Question about church discipline

[Sullyute]

I think you're not getting the full story from your relative. If the SP didn't think the person was ready, the SP wouldn't even bother to submit the request so I don't think you can blame the SP for the denial. In other words, it is highly unlikely the SP would submit a request form to the Office of the First Presidency but say "I don't really think this guy deserves it". I think if you're going to be annoyed at the denial, you should be annoyed at TSM, HBE, and DFU for they are the ones actually denying the request.

I wonder if the FP really reviews this stuff or if there is a church employee, committeee, or executive secretary somewhere making these decisions. It just seems like the FP would have their hands full with more important things than whether or not to restore blessings or allows a temple divorce. I don't really understand the logic in today's church. :confused2:

[NorthwestUteFan]

The goal I understand. I'm wondering if the leadership organization is getting in the way of implementing the goal.

I'd like to explore the possibility that the structure that these good people operate under is inherently flawed.

There are very many anecdotes pointing to this, but of course there won't be any concrete evidence. I do believe they are striving to do their best but perhaps don't hear enough feedback from the lay members to recognize there is a problem.

On the other hand, somewhere around 2/3 of the members on the records worldwide are less active/inactive. It would seem logical that they would want to get temple access to people who are willing and able to attend.

[Northwestcoug]

There is no official policy that states you must wait multiple years before receiving restoration of blessings. There is a minimum wait of one year before application to receive restoration of blessings can be made. That being said, restoration of blessings requires approval of the First Presidency - not the line GA the SP reports to. In fact, the Bishop/SP submit the restoration of blessings form directly to the Office of the First Presidency.

It is the First Presidency that would deny a request and tell them to come back at a later time. I don't know the reasons why the FP would would deny the request but obviously one can't ask the SP to submit a request for First Presidency approval every single month so I can see why a SP would tell a person, once he has been denied, to wait before reapplying again.

I think you're not getting the full story from your relative. If the SP didn't think the person was ready, the SP wouldn't even bother to submit the request so I don't think you can blame the SP for the denial. In other words, it is highly unlikely the SP would submit a request form to the Office of the First Presidency but say "I don't really think this guy deserves it". I think if you're going to be annoyed at the denial, you should be annoyed at TSM, HBE, and DFU for they are the ones actually denying the request.

You're probably right. I may not know the whole story or I'm forgetting details. My wife has discussed this with him on more than one occasion. It seems to me that the stake president would probably have delayed him getting the blessing restored at first, then recently started to send the application to the 1st presidency.

Are rebaptisms after excommunications handled the same way? It was quicker for him to get rebaptized.

[Northwestcoug]

I wonder if the FP really reviews this stuff or if there is a church employee, committeee, or executive secretary somewhere making these decisions. It just seems like the FP would have their hands full with more important things than whether or not to restore blessings or allows a temple divorce. I don't really understand the logic in today's church. :confused2:

That's a very good question. Thinking about it, I would guess that the 1st presidency only looks at these requests after it has been processed by a lot other people in the COB. I doubt they are praying over each name that comes them for requests.

[BigFatMeanie]

You're probably right. I may not know the whole story or I'm forgetting details. My wife has discussed this with him on more than one occasion. It seems to me that the stake president would probably have delayed him getting the blessing restored at first, then recently started to send the application to the 1st presidency.

Are rebaptisms after excommunications handled the same way? It was quicker for him to get rebaptized.

Yes - rebaptisms after excommunication are also approved by the first presidency with a minimum of one year wait.

[LA Ute]

I wonder if the FP really reviews this stuff or if there is a church employee, committeee, or executive secretary somewhere making these decisions. It just seems like the FP would have their hands full with more important things than whether or not to restore blessings or allows a temple divorce. I don't really understand the logic in today's church. :confused2:

The FP has a (relatively small) staff and they do work up these applications. They gather the facts, apply guidelines from the FP and then make a recommendation to the FP in each case. Some of the applications are rejected before even getting to the FP because the FP doesn't want to see some applications until certain conditions have been met.

One example I know of, in a different context: If your excommunication was the result of adultery (and you were sealed at the time), and you then marry the person with whom you had the adulterous relationship, it's going to be at least 5 years after restoration of blessings before you are cleared to be sealed to that person. At least that is what I have been told.

[BigFatMeanie]

That's a very good question. Thinking about it, I would guess that the 1st presidency only looks at these requests after it has been processed by a lot other people in the COB. I doubt they are praying over each name that comes them for requests.

To me, SullyUte's question is thick with irony. What is more important than pondering over the eternal salvation of the members of the Church? (i.e. leaving the 99 in order to find the 1)

I would love to see a list of things people consider more important and I'm willing to bet that most of the entries on such a list are actually handled in today's church by the Office of the Presiding Bishop and not the First Presdiency.

[UtahDan]

The FP has a (relatively small) staff and they do work up these applications. They gather the facts, apply guidelines from the FP and then make a recommendation to the FP in each case. Some of the applications are rejected before even getting to the FP because the FP doesn't want to see some applications until certain conditions have been met.

One example I know of, in a different context: If your excommunication was the result of adultery (and you were sealed at the time), and you then marry the person with whom you had the adulterous relationship, it's going to be at least 5 years after restoration of blessings before you are cleared to be sealed to that person. At least that is what I have been told.

LA I have known a couple people who had difficulty getting a sealing clearance and had to reapply several times but were never told why they were not getting approved nor did their stake presidents seem to know. One of them commented to me "it is obvious that some guidelines are being applied and that they would like for us to be complying with those guide lines, so why on earth don't they publish them? Even if it meant waiting longer at least we would have some idea of when we could expect to have a chance of success." That seems logical.

Does anyone know why they are a secret?

[jay santos]

The FP has a (relatively small) staff and they do work up these applications. They gather the facts, apply guidelines from the FP and then make a recommendation to the FP in each case. Some of the applications are rejected before even getting to the FP because the FP doesn't want to see some applications until certain conditions have been met.

One example I know of, in a different context: If your excommunication was the result of adultery (and you were sealed at the time), and you then marry the person with whom you had the adulterous relationship, it's going to be at least 5 years after restoration of blessings before you are cleared to be sealed to that person. At least that is what I have been told.

I think there are a lot of these unwritten rules. Other circumstances could relate to someone who served prison time, molested kids, etc.

[taekwondave]

One example I know of, in a different context: If your excommunication was the result of adultery (and you were sealed at the time), and you then marry the person with whom you had the adulterous relationship, it's going to be at least 5 years after restoration of blessings before you are cleared to be sealed to that person. At least that is what I have been told.

You have been told correctly.

[taekwondave]

Does anyone know why they are a secret?

Not secret. Sacred

[UtahDan]

You have been told correctly.

That one is in the hand book.

[Northwestcoug]

To me, SullyUte's question is thick with irony. What is more important than pondering over the eternal salvation of the members of the Church? (i.e. leaving the 99 in order to find the 1)

I would love to see a list of things people consider more important and I'm willing to bet that most of the entries on such a list are actually handled in today's church by the Office of the Presiding Bishop and not the First Presdiency.

It could be irony. But for me, it's a sincere question. These are people whose lives are completely connected to the church. They've made a mistake and desire to get back into the church. They really want full fellowship. Is it necessary to jump through all the local hoops, and all the way to the first presidency to sort these things out?

[Northwestcoug]

The FP has a (relatively small) staff and they do work up these applications. They gather the facts, apply guidelines from the FP and then make a recommendation to the FP in each case. Some of the applications are rejected before even getting to the FP because the FP doesn't want to see some applications until certain conditions have been met.

One example I know of, in a different context: If your excommunication was the result of adultery (and you were sealed at the time), and you then marry the person with whom you had the adulterous relationship, it's going to be at least 5 years after restoration of blessings before you are cleared to be sealed to that person. At least that is what I have been told.

This goes to the heart of my question. Why 5 years? Doesn't that seem too punitive? Why not treat a baptism like a baptism, and get them back to full fellowship (if that's what they want), as soon as possible? It seems like they want people to suffer more because of the gravity of the situation.

[LA Ute]

I think there are a lot of these unwritten rules. Other circumstances could relate to someone who served prison time, molested kids, etc.

I am sure you are right. Things like the public/scandalous nature of the offense, whether the offender was in a high office, etc. seem to come into play, too. For example, it took an SP who was ex'd in our area a little longer to come back than it probably would have for a "civilian."

LA I have known a couple people who had difficulty getting a sealing clearance and had to reapply several times but were never told why they were not getting approved nor did their stake presidents seem to know. One of them commented to me "it is obvious that some guidelines are being applied and that they would like for us to be complying with those guide lines, so why on earth don't they publish them? Even if it meant waiting longer at least we would have some idea of when we could expect to have a chance of success." That seems logical.

Does anyone know why they are a secret?

My SP and bishop have been telling the people involved what the reasons are, FWIW.