Future of an Ex-communicated Member.

[Jay]

I just wanted to know if those excommunicted by the Church or disfellowshipped can ever be offered opportunities to serve as Branch Presidents,Bishops,District and Stake Presidents,and in other general authority callings after readmission?

[yjacket]

I just wanted to know if those excommunicted by the Church or disfellowshipped can ever be offered opportunities to serve as Branch Presidents,Bishops,District and Stake Presidents,and in other general authority callings after readmission?

For excommunication, I believe that is a no.  For disfellowship, I'm not sure.

[Vort]

Someone's got big plans.

[Guest MormonGator]

It would actually be wonderful if they could. St. Paul killed Christians, after all. He was given great authority after he repented. 


Ex-communcated and disfellowshipped members are just like those who have never been after they repent. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

I just wanted to know if those excommunicted by the Church or disfellowshipped can ever be offered opportunities to serve as Branch Presidents,Bishops,District and Stake Presidents,and in other general authority callings after readmission?

 

Why?  Why would anyone want such a calling?  It is one thing to step up when called it is quiet another to seek after or otherwise desire it.  Such calling are not required for salvation or even to be a faithful member.  Such questions seemed to come from people who have no idea how the church really functions.

[Guest MormonGator]

Why?  Why would anyone want such a calling? 

 I agree. I'd turn down any calling more than "Dude who shakes hands with people in the morning" 

[Guest]

Doctrinally, there are no issues.  General authorities have historically been ex-communicated and reinstated as apostles.

 

As a matter of current church policy:  There may be some unwritten rule somewhere either on local or general levels that have some restrictions.  But it is unwritten.  That means there is nothing that anyone can point to in some manual that says: Yup, it says right here that there are restrictions.

 

If it is unwritten, how can a bishop or stake president know about such restrictions? They only guidance they are given is in written form.  And my bishop says he doesn't see it anywhere in his instructions.

 

And if a stake president knows of someone who was recently ex-communicated or even who was guilty of a heinous crime, he may decide to personally not look into calling such a person to a presiding office.  But that is a personal decision at the discretion of the SP and is his right as a presiding officer and judge.

 

Also, ex-communication and reinstatement is recorded.  The reason is that if a person is ex-communicated twice, that's it.  There's no third baptism.

 

As far as disfellowshipping -- While serious, it is not the same thing as ex-communication.  I'd imagine even more leniency is offered those who come back from such discipline.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

Also, ex-communication and reinstatement is recorded somewhere.  I'm not sure where.  The reason is that if a person is ex-communicated twice, that's it.  There's no third baptism.

 

 Why? Shouldn't we forgive people the famous 70 times 7 that Jesus said? 

[Guest MormonGator]

I mean, I get not having people walk all over you, but we are human, after all. 

You got me worried-what sins can be considered worthy of an excommunication?

Edited December 30, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest]

Yes, we as individuals do.  But being a "member in good standing" has certain requirements.  Excommunication sets the bar pretty low (or high depending on how you look at it).  The offense must be severe enough to merit such discipline in the first place.  And if they've done something that severe twice even after coming through the entire process in between... well, it doesn't look too good.

 

A murderer cannot even be baptized in the first place without special review and approval from the First Presidency.  Even if the law of the land says he has paid his debt to society, murder is often considered unforgivable in the eternal scheme.  Not that they will necessarily be sent to Outer Darkness, but most likely the Telestial Kingdom.  

 

Most of the time the First Presidency does not approve such individuals for baptism.  But I have heard of exceptions.

 

Also, adultery also has some serious penalties which can include final excommunication.

 

It's not that we shouldn't still love someone.  It is that after a person has committed serious sins, repented, and then gone back to old ways, the likelihood of true repentance is almost zero.  And given that, they should not be expected to renew covenants on a regular basis.

[Guest MormonGator]

Yes, we as individuals do.  But being a "member in good standing" has certain requirements.  Excommunication sets the bar pretty low (or high depending on how you look at it).  The offense must be severe enough to merit such discipline in the first place.  And if they've done something that severe twice even after coming through the entire process in between... well, it doesn't look too good.

 

A murderer cannot even be baptized in the first place without special review and approval from the First Presidency.  Even if the law of the land says he has paid his debt to society, murder is often considered unforgivable in the eternal scheme.  Not that they will necessarily be sent to Outer Darkness, but most likely the Telestial Kingdom.  

 

Most of the time the First Presidency does not approve such individuals for baptism.  But I have heard of exceptions.

 

Also, adultery also has some serious penalties which can include final excommunication.

 

It's not that we shouldn't still love someone.  It is that after a person has committed serious sins, repented, and then gone back to old ways, the likelihood of true repentance is almost zero.  And given that, they should not be expected to renew covenants on a regular basis.

Thanks for the explanation. 

The most beautiful thing about Christianity is the forgiveness. It's possible for everyone, including murderers and adulterers.  

[pam]

I mean, I get not having people walk all over you, but we are human, after all. 

You got me worried-what sins can be considered worthy of an excommunication?

 

Being a Gators fan.  

[Guest MormonGator]

Being a Gators fan.  

LOL! Love it! 

[pam]

Here is what "gramps" had to say on this:

 

http://askgramps.org/can-one-who-was-excommunicated-and-restored-to-full-membership-hold-leadership-positions

[Palerider]

I just wanted to know if those excommunicted by the Church or disfellowshipped can ever be offered opportunities to serve as Branch Presidents,Bishops,District and Stake Presidents,and in other general authority callings after readmission?

A very good friend of mine was excommunicated and served as a Branch President and served on the High Council with me.

[Guest MormonGator]

When I come prophet, I'm excommunicating Pam. Insults against the Gators are clearly unforgivable. 

In fact, President Monson is on my speed dial. I've already spoken to him, and he assured me it's his first priority for the new year. 

 

Sorry Pam. 

Chomp chomp!!! 
 

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by MormonGator

[Vort]

 

As a matter of current church policy:  There may be some unwritten rule somewhere either on local or general levels that have some restrictions.  But it is unwritten.  That means there is nothing that anyone can point to in some manual that says: Yup, it says right here that there are restrictions.

 

If it is unwritten, how can a bishop or stake president know about such restrictions? They only guidance they are given is in written form.  And my bishop says he doesn't see it anywhere in his instructions.

 

It could be written in a non-publicly-available document.

 

Also, ex-communication and reinstatement is recorded.  The reason is that if a person is ex-communicated twice, that's it.  There's no third baptism.

 

I disbelieve this. Do you have a reference other than a scriptural gloss?

 

Even if the law of the land says he has paid his debt to society, murder is often considered unforgivable in the eternal scheme.  Not that they will necessarily be sent to Outer Darkness, but most likely the Telestial Kingdom.

 

Tell that to Lamoni and his people.

 

Most of the time the First Presidency does not approve such individuals for baptism.  But I have heard of exceptions.

 

Just curious: How are you privy to such knowledge about the frequency of the First Presidency approving such petitions?

 

Also, adultery also has some serious penalties which can include final excommunication.

 

"Final" excommunication as opposed to...what? Or is this the "no rebaptism" idea again?

 

It's not that we shouldn't still love someone.  It is that after a person has committed serious sins, repented, and then gone back to old ways, the likelihood of true repentance is almost zero.

 

If this is true, then we are all lost.

 

And given that, they should not be expected to renew covenants on a regular basis.

 

A reminder that we renew our covenants on a weekly basis. If it is not the same as rebaptism after excommunication, it is still at least a very literal renewal of old covenants, done regularly.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

 

"Final" excommunication as opposed to...what? Or is this the "no rebaptism" idea again?

 

 

If this is true, then we are all lost.

 

\

 

 Yup, I'm doomed. I might as well give up now 

[estradling75]

I know and have heard nothing about a "Final" excommunication.  However it seems perfectly reasonable that more times you go through it the harder it gets to gain approval for re-baptism.  For the simple reason that they should rightfully be asking "What is different this time compared to all the others?"

[Guest MormonGator]

.  For the simple reason that they should rightfully be asking "What is different this time compared to all the others?"

 Because we are human. We are weak, we stumble, we pick up the pieces and try again. 

 

Like I mentioned in a previous post, good thing no one excommunicated St. Paul after killing Stephen. If someone did, there is a very good chance none of us would be here right now. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

 Because we are human. We are weak, we stumble, we pick up the pieces and try again. 

 

Like I mentioned in a previous post, good thing no one excommunicated St. Paul after killing Stephen. If someone did, there is a very good chance none of us would be here right now. 

 

So are you saying the Guardians that Christ has put over this process shouldn't be evaluating the sincerity of the persons repentance?

[Guest MormonGator]

So are you saying the Guardians that Christ has put over this process shouldn't be evaluating the sincerity of the persons repentance?

Nope. 

 

What I am saying is we should be very careful about closing the door. The person we excommunicate today might be the leader of the church tomorrow. You don't know what you might be missing because you can't see into the future. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

Don't get me wrong Estradling-I know what you are saying. I have great faith in the leaders of the church, but I don't think they'd be as strict and heavy handed as some people make them out to be. 

That old saying "Don't try to be more Catholic than the pope?" Don't try to be more LDS than the prophet. 

Joseph was slighted many times, yet he always forgave and usually welcomed people back. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by MormonGator

[NeuroTypical]

I do know it is possible to place a permanent annotation on a member's record, containing information about that member's past actions.  This annotation is pretty much reserved for child abuse or other similar serious incidents, and will usually be accompanied with information about felony convictions.

 

The reason for this is pretty easy to guess.  No matter how repentant of child rape someone may be, think of the victims and their loved ones, should they see the guy off in some other ward being a nursery leader or a bishop.  

 

It's been a while since I've read the bishop's handbook, but it says the 3fold purpose of church discipline is to [quoting from memory here] save the transgressor's soul, protect the innocent, and preserve the good name of the church.  

 

Yeah - you rape a child, your days of serving in the nursery are done for the remainder of your earthly probation.  Happy to see you claiming to be fully repented and an active member and all - but you won't be working with the youth.  It's not that I disbelieve you, but for every truly repentant person, there are a few predators wanting to move from stake to stake and groom new child victims.  That's why we put what you did in your permanent record so wherever you move, your bishop or BP will have access to that information when finding you a calling and meeting your needs.  Yes, even if you have your name removed and then come back later, that annotation survives.  Which means the church maintains a list of removed names.  

 

They tell me the annotation can be removed by a member of the first presidency.

Edited December 30, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[estradling75]

Don't get me wrong Estradling-I know what you are saying. I have great faith in the leaders of the church, but I don't think they'd be as strict and heavy handed as some people make them out to be. 

That old saying "Don't try to be more Catholic than the pope?" Don't try to be more LDS than the prophet. 

Joseph was slighted many times, yet he always forgave and usually welcomed people back. 

 

 

I am not saying I know what the leaders will do for an individual.  I am saying that if there is a individual who is complaining (or people complaining on their behalf) that the church will not accept their attempt at re-baptism.  And they are throwing around term like Un-Christ-like and Forgive 70 times 7 and all the other things that have come up in this thread.

 

I am not going to buy it.  Instead I am going to accept as a given that the Church leaders are being Christ-like and the individual in question simply isn't ready.  No matter how much they might proclaim (or others on their behalf) otherwise.