Rebaptism?

[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.

Forgiveness doesn't mean you place someone back in temptation. Such as: convicted of child molestation = the person doesn't teach primary.

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.

Do you have children? If so, are you comfortable allowing someone who had been convicted of molesting a child, excommunicated, did their time, rebaptized, to teach your child in Primary?

Edited July 8, 2011 by applepansy

[Carl62]

Forgiveness doesn't mean you place someone back in temptation. Such as: convicted of child molestation = the person doesn't teach primary.

So then that means you don't allow the person the opportunity to show that they've changed? How can a person say that they've been forgive by somebody yet not be given a chance to show that they have changed? You can't say that you forgive somebody, then not give them the benefit of the doubt that they've turned their heart around towards their misdead. If not, then where is true forgiveness in this? You can't have one, and not the other.

[applepansy]

So then that means you don't allow the person the opportunity to show that they've changed? How can a person say that they've been forgive by somebody yet not be given a chance to show that they have changed? You can't say that you forgive somebody, then not give them the benefit of the doubt that they've turned their heart around towards their misdead. If not, then where is true forgiveness in this? You can't have one, and not the other.

Yes you most certainly can. And I will go so far as to say if a person is placing temptation in front of someone else, knowing they have a weakness, then that person is guilty of a greater sin.

EDIT: Show me scripture that requires I place someone in temptations path to prove I've forgiven them. Scripture says "turn the other cheek", it doesn't say "stand there and get beat to death."

Edited July 8, 2011 by applepansy

[LittleWyvern]

So then that means you don't allow the person the opportunity to show that they've changed? How can a person say that they've been forgive by somebody yet not be given a chance to show that they have changed? You can't say that you forgive somebody, then not give them the benefit of the doubt that they've turned their heart around towards their misdead. If not, then where is true forgiveness in this? You can't have one, and not the other.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating a bit on what MoE said, but sometimes actions have temporal consequences that we still have to face even if we've fully repented. Often for serious sins these temporal consequences become lifelong struggles. Just because we have something left behind doesn't mean God hasn't forgiven us, it just means that God doesn't meddle with the temporal consequences of our actions. Through repentance, the spiritual consequence is gone, and ultimately that's the only thing that really matters in an eternal perspective. The temporal consequence, then, becomes an annoyance (a scar, put symbolically as some do) and nothing more.

So, in this specific instance, I'm sure that your hypothetical person has no issue with the church with whether or not he is forgiven. I'm sure that he's (hypothetically) a great person, and I'd (hypothetically) fully trust him if he said he has fully repented. Not teaching primary is just really a temporal policy done by the church that I'm sure has no influence on their spiritual standing in the church.

[Carl62]

Do you have children? If so, are you comfortable allowing someone who had been convicted of molesting a child, excommunicated, did their time, rebaptized, to teach your child in Primary?

You're absolutely right! I would not be comfortable with a child of mine being in a classroom with a rebaptised, convicted child molester. And that is my problem. I can honestly say that I would not be at a 100% comfortable position of forgiving that person. Maybe one day I will. This is something that I have to work out between God and myself. Yet on the other hand, I don't think it's right to lead a person to think that they've been forgiven, rebaptise them, say that they're sins are no more, then withhold blessings from them later on for something that was to be "completely blotted out". This is not the kind of bait and switch forgiveness that Jesus taught we are to have.

[applepansy]

You're absolutely right! I would not be comfortable with a child of mine being in a classroom with a rebaptised, convicted child molester. And that is my problem. I can honestly say that I would not be at a 100% comfortable position of forgiving that person. Maybe one day I will. This is something that I have to work out between God and myself. Yet on the other hand, I don't think it's right to lead a person to think that they've been forgiven, rebaptise them, say that they're sins are no more, then withhold blessings from them later on for something that was to be "completely blotted out". This is not the kind of bait and switch forgiveness that Jesus taught we are to have.

Nobody is withholding blessings.

[Carl62]

Yes you most certainly can. And I will go so far as to say if a person is placing temptation in front of someone else, knowing they have a weakness, then that person is guilty of a greater sin.

EDIT: Show me scripture that requires I place someone in temptations path to prove I've forgiven them. Scripture says "turn the other cheek", it doesn't say "stand there and get beat to death."

So how do automatically know that that person has a temptation or a weakness after they've repented? For instance, my girlfriend is a 5 year recovering alcoholic and can honestly say she has experienced no temptations whatsoever, especially since she's around it with living above her father (and his bar friends) who is an everyday drinking alcoholic. She has no desire for it whatsoever anymore. I've seen her placed in serious situations where if she wanted to slip back she could have but she didn't. People can change, you know.

[MarginOfError]

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".

Agreed. But doesn't severity of the action warrant consideration (and age and maturity of the offender).

Let's take a similar offense, but step it up a notch. A financial clerk embezzles money out of the weekly donations. He is found to have taken several thousands of dollars. He works at repenting, is readmitted to the Church. What is the wisdom of calling him as financial clerk again? It's unwise to expose both the Church and the individual to the risk.

[MarginOfError]

So how do automatically know that that person has a temptation or a weakness after they've repented? For instance, my girlfriend is a 5 year recovering alcoholic and can honestly say she has experienced no temptations whatsoever, especially since she's around it with living above her father (and his bar friends) who is an everyday drinking alcoholic. She has no desire for it whatsoever anymore. I've seen her placed in serious situations where if she wanted to slip back she could have but she didn't. People can change, you know.

EXACTLY! And who's to say that in five years, your girlfriend hasn't developed the desire to go back.

People change, and can change from one extreme to the other rather unpredictably. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Forgive me for not pursuing statistical analysis of what I'm about to state (even though Bayesian analysis would take it as a given), but people who have already committed an offense are more likely to commit it in the future than those who have not. That propensity isn't something repentance can cure.

[woundedknee]

The original post of this thread was talking about rebaptism AFTER RESIGNING not after being exed. While some paperwork is the same it's not all the same. We can all agree that child molestation is not the same as stealing a candybar.

In both instances these two perpetrators may fully repent. However, the temptation to steal another candybar could still be there...and the consequences would be the loss of a candybar from the store owner. On the other hand, if the child molester goes back to his way, then the loss is much more detrimental and long lasting. Innocence is lost. Psychological issues ensue.

Resigning church membership, by loss of belief, then gaining belief again to be baptized, likely results in no personal harm to others in the Ward. Even if the person loses belief again, it is likely that no physical loss or harm will come to others. Quite different in the scheme of things.

I'll enter into a bit of my personal story now. The Bishop told me I should resign my membership. We were friends and co-workers and he was able to shoot straight with me. I essentially became inactive from my gradual unbelief. I had been EQ President twice, counselor in a few EQ Presidencies, Branch President, Branch President Counselor, Gospel Doctrine teacher, returned missionary, Sunday School teacher, Priests Quorum Advisor, Young Men's President, etc. The Bishop felt that it was in my best interest to resign and gave me the general format for the letter. He felt that at one point I would be able to make a fresh start all over again. I sent the letter back to him and the end of the story is that I got a letter from SLC saying that my name had been removed from the Church records.

What the Bishop and I did not know were the full consequences of resignation that would follow me if I ever did decide to come back into the fold. I just talked with him today(he is no longer a Bishop). He just said that he did not know about the records having annotations like that...as he never had seen one from a person who was resigned then came back. He had seen records from exed people. They contain annotations but he figured there was a difference at the time. That has been many years ago now. I can recall many of the conversations over lunch, dinner, and ballgames that we had. Seems like yesterday to me.

Forgiveness doesn't mean you place someone back in temptation. Such as: convicted of child molestation = the person doesn't teach primary.

Do you have children? If so, are you comfortable allowing someone who had been convicted of molesting a child, excommunicated, did their time, rebaptized, to teach your child in Primary?

[applepansy]

The original post of this thread was talking about rebaptism AFTER RESIGNING not after being exed. While some paperwork is the same it's not all the same. We can all agree that child molestation is not the same as stealing a candybar.

In both instances these two perpetrators may fully repent. However, the temptation to steal another candybar could still be there...and the consequences would be the loss of a candybar from the store owner. On the other hand, if the child molester goes back to his way, then the loss is much more detrimental and long lasting. Innocence is lost. Psychological issues ensue.

Resigning church membership, by loss of belief, then gaining belief again to be baptized, likely results in no personal harm to others in the Ward. Even if the person loses belief again, it is likely that no physical loss or harm will come to others. Quite different in the scheme of things.

I'll enter into a bit of my personal story now. The Bishop told me I should resign my membership. We were friends and co-workers and he was able to shoot straight with me. I essentially became inactive from my gradual unbelief. I had been EQ President twice, counselor in a few EQ Presidencies, Branch President, Branch President Counselor, Gospel Doctrine teacher, returned missionary, Sunday School teacher, Priests Quorum Advisor, Young Men's President, etc. The Bishop felt that it was in my best interest to resign and gave me the general format for the letter. He felt that at one point I would be able to make a fresh start all over again. I sent the letter back to him and the end of the story is that I got a letter from SLC saying that my name had been removed from the Church records.

What the Bishop and I did not know were the full consequences of resignation that would follow me if I ever did decide to come back into the fold. I just talked with him today(he is no longer a Bishop). He just said that he did not know about the records having annotations like that...as he never had seen one from a person who was resigned then came back. He had seen records from exed people. They contain annotations but he figured there was a difference at the time. That has been many years ago now. I can recall many of the conversations over lunch, dinner, and ballgames that we had. Seems like yesterday to me.

I apologize for the high jack.

[woundedknee]

No worries. I just replied to your comments because it talked about child molestation. I just wanted to get the thread back on track. Most people's experience with rebaptism is going to be through excommunication. It seems easy for people to bring that up in a thread on rebaptism.

I apologize for the high jack.

[katycommuter]

Just curious what the concensus here is, or what the official church stance is on "transgression", with regard to frequenting other churches. I have been frequenting another church for almost a year now, along with my family. Does that mean that if we decide to return to the LDS church, we cannot do so without rebaptism? Although we have not formally requested to have our names removed, we have requested that we not be contacted (which has not been altogether honored). I do not have animosity or disdain for the LDS church, but there are certain aspects of the doctrine that I disagree with. That being said, I would be curious to know if, in the eyes of the church, I have already transgressed and would require baptism to return.

[prophetofdoom]

Just curious what the concensus here is, or what the official church stance is on "transgression", with regard to frequenting other churches. I have been frequenting another church for almost a year now, along with my family. Does that mean that if we decide to return to the LDS church, we cannot do so without rebaptism? Although we have not formally requested to have our names removed, we have requested that we not be contacted (which has not been altogether honored). I do not have animosity or disdain for the LDS church, but there are certain aspects of the doctrine that I disagree with. That being said, I would be curious to know if, in the eyes of the church, I have already transgressed and would require baptism to return.

Simply attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if you join and become a member of another church, it is possible that church action might be taken. There are many factors to consider when any type of church discipline takes place.. it isn't cut and dry in many circumstances.

If you decide to come back to the LDS Church... most likely you will be received with open arms. There is no tribunal with an axe to grind waiting to excommunicate people. From my limited understanding, people are excommunicated for apostasy when they are deliberately, publicly working against the church.

Edited September 6, 2011 by prophetofdoom

[katycommuter]

Simply attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if you join and become a member of another church, it is possible that church action might be taken. There are many factors to consider when any type of church discipline takes place.. it isn't cut and dry in many circumstances.

If you decide to come back to the LDS Church... most likely you will be received with open arms. There is no tribunal with an axe to grind waiting to excommunicate people. From my limited understanding, people are excommunicated for apostasy when they are deliberately, publicly working against the church.

Yeah, that's kind of more along the lines of what I believe regarding this topic. I can't imagine the church would be interested in making the return of someone to its fold more difficult and painful than necessary, just to satisfy some sense of justice for the transgression or "waywardness". Somewhere between this and a hail Mary would be my expectation. Thanks.