Future of an Ex-communicated Member.

[NeuroTypical]

I asked specifically in the Temple about people who were excommunicated and died without coming back into the Church. The sealer (who solicited our questions) said that these people could not be re-baptized by proxy for the dead.

 

Well, at least one person could...

 

In 1870 they excommunicated John D. Lee from the Church.

 

In March, 1877 they executed him.  His last words included:

 

I am a true believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not believe everything that is now being taught and practiced by Brigham Young. I do not care who hears it. It is my last word -- it is so. I believe he is leading the people astray, downward to destruction. 

 

He was re-baptized by proxy for the dead in 1961:

On April 20, 1961, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met jointly and, "it was the action of the council, after considering all the facts available that authorization be given for the reinstatement to membership and former blessings to John D. Lee." Word was sent out to members of the family and on May 8 and 9, the necessary ordinances were performed in the Salt Lake Temple. A complete record is in the files of the Latter-day Saints Genealogical Society. (Mountain Meadows Massacre, p.223)

Edited December 31, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[LeSellers]

Well, at least one person could...

His blessings were restored, he was not re-baptized. The difference is not trivial. Further, it was the leading Councils of the Church that made the decision, not a member submitting the name to the Temple.

Lehi

[Vort]

I mean, I gotta tell you, some of the stuff I hear various ordinance worked talking about is pretty off the wall sometimes. Some are smart and well educated. Some are dumb as rocks. Some are dumb as rock and think they're smart and well educated.

 

My suspicions were raised when I read that a sealer set himself up as a guru, taking all questions. I can see an honest man doing this, but only if he willingly says "I don't know" and "that's beyond my purview" for many questions, limiting himself to answering only those questions which he is qualified to answer.

[NeuroTypical]

His blessings were restored, he was not re-baptized. The difference is not trivial. Further, it was the leading Councils of the Church that made the decision, not a member submitting the name to the Temple.

Lehi

 

I'll need your source there, LeSellers.  What I'm reading says that his membership was reinstated, and that happens through baptism.

[LeSellers]

I'll need your source there, LeSellers.  What I'm reading says that his membership was reinstated, and that happens through baptism.

I checked Family Search and found that he was re-baptized on 15 Aug 1962.

So you are right.

I still rely on the sealer's word for the general case: without First Presidency and Quorum's review and approval, re-baptism seems unlikely to be a normal process for someone who died ecommunicated.

Lehi

[NeuroTypical]

Oh - was the sealer telling you it can't happen, or it can't happen without First Presidency/Qo12 review?  

 

We do lots of things only with 1stPres/Qo12 review.  Sealing cancellations, baptism for the dead of excommunicated members, children from same-sex marriage household getting baptized when adults, removing annotations from member's records, etc.  The brethren are often busy with such administrative matters, and have spoken about such things.

[LeSellers]

Oh - was the sealer telling you it can't happen, or it can't happen without First Presidency/Qo12 review?

It was a couple of years ago, so I don't recall some of the specifics. He said nothing I recall about the First Presidency and Quorum. That would have been something I would normally remember.

Lehi

Edited December 31, 2015 by LeSellers

[thoughts]

drop.  So you are suggesting that excommunicated members, if they get rebaptized, have the advantage of never being at risk for having to serve in a position of leadership that takes so much time away from family and requires such personal stretching and sacrifice? Wouldn't that be considered to be a perk, instead of loss of a future? 

[NightSG]

It was a couple of years ago, so I don't recall some of the specifics. He said nothing I recall about the First Presidency and Quorum. That would have been something I would normally remember.

 

I would think that part generally goes without saying.  I mean, if the top 15 all agree that God said so, we should probably do it.