work out my exaltation. That's my only goal. Everything else is gravy.

Edited July 8, 2011 by slamjet

[woundedknee]

I had no idea at all that it would take 3 years to regain PH and temple. That's one long wait. Two years if you count the one year you had to wait for being rebaptized. Am I correct on this? The two people I have heard from about this have still not had their official membership record cleared of anything by the 1st Presidency...and they have been waiting longer than you. They did get their temple ordinances back but I believe one said it took 1.5 years. They don't think their scarlet letter of resignation/rebaptism will be removed.

I'm not sure Paul or Peter would be good LDS members in the in the church today. They could not make an Apostle today. Peter would have the denying Christ three times on his record and Paul would have the Stephen stoning on there. This is a tad upsetting to me because while Christ is able to wash away the dirtiest of sins and not remember them anymore, the church is not incapable of doing that. They will not forget even a period of unbelief that led to resignation.

I resigned in October 2007. I lost the priesthood and everything else. I had to wait a whole year until I could get rebaptized. During that time I had to meet monthly with my bishop and my stake president. I had to receive permission from my stake president saying that I could get baptized again. In November 2010 I received all of my blessings back that I had lost when I resigned. However, this had to come from approval from the First Presidency. Yes it was a long wait, but in the end it was worth it. two months after receiving my blessings back I was married in the Anchorage, AK temple.

[woundedknee]

I believe for you the answer is no. I imagine they don't have deep secrets on you tucked away in their records. For others, they do. For people who resigned, repented and rebaptized, they do have that in the official records making it, for the most part, impossible to even be asked to serve in certain leadership positions such as Bishop, SP, maybe even counselors to them, etc.

I understand your point about not wanting those leadership positions. You don't want them and so you may not be called. Maybe they know you would not take the job if you were called? Maybe you live in an area where most people can't expect more of a job than an assistant magazine rep(that's the job for me that i've never had). In other words, they are forever tainted but you have no such stink upon your records. I am making a distinction here between ex-communication for some heinous transgression(such as sexual predation) and resignation due to a period of unbelief.

I am curious. In your Ward, are there many 50 year old Elders still physically sitting in the Elder's Quorum? Do you meet with the High Priests and are still an Elder? Many have chimed in to me on this saying they have received social promotions to the High Priest Group. It has been inconsistent across Wards, too. Some get socially promoted but not ordained to the HPG, some get ordained at a certain age to the HPG, and some have mentioned 49 being a magic number in their Ward. Some say 48, and some 50. It's inconsistent from unit to unit.

I'm not sure I understand the fuss.

I am an active Latter-day Saint, born and raised in the Church and from pioneer stock on both sides of my family. I served a mission, I have been active my whole life, I have paid tithing on every penny I ever earned, I have never been subject to any Church discipline, I have held a temple recommend continuously since receiving my endowment at 19 (except for short periods after my recommend expired and I hadn't gotten it renewed). I and my wife were virgins when we married and have never been with any others. I have held numerous callings, have never refused a calling, and have endeavored to fulfill my callings. I am a reasonably regular and diligent home teacher. In short, I am a run-of-the-mill, never-got-in-trouble, active Latter-day Saint.

Yet I have never held any significant leadership position. I am approaching 50 and am an elder, not a high priest. At this point, it looks very likely that I never will hold any leadership position and there is no indication that I will ever be ordained a high priest.

Does Salt Lake have some deep, dark dirt on me from my forgotten childhood that has gotten me blacklisted? Am I handicapped from progressing in the gospel or receiving the blessings God has in store for me, just because my leaders have deemed me somehow unfit for leadership positions?

Or should I just be grateful that the Lord allows me to walk into the chapel each Sunday, worship with my fellow Saints, and even hold a calling that allows me to contribute to the kingdom in some small way?

If those who have been excommunicated and then come back never get called to leadership positions, they can join all the rest of us down in the congregation and just be thankful to be a part of the kingdom, figuring out how best to sustain and uplift those who are called to such positions.

[woundedknee]

Help me understand, please. You are an exed member. You have not been rebaptized yet and hold a stake calling? I am not sure about this calling, as I don't see it in the CHI. I guess I did not know non-members could hold any calling in a stake, though. Your name was announced in some meeting and people raised their hand to your calling?

I'm not sure if I should mention that I'm ex'd and have a Stake calling; Assistant Stake Technical Specialist which is basically an Assistant Stake Clerk position. Granted, I was active and working with the Stake President for at least two years before they called and set me apart for this. It was a desperation calling.

But I think you should keep in mind that, at least for me, I'm going to be so glad to be back into the fold, that I could careless if I have a calling or not. I need re-baptism and my blessing back so I can attend the temple and continue to progress and work out my exaltation. That's my only goal. Everything else is gravy.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I once knew a non-member that had a calling on the ward level.

[woundedknee]

Interesting. I've never seen it except in a branch I had been in one time that was fairly hard up for workers. They had a guy whose wife was a member but he was never LDS. He was asked to go along on home teaching visits. In that Branch, if you were willing to home teach you had a LOT of people to visit. In slamjet's case I can't help but think about as ..."Well, we will try you out for a while and see how it goes before we baptize you again." Good enough to serve in a calling but not to be rebaptized and restored.

I once knew a non-member that had a calling on the ward level.

[MarginOfError]

Annotations are put on records in instances of incest, child abuse, molestation, plural marriage, sex change, repeated homosexual activity, embezzlement of Church funds, and predatory conduct.

When a person is readmitted, their baptism is marked as "Readmission" (not "Child of Record" or "Convert"). The status of the baptism does not appear on the local membership record*, but it's easy to query from the general database. So no, a person who is readmitted will never get rid of that mark. But it isn't an annotation on the record.

People who have been readmitted may serve in any calling unless an annotation exists on their record.

If there were a question on the form to recommend an individual to the First Presidency for bishop about prior name removal or disciplinary action, that might explain why we see so few of these people in these positions. That recommend form also asks questions about prior church service, duration of marriage, previous divorce, etc. The church could also run checks against their central database to see what type of baptism is on the person's record.

Ultimately, the First Presidency issues the call to bishops, and the Quorum of the Twelve to stake presidents. They will call the person they feel the Lord considers to be the right candidate at the time, based upon the stake president or area presidency's recommendations. If they feel that the best person is someone that has been readmitted, the call will be issued.

Is there a bias against people who have been readmitted? Almost certainly. But the Lord never promised that repentance would allow one to escape temporal consequences of their actions. He only promised that the eternal consequences would be removed. Does that stink? Yes; and people affected by that have my sympathy. But I don't think it's categorically bad policy.

* If a person has had their blessings restored, an observant person could infer readmission since the ordination and endowment dates would be earlier than the baptismal date. But not many people give that much attention to detail.

[MarginOfError]

Help me understand, please. You are an exed member. You have not been rebaptized yet and hold a stake calling? I am not sure about this calling, as I don't see it in the CHI. I guess I did not know non-members could hold any calling in a stake, though. Your name was announced in some meeting and people raised their hand to your calling?

I once knew a non-member that had a calling on the ward level.

By policy, non-members may hold callings that do not involve teaching, administration, or ministerial work. For instance, they may be accompanists, music leaders (but not Primary music leader), scout leaders). However, the handbooks are quite clear that excommunicated members are not permitted to hold callings.

In slamjet's case, his stake presidency appears to have decided that his skill, their need, and his progress toward readmission have created an environment in which extending a calling is worthwhile. His is a rare situation, and it is highly possible that if there were any member of the church capable of doing that work as well as he does, slamjet wouldn't have the calling (no offense intended, slamjet). Either the stake presidency is doing this with the permission of the area presidency, or they're being very quiet about it to the area presidency. Either way, I think they made a good call.

[Guest saintish]

* If a person has had their blessings restored, an observant person could infer readmission since the ordination and endowment dates would be earlier than the baptismal date. But not many people give that much attention to detail.

In the 2006 CHI it said that the original Baptism dates were restored after restoration of blessings, Has this changed?

[Guest Sachi001]

I'm not sure I understand the fuss.

Yet I have never held any significant leadership position. I am approaching 50 and am an elder, not a high priest. At this point, it looks very likely that I never will hold any leadership position and there is no indication that I will ever be ordained a high priest.

Does Salt Lake have some deep, dark dirt on me from my forgotten childhood that has gotten me blacklisted? Am I handicapped from progressing in the gospel or receiving the blessings God has in store for me, just because my leaders have deemed me somehow unfit for leadership positions?

Or should I just be grateful that the Lord allows me to walk into the chapel each Sunday, worship with my fellow Saints, and even hold a calling that allows me to contribute to the kingdom in some small way?

If those who have been excommunicated and then come back never get called to leadership positions, they can join all the rest of us down in the congregation and just be thankful to be a part of the kingdom, figuring out how best to sustain and uplift those who are called to such positions.

Hmm...never say never Vort. You just might get the calling one day. Then sleep will be gone for 5 years.

Besides the Lord is no respecter of persons. Example as The LDS church split and Brigham was made First President. Which parallels the same as Moses passing the staff and leadership to Joshua by revelation. Moses did not pass it on to family.

Sometimes some may think it's a case of such type of file letter stopping them. However from what I see in the murmurings, and lack of gratitude, and lack of faith in the lord.It just shows me that some are not suited to lead his flock. Is it any wonder when PH seem to think they know more then those he chose to lead. That the Lord usually picks the humble and meek to lead and not the arrogant and suspicious know it alls.

Like I said the lord is no respecter of persons.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

..."Well, we will try you out for a while and see how it goes before we baptize you again." Good enough to serve in a calling but not to be rebaptized and restored.

I disagree. I was thinking fellowship, but MoE's response works for me. :)

[applepansy]

Interesting. I've never seen it except in a branch I had been in one time that was fairly hard up for workers. They had a guy whose wife was a member but he was never LDS. He was asked to go along on home teaching visits. In that Branch, if you were willing to home teach you had a LOT of people to visit. In slamjet's case I can't help but think about as ..."Well, we will try you out for a while and see how it goes before we baptize you again." Good enough to serve in a calling but not to be rebaptized and restored.

We have had non-members in callings too. Tjey were mostly cub scout positions, but also others. Not teaching positions, more positions of service.

[woundedknee]

Thanks for posting this. It helps others in this situation. Many always ask about this very thing but few have answers. The answer is that one is never FULLY restored in the church. God may wipe clean but the church doesn't. For me, this is disheartening.

Is there a bias against people who have been readmitted? Almost certainly. But the Lord never promised that repentance would allow one to escape temporal consequences of their actions. He only promised that the eternal consequences would be removed. Does that stink? Yes; and people affected by that have my sympathy. But I don't think it's categorically bad policy.

Edited July 8, 2011 by woundedknee

[slamjet]

By policy, non-members may hold callings that do not involve teaching, administration, or ministerial work. For instance, they may be accompanists, music leaders (but not Primary music leader), scout leaders). However, the handbooks are quite clear that excommunicated members are not permitted to hold callings.

In slamjet's case, his stake presidency appears to have decided that his skill, their need, and his progress toward readmission have created an environment in which extending a calling is worthwhile. His is a rare situation, and it is highly possible that if there were any member of the church capable of doing that work as well as he does, slamjet wouldn't have the calling (no offense intended, slamjet). Either the stake presidency is doing this with the permission of the area presidency, or they're being very quiet about it to the area presidency. Either way, I think they made a good call.

All I know is that when I was extended the call, the Stake First Counselor told me that they discussed it as a presidency, and they discussed it as a High Counsel. They all agreed that this was the right thing to do. I assure you, it surprised the heck out of me. Thing is, there are plenty who are capable of doing this calling in my Stake (and no offense was taken :) ). I truly have no idea why it's me. I know it specifically says in the CHI that I'm not suppose to have a calling, heck, I can't even raise my hand to sustain anyone (I did for me and to welcome others into the Elders Quorum, I didn't see any harm in that). So to answer that question, I have no answer. But I do know that 1) I have felt the Spirit guide me in this calling when the solutions were not easy to come by and 2) They have started the process for re-baptism after being out for almost seven years, and working hard to get back in for a few years.

It is interesting though.

[woundedknee]

I don't think so. The original dates are there. However, there is a message on the record, given to the Ward, that states: "Restoration of Blessings Required". THEN...another record is apparently sent out after that showing the original dates...and the CHI says "with no reference to excommunication". It is unclear to me, based on the CHI, whether the annotations are for the list of transgressions or for what is on the Report of Disciplinary Actions. Either way, it takes the 1st Presidency to get it off the record. That may take years or not happen at all from what I am hearing from others. The level of transgressions depend on the SP and the Bishop. To one, unbelief after being taught and talked to could be considered transgression.

In the 2006 CHI it said that the original Baptism dates were restored after restoration of blessings, Has this changed?

[woundedknee]

Essentially, the do what they want as no one else higher up has a cow about it. Don't worry about it. If you can do the job do it and serve happily, as you appear to be.

All I know is that when I was extended the call, the Stake First Counselor told me that they discussed it as a presidency, and they discussed it as a High Counsel. They all agreed that this was the right thing to do. I assure you, it surprised the heck out of me. Thing is, there are plenty who are capable of doing this calling in my Stake (and no offense was taken :) ). I truly have no idea why it's me. I know it specifically says in the CHI that I'm not suppose to have a calling, heck, I can't even raise my hand to sustain anyone (I did for me and to welcome others into the Elders Quorum, I didn't see any harm in that). So to answer that question, I have no answer. But I do know that 1) I have felt the Spirit guide me in this calling when the solutions were not easy to come by and 2) They have started the process for re-baptism after being out for almost seven years, and working hard to get back in for a few years.

It is interesting though.

[woundedknee]

Michael,

I am curious. Are you able to tell if your Ward membership record, and you should be able to look at it and at least verify correctness, has any annotations of restored blessings, note of resigning, any mention of rebaptism, or anything else on it that codes restorative ordinances? If you don't want to go there not to worry. Thanks! SLC has it in their database. This I do know. I'm not sure how much access the local clerks and Bishops have to that database, though.

I resigned in October 2007. I lost the priesthood and everything else. I had to wait a whole year until I could get rebaptized. During that time I had to meet monthly with my bishop and my stake president. I had to receive permission from my stake president saying that I could get baptized again. In November 2010 I received all of my blessings back that I had lost when I resigned. However, this had to come from approval from the First Presidency. Yes it was a long wait, but in the end it was worth it. two months after receiving my blessings back I was married in the Anchorage, AK temple.

[MarginOfError]

In the 2006 CHI it said that the original Baptism dates were restored after restoration of blessings, Has this changed?

The 2010 edition doesn't say (at least not in any obvious place I can look). I could be wrong about that then*, in which case, it'd be impossible to distinguish a person who has been readmitted by looking at their record alone (at the local level).

*and probably am wrong. I doubt MLS has had any change in this regard from the 2006 policies and I've missed the announcement.

[MarginOfError]

I don't think so. The original dates are there. However, there is a message on the record, given to the Ward, that states: "Restoration of Blessings Required". THEN...another record is apparently sent out after that showing the original dates...and the CHI says "with no reference to excommunication". It is unclear to me, based on the CHI, whether the annotations are for the list of transgressions or for what is on the Report of Disciplinary Actions. Either way, it takes the 1st Presidency to get it off the record. That may take years or not happen at all from what I am hearing from others. The level of transgressions depend on the SP and the Bishop. To one, unbelief after being taught and talked to could be considered transgression.

This sounds more like a Special Comment to notify local leaders of expected actions. These would roll off when the actions are completed, such as the blessings being restored. Note, in this instance, it is the Restoration of Blessings that requires First Presidency approval, not the removal of the comment.

[Carl62]

Thanks for posting this. It helps others in this situation. Many always ask about this very thing but few have answers. The answer is that one is never FULLY restored in the church. God may wipe clean but the church doesn't. For me, this is disheartening.

Woundedknee nailed it right there!

[woundedknee]

The CHI says, "In all cases, annotation of membership records is removed only with First Presidency approval upon request from the Stake President." It does not state this for removal of restoration of blessings. That is automatic once the action is completed(once the unit sends the paperwork back to SLC). A new membership record is then sent to the Ward.

This sounds more like a Special Comment to notify local leaders of expected actions. These would roll off when the actions are completed, such as the blessings being restored. Note, in this instance, it is the Restoration of Blessings that requires First Presidency approval, not the removal of the comment.

[slamjet]

Nailed it except for the disheartening part. The world we live in, the Church needs to protect itself from legality, scrutiny and evil designs. It's no wonder that they need to keep records on what had happened. For instance, there would be parents who would be very much against having an ex-con who raped someone who was re-baptized teaching seminary. We may be able to have our sins wiped clean, but the consequences are still there. We may be forgiven, but not until we pass the judgement bar and this earthly period is over are we fully cleansed from our sins and made perfect. At least that's the way I understand it.