Question about church discipline

[Northwestcoug]

My wife has a family member who was excommunicated a few years ago. He was a Melchisedec priesthood holder, married in the temple, etc. He was rebaptized, if not a year after he was ex'd then shortly thereafter.

As is the case with endowed members, his temple blessings/priviledges were not granted back to him automatically. It sounds like it's a yearly reapplication, where he goes each year to his stake president and asks him if he can get his blessings back to him this time.

It has now been over 5 years since he was rebaptized, and each request to get his temple blessings back has been revoked. His stake president told him last time to not even bother him until next year, when supposedly he can reapply. I assume his stake president is acting under the direction of general authorities.

On the face of it, this seems cruel. I don't understand the doctrine that if someone is found worthy to be rebaptized, isn't this as good as starting over fresh? So why couldn't an ex'd member get temple blessings back a year or so after rebaptism?

Now for some details. This man is in poor health. I doubt he will live more than 5 years. I think he senses that. And all he wants to do is go back to the temple. He is fixated on doing temple work. This delay bothers him and his wife, but so far they have taken it in stride.

Not so with my wife. She is angry (justifiably I think) on a couple of fronts. First, why is the official church policy so punitive? If someone works so hard to get rebaptized (and he did), why continue to punish him/her for years to get temple priviledges back? Is there a good reason for this? The second is a more general issue that has arisen from the first. Is it healthy to allow/accept lay clergy, chosen from our peers, to have so much power over our spiritual lives? Here is a guy who just wants to do what he thinks is right, but is being prevented from doing so by his spiritual leaders.

I'd love to hear from our bishops if they have experience with this type of situation. Does over 5 years seem excessive to give back temple priviledges? Does anyone have other experiences where the time was shorter/longer?

[Jacob]

Seems excessive to me. I have 2 uncles who were exed, then rebaptized. I don't recall such a big delay in returning to the temple. One became a temple worker, but I think that was many years after his return.

[TripletDaddy]

I was under the assumption that in pretty much all cases of church discipline, the overarching goal is to get the individual back to full fellowship and standing as soon as prudently possible, including access to the temple.

[Jacob]

I was under the assumption that in pretty much all cases of church discipline, the overarching goal is to get the individual back to full fellowship and standing as soon as prudently possible, including access to the temple.

That's what I thought, though I guess you can't really get the * removed from your membership records.

[Northwestcoug]

I was under the assumption that in pretty much all cases of church discipline, the overarching goal is to get the individual back to full fellowship and standing as soon as prudently possible, including access to the temple.

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

[smokymountainrain]

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

Yes. He's a victim of a crazy SP and/or GA.

[Joe Public]

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

This is off-topic, but if you're the same Northwestcoug as over on CB, then happy birthday!

[Sullyute]

The second is a more general issue that has arisen from the first. Is it healthy to allow/accept lay clergy, chosen from our peers, to have so much power over our spiritual lives? Here is a guy who just wants to do what he thinks is right, but is being prevented from doing so by his spiritual leaders.

I don't know anyone that has been ex'd let alone rebaptised. But the question above is very interesting. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on you look at it) there is no uniformity in church discipline. Each case is different and each church leader is going to react differently to each case.

I believe that Church leaders have very little power over our spirituality. Spirituality is personal and one's relationship with the divine shouldn't depend upon a third party. So in this regard, your family member is as spiritually free as anyone else.

Now as far as the temple goes, bishops and stake presidents hold the proverbial keys to the door. I actually don't have a problem with a lay local ministry holding this keys. I believe that on average bishops and stake presidents error on the side of getting people to the temple. It sounds like the stake president may be a holding a grudge against the guy, knows something we don't about the situation, or is simply a jerk. Is he worried that he will die without his ordinance restored or does he simply enjoy the temple and want to partake of the spirit he feels there?

[Northwestcoug]

Nope not me. How many northwest cougs are there?

Thanks anyways...

[Northwestcoug]

I believe that Church leaders have very little power over our spirituality. Spirituality is personal and one's relationship with the divine shouldn't depend upon a third party. So in this regard, your family member is as spiritually free as anyone else.

I agree with this. But I doubt the average believing member would think that if he/she weren't allowed access to saving ordinances, would feel spiritually free.

Now as far as the temple goes, bishops and stake presidents hold the proverbial keys to the door. I actually don't have a problem with a lay local ministry holding this keys. I believe that on average bishops and stake presidents error on the side of getting people to the temple. It sounds like the stake president may be a holding a grudge against the guy, knows something we don't about the situation, or is simply a jerk. Is he worried that he will die without his ordinance restored or does he simply enjoy the temple and want to partake of the spirit he feels there?

Probably both. He really enjoys the temple and wants to return. And he probably realizes he's not long for this world, and wants to make it 'right' with God.

I agree that most leaders are good people, and are really trying to do what's right. I'd like to explore the possibility that the structure that these good people operate under is inherently flawed.

[jay santos]

I wouldn't assume it was the SP's fault. There could be a lot going on you don't know about. I think excommunication is becoming more rare, but given excommunication I don't think this is extremely uncommon to make someone wait a long time to have blessings restored for reasons that may not be that easy to understand. The whole church discipline thing is a terrible system that should be abolished.

[BigFatMeanie]

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.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this a situation that must be cleared with the first presidency? I know that obtaining permission to be sealed to another person after a temple divorce requires clearance from the first presidency, and that it can be exceedingly difficult to get clearance. In fact I have heard several people claim the direction from the COB is that people shouldn't plan on getting clearance for a temple sealing, and to get married civilly first and go to the temple after waiting a year (despite being declared worty to hold a temple recommend by the bishop and stake president).

If so, has this relative been cleared for a TR by his bishop and stake president, or is the SP holding it up? If the SP has cleared him, but is waiting for clearance from the COB, then that is another story. The bureaucracy is slower than molasses. It is almost as though they do not believe in the power of 'forgiveness'.

My own nephew went through hell and back to get cleared to go back to his mission. Personally I am exceedingly proud of him for doing it, although the whole ordeal nearly made his parents leave the church completely. My nephew was sent home for some unresolved 'thing' or other as missionaries sometimes are, but was not disfellowshipped or exed. After he was had been home for a year and was cleared to go out again by the bish and sp, the COB essentially told him to plan on not returning. When he finally got his clearance to return (~15 months after coming home) they stalled sending in the papers for his Visa, and he was delayed a while later again. Essentially he left on his mission at age 19, and returned home a few months before his 23rd birthday, with an 18+ month delay in the middle.

edit - I see BFM confirmed my first question, that this is being held up at the COB level. Best of luck!

[The Rambam]

DC 128 purports that what Church leaders do here on Earth, bind God in eternity as to the salvation of God's children. If you believe DC 128, then you believe that this brother is, by the Church's decision, barred from a fullness of Celestial glory and there is nothing God can do about it (aside from asking earthly Church leaders to change their minds).

Of course maybe God isn't bound by the records kept on Earth by the Church and can fully bless and exalt all those with a broken heart and contrite spirit regardless of what their Church record states.

I would encourage the brother to re-read the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee in Luke 18. He is probably just fine. That parable should mean everything to him right now.

[smokymountainrain]

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.

Perhaps the SP isn't willing to submit the request, hence the problem.