Rebaptism?

[MarginOfError]

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.

Ah, I think I misinterpreted one of your comments. I had to go back and re-read it a few times with different pacings to get the interpretation that matches this comment.

To answer the issue previously, annotations are used only for denoting transgressors that would put other members at risk if they were to serve in positions (usually positions in which they serve children or youth).

Is that closer to the heart of the curiosity?

[woundedknee]

I would likely want to know if I had a child molester or rapist in my church. That is due diligence. Other than that, would I care if someone fell out of belief and then believed again? But really, how many times is one to be forgiven anyway? 70 x 70.

Ah, I think I misinterpreted one of your comments. I had to go back and re-read it a few times with different pacings to get the interpretation that matches this comment.

To answer the issue previously, annotations are used only for denoting transgressors that would put other members at risk if they were to serve in positions (usually positions in which they serve children or youth).

Is that closer to the heart of the curiosity?

[Vort]

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

To clarify: I have never desired or sought after a "high calling". I am just fine holding more "menial" callings, and do not begrudge the bishop his respected calling and the numerous headaches accompanying it.

But many Saints mistakently use the world's measuring stick in the kingdom of God. A "successful" man, they think, is one who holds "high" station. Thus, to be a successful Latter-day Saint, a man must be a bishop. This attitude extends even to some in the highest leadership positions; witness how often a General Conference speaker illustrates the sincerity of someone's repentance or the good effects of a hard choice made by citing that person's or his children's Church callings ("...and of his six children, three became bishops, one served as a stake president, two were Relief Society presidents, and all six married in the temple...").

This attitude must be recognized and acknowledged, but it does not have to be accepted. We can recognize that leadership callings neither define nor indicate spiritual worthiness. If you are coming back into the Church from excommunication and you find (or think) that such callings are not available to you in this life, then what of it? Your intent in coming back is to become a Saint and join the body of Christ, not to impress your friends and relatives with your callings.

[woundedknee]

I do not believe this is at all scriptural. Maybe my scriptural knowledge is not up to date or haven't seen this. If you could point this out that would be helpful.

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.

[slamjet]

I don't have one scripture for this, but it's what I inferred from my readings. We are forgiven in this life, but we are not made pure until the Resurrection. I don't claim scriptural mastery so I may just as well be wrong.

[Vort]

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.

woundedknee, this is what I'm talking about. One does not "make" the calling of apostle. It's not an achievement. It's not a prize to be won. If the Lord offers you the same gift of eternal life, then it makes no difference to what station you are called in the kingdom.

It is possible that certain transgressions or actions, including excommunication, result in the inability to be called to certain positions in the kingdom of God for this life. Again, so what? If I accidentally kill my neighbor by my thoughtless foolishness, then even if I successfully repent of that foolishness and gain forgiveness, my neighbor is still dead. I can't bring him back. The consequences of my actions will follow me for the rest of my life, even if the moral stain is completely removed. Similarly, if I lose an arm or a leg because of some childhood irresponsibility, repentance from that irresponsibility and growing into a responsible man doesn't magically grow me back my missing limb.

Repentance doesn't mean that everything is exactly as it was before. Repentance means the stain is removed and we can again progress toward God.

[Vort]

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?

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that I would refuse them or that I announced how much I disliked them. On the contrary, I would gladly serve in any position, and I enjoyed the years I spent as a counselor in various elders quorum presidencies. The point is that the callings themselves are unimportant for eternal life and spiritual progression.

I am curious. In your Ward, are there many 50 year old Elders still physically sitting in the Elder's Quorum?

Until about eight or so years ago, one over-50 quorum member came every week and even sat in quorum with his oldest son. Today, I think the oldest elder that attends the elders quorum is in his mid-40s, a few years younger than me.

Do you meet with the High Priests and are still an Elder?

Yes. A couple of years ago, the stake president instructed me (through a bishopric counselor) to attend the high priest group. I was prepared to politely decline an invitation, but I was not willing to refuse a direct request. So now I attend the high priest group.

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.

This is at the discretion of the stake president. He holds the keys of leadership over all the Melchizedek priesthood holders in his stake, and he decides how he wants them attending their meetings. I have been told that there is no formal decision procedure for such things. I have never spoken with my stake president about my own case -- indeed, I have not spoken with the stake president at all since he was called except to say hello as we pass in the halls or briefly chat about my oldest son's mission preparation -- so I don't know what his decision criteria are. But I'm not worried about it. Just as I enjoyed meeting with my quorum, I enjoy meeting with the high priests; they are a great group of men.

[MarginOfError]

To clarify: I have never desired or sought after a "high calling". I am just fine holding more "menial" callings, and do not begrudge the bishop his respected calling and the numerous headaches accompanying it.

Me, on the other hand--I keep a resume ready to hand over at any time

[Carl62]

I don't have one scripture for this, but it's what I inferred from my readings. We are forgiven in this life, but we are not made pure until the Resurrection. I don't claim scriptural mastery so I may just as well be wrong.

Purity in the resurrection and forgiveness in this life are two totally different things. While it's true that in the resurrection we will be made perfect, but while on this earth we will make mistakes, thus the need for forgiveness. If we say that we forgive our brother for some wrongdoing, yet later use that to say that he can't be a part of something because of that error, than have we truly forgiven in the way Christ wants us to forgive? Don't think so. This is not the kind of forgiveness where God says he will take away our sins and remember them NO MORE. Let's fess up. If people are secretly being excluded from positions as a result of their past errors, then we have NOT truly forgiven in the way Christ wants us to. To think otherwise is being very disingenuous.

[MarginOfError]

Purity in the resurrection and forgiveness in this life are two totally different things. While it's true that in the resurrection we will be made perfect, but while on this earth we will make mistakes, thus the need for forgiveness. If we say that we forgive our brother for some wrongdoing, yet later use that to say that he can't be a part of something because of that error, than have we truly forgiven in the way Christ wants us to forgive? Don't think so. This is not the kind of forgiveness where God says he will take away our sins and remember them NO MORE. Let's fess up. If people are secretly being excluded from positions as a result of their past errors, then we have NOT truly forgiven in the way Christ wants us to. To think otherwise is being very disingenuous.

The thing is, Carl, that I don't think that they are being completely denied those opportunities. Let's put it in these terms:

A stake president is considering persons A and B to serve as a bishop in a ward. Both candidates are in the 50's. Both candidates grew up in the church. Both served missions. Both were married in the temple.

Candidate A requested his name be removed at age 33 and was readmitted at age 37.

Candidate B has never had his name removed.

In all other aspects, the two brethren can be considered the same. As a stake president, which one do you feel more comfortable recommending to the First Presidency?

There are also issues about image, reputation, example. For instance, we don't send young men on missions if they have a history of repeated sexual activity. Even if the youth was 16 at the time of his indiscretions, it can disqualify him from missionary service, even if he repents. The reason is about message: they don't want to open the door to rationalizations like, "Well, that person got to go break all the commandments and then came back and look where they are."

Again, yeah, it stinks. But Paul did say that the leaders of the Church should be above reproach.

[Carl62]

The thing is, Carl, that I don't think that they are being completely denied those opportunities. Let's put it in these terms:

A stake president is considering persons A and B to serve as a bishop in a ward. Both candidates are in the 50's. Both candidates grew up in the church. Both served missions. Both were married in the temple.

Candidate A requested his name be removed at age 33 and was readmitted at age 37.

Candidate B has never had his name removed.

In all other aspects, the two brethren can be considered the same. As a stake president, which one do you feel more comfortable recommending to the First Presidency?

There are also issues about image, reputation, example. For instance, we don't send young men on missions if they have a history of repeated sexual activity. Even if the youth was 16 at the time of his indiscretions, it can disqualify him from missionary service, even if he repents. The reason is about message: they don't want to open the door to rationalizations like, "Well, that person got to go break all the commandments and then came back and look where they are."

Do I agree with you on all these points? Yes. But is this the true form of forgiveness that Christ wants us to live our lives by? No. Actually, according to your own analogy, you just excluded Paul the apostle himself since he played a part in the stoning of Stephen. Christ felt he deserved a second chance.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Carl62

[MarginOfError]

Do I agree with you on all these points? Yes. But is this the true form of forgiveness that Christ wants us to live our lives by? No.

Well why not? A man molests my child. If I find it in my heart to forgive him, does that mean I let him babysit my child?

[Vort]

Do I agree with you on all these points? Yes. But is this the true form of forgiveness that Christ wants us to live our lives by? No.

What does serving in a Church calling have to do with forgiveness?

[applepansy]

While it's true that in the resurrection we will be made perfect, but while on this earth we will make mistakes, thus the need for forgiveness. .

Carl you've got this a little mixed up. We do not gain perfection through resurrection. See Alma 12. Perfection comes AFTER judgement.

Yes on this earth we all make mistakes. Look at it this way: Take a clean white sheet of paper out of your printer. Then take a pencil and poke a hole through it. Now, "repent" and fix the hole. You can apply tape. You can add another piece of paper and glue it over the hole. But no matter how hard you "repent" you can't make the hole go away.

There are some sins that will never be completely forgiven in this life. That's why we have the atonement and its why we will need to present ourselves before Christ at the Seat of Mercy.

[applepansy]

What does serving in a Church calling have to do with forgiveness?

I think what Carl is saying is that if someone repents and is forgiven then any church calling should be available to them. If the calling isn't available to them then someone is holding a grudge and hasn't forgiven them. (Carl, am I correct in how I summarized?)

But it doesn't work that way in this life.

[Vort]

No, I don't agree with the "hole in the board" theory of atonement. True, there are consequences to our actions, and repentance does not make those consequences magically vanish. But when we are forgiven, I believe we are truly forgiven, and not with a hole left in the board.

[Carl62]

There are some sins that will never be completely forgiven in this life.

Except for blasphemy of the Holy Ghost and murder (in certain instances), what other sins are unforgivable in this life?

[applepansy]

No, I don't agree with the "hole in the board" theory of atonement. True, there are consequences to our actions, and repentance does not make those consequences magically vanish. But when we are forgiven, I believe we are truly forgiven, and not with a hole left in the board.

I agree except that the hole in the board doesn't go completely away until after judgement day.

[Carl62]

Well why not? A man molests my child. If I find it in my heart to forgive him, does that mean I let him babysit my child?

So if a teenager goes into a convenience store, steals a few candy bars, runs out of the store, then comes back a week later, and with sincerety, says to the clerk, "I'm truly sorry I've stolen from you, here is double the money back for the candy bars I've stolen. Please except my apology, I will never do it again". Now if the clerk says to him " I can tell that you are truly sorry and I will completely forgive you for this.....but you will not be allowed back in my store ever again", then what kind of forgiveness is that? Somehow, I don't think this is the kind of attitude that Christ wanted us to have when we are told to forgive our neighbor. This is a "superficial, conditional" kind of forgiveness that I don't think Jesus had in mind when he said we are to forgive "seventy times seven".

[applepansy]

Except for blasphemy of the Holy Ghost and murder (in certain instances), what other sins are unforgivable in this life?

Nothing...but the consequences remain. If I cut off your hand, I can't grow you an new one.

[applepansy]

So if a teenager goes into a convenience store, steals a few candy bars, runs out of the store, then comes back a week later, and with sincerety, says to the clerk, "I'm truly sorry I've stolen from you, here is double the money back for the candy bars I've stolen. Please except my apology, I will never do it again". Now if the clerk says to him " I can tell that you are truly sorry and I will completely forgive you for this.....but you will not be allowed back in my store ever again", then what kind of forgiveness is that? Somehow, I don't think this is the kind of attitude that Christ wanted us to have when we are told to forgive our neighbor. This is a "superficial, conditional" kind of forgiveness that I don't think Jesus had in mind when he said we are to forgive "seventy times seven".

I think you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Stealing a candy bar is different than abusing a child. You can still forgive and not allow the person the opportunity to repeat a grievous sin.

EDIT: I'm off topic. sorry

Edited July 8, 2011 by applepansy

[Vort]

So if a teenager goes into a convenience store, steals a few candy bars, runs out of the store, then comes back a week later, and with sincerety, says to the clerk, "I'm truly sorry I've stolen from you, here is double the money back for the candy bars I've stolen. Please except my apology, I will never do it again". Now if the clerk says to him " I can tell that you are truly sorry and I will completely forgive you for this.....but you will not be allowed back in my store ever again", then what kind of forgiveness is that? Somehow, I don't think this is the kind of attitude that Christ wanted us to have when we are told to forgive our neighbor. This is a "superficial, conditional" kind of forgiveness that I don't think Jesus had in mind when he said we are to forgive "seventy times seven".

How on earth does this apply to whether or not you are extended a certain calling?

[Carl62]

I think what Carl is saying is that if someone repents and is forgiven then any church calling should be available to them. If the calling isn't available to them then someone is holding a grudge and hasn't forgiven them. (Carl, am I correct in how I summarized?)

You got it! So how can we say that we've achieved the true kind of unconditional forgiveness that Jesus wants us to have if people are still holding grudges? If this is the case, then I don't care how you slice or dice it, that's not real forgiveness.

[Carl62]

I think you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Stealing a candy bar is different than abusing a child. You can still forgive and not allow the person the opportunity to repeat a grievous sin.

EDIT: I'm off topic. sorry

It's the same exact thing, only on different levels. You have to allow a person the opportunity to prove that they've changed after they've truly repented, or else then you still have those walls up of unforgiveness. Forgiveness in the way Christ taught is unconditional. It's not a "I forgive you only if..." or "I will forgive you as long as..." Because if that was the case, then forgiveness could be given then taken away, and this is not what Jesus taught. Once you forgive, then you are to act as if that sin never happened ever, or else it's a superficial, phony kind of forgiveness.

[applepansy]

You got it! So how can we say that we've achieved the true kind of unconditional forgiveness that Jesus wants us to have if people are still holding grudges? If this is the case, then I don't care how you slice or dice it, that's not real forgiveness.

You can forgive the guy convicted of raping a child, but you don't place temptation in front of him by letting him babysit. This is what everyone is trying to tell you.