Under What Circumstances

[Vex]

Under what circumstances would an individual not be allowed to return to the church after being excommunicated (ie not even allowed fellowship)?

A situation has come up with a family member and I'm curious if there's any standing rules regarding such things. I do not suppose myself a judge in Israel, but I would think there is some direction given to bishops about how to proceed/what is acceptable and what is not.

[thesometimesaint]

Under what circumstances would an individual not be allowed to return to the church after being excommunicated (ie not even allowed fellowship)?

A situation has come up with a family member and I'm curious if there's any standing rules regarding such things. I do not suppose myself a judge in Israel, but I would think there is some direction given to bishops about how to proceed/what is acceptable and what is not.

I'm not sure what you mean by fellowship. We do have dis-fellowship, but that is a less severe penalty than excommunication. As for ex-communicants If they present a continuing threat to the Church and its members. IE: Released from membership because of apostasy, incest, murder.

Edited April 14, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

Under what circumstances would an individual not be allowed to return to the church after being excommunicated (ie not even allowed fellowship)?

A situation has come up with a family member and I'm curious if there's any standing rules regarding such things. I do not suppose myself a judge in Israel, but I would think there is some direction given to bishops about how to proceed/what is acceptable and what is not.

Usually there is a limited number of rebaptisms that are allowed....2 IIRC...at least last time I had a Volume I of the Handbook in my hands there was that limitation.

As for the below, speculation based on common sense...

I would think possibly depending on some sort of criminal behaviour, there might be some limitations of rebaptism, especially if such criminal behaviour had been repeated multiple times in the past.

Multiple cases of adultery over many years might be an issue.

But I would think the standard one would be where there was lacking of evidence of full repentance, for example a refusal to accept the legal consequences of criminal action, refusal to confess known significant sins, refusal to reject false doctrine one has taught in the past, etc.

Edited April 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Saints Alive]

Usually there is a limited number of rebaptisms that are allowed....2 IIRC...at least last time I had a Volume I of the Handbook in my hands there was that limitation.

So much for that whole 70x7 thing.

I seem to remember murder being one offense that would keep a person permenantly excommunicated. The reasoning being that you could not make restitution to the victim in this life and therefore could not be fully repentant.

[Storm Rider]

I am not aware of a single instance where a fellowship i.e. shunning, would take place. An individual may not be offered the opportunity to pray in church, give talks, serve in a calling, etc., but to be shunned, to be labeled as beyond the love of the membership is not a recognized practice within the Church. Excommunication is a private action and unless someone has a need to know i.e. a individual in a leadership position, they would never hear about a member being excommunicated. I do think that common sense is sued in most situations and as long as an individual is not actively working against the welfare of the saints they were welcome to attend meetings. Does this answer your question?

[Calm]

So much for that whole 70x7 thing.

I suspect if the person demonstrated a change of heart and behaviour of repentance much beyond his previous two times that the limit would be reconsidered, but to rebaptize someone who has demonstrated a pattern of yoyoing would not be kind to that individual. I can imagine there are likely very few instances comparatively speaking where someone has been excommunicated three times and desires to be rebaptized yet again. It is much more likely imo to have occurred in the past when records were less able to be complete. Nowadays as each excommunication happened, it would take longer to go through the repentance process I suspect to demonstrate a sincere and lasting change of heart.

Remember we are not talking about minor sins, but ones that may be criminal or lifealtering such as adultery, child abuse, embezzlement, etc. Repentance must be as deep and lifealtering as the sin was.

[Kenngo1969]

... Remember we are not talking about minor sins, but ones that may be criminal or lifealtering such as adultery, child abuse, embezzlement, etc. Repentance must be as deep and lifealtering as the sin was.

Embezzlement isn't a minor sin? Now you tell me?! Shoot! I guess I'll have to go have a corazon-a-corazon with my Bishop. (He's still gonna be disappointed even if I repent, though: my tithing checks won't be nearly as large!)

[MormonMason]

Under what circumstances would an individual not be allowed to return to the church after being excommunicated (ie not even allowed fellowship)?

A situation has come up with a family member and I'm curious if there's any standing rules regarding such things. I do not suppose myself a judge in Israel, but I would think there is some direction given to bishops about how to proceed/what is acceptable and what is not.

There is a whole collection of directions for a bishop to follow. It's all in Handbook 1 of the CHI. See your Bishop to get the necessary information.

Now, from what I know, an interview needed to be done to determine whether your family member completed the repentance process as set forth in the original disciplinary council, the level of repentance undertaken, the degree of faith one has in the Lord Jesus Christ, the level of one's commitment to the Church and its teachings, and whether or not, in the case of actual crime, the person paid his due and served his time for the crimes committed and is no longer on probation, parole, and so forth, or whether the person even turned himself in for the crime committed. This is particularly the case for sexual abuse of a child. There are certain exceptions that can be made but only with First Presidency approval.

The prior Bishop or Stake President (if any) also needs to be contacted and the situation discussed before any proceeding can commence. Depending upon the seriousness of the transgression, First Presidency approval may be required, and is definitely required in such cases as murder, incest, sex offense against a child, apostasy, serious transgression while holding a prominent position of Church leadership, elective transsexual operation, or embezzlement of Church property or Church funds. If this person threatened the well-being of another member of the Church there will have been an annotation and report that may be standing in the way of readmission. There may also be a move restriction on the record, too. If that is the case, the original Bishop or Stake President needs to be contacted to ask for removal of the move restriction. Until that happens nothing can proceed further in the way of readmission.

As I wrote above, see your bishop for the precise details, or have your family member figure out what really is going on. It is possible you may not have all the facts and that your relative has not disclosed the full details of the situation to you.

[ERayR]

I suspect that a conviction for pedophilia would warrant an invitation not to show up at the church. Especially if one was a repeat offender. There are just too many children and the atmosphere is too relaxed to take chances on that one.

[Darren10]

So much for that whole 70x7 thing.

Here:

21 ¶Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

(Mathew 18)

How is that violated by what Calmoriah said?

[Darren10]

I suspect that a conviction for pedophilia would warrant an invitation not to show up at the church. Especially if one was a repeat offender. There are just too many children and the atmosphere is too relaxed to take chances on that one.

There's nothing wrong with a pedophile "showing up" to church. There's something very wrong in placing a pedophile in exclusive contact with children at church.

[Saints Alive]

Here:

(Mathew 18)

How is that violated by what Calmoriah said?

Usually there is a limited number of rebaptisms that are allowed....2 IIRC...at least last time I had a Volume I of the Handbook in my hands there was that limitation.

Im not great at math but I am pretty sure 2 is less than 490 (i.e. 70 X 7)

[Marmonboy]

I believe that the 70x7 thing refers to minor offences, i.e. people torqueing us off, fibs, failure to follow through, etc. The little stuff everyone does every day. For the big stuff, the stuff that mandates excommunication, there is more of a restriction on how many times a person could get away with something and still expect to remain or reenter the church. How many times does one commit adultery, or apostasy, before it is obvoius that one is not really repentant of it, and committed to never doing it again?

[Vex]

I don't want to get into a religious debate (hence why I posted this in the social hall rather than the discussion board).

What makes this whole thing hard to swallow is that while I was going to school I attended a ward where the bishopric actually told us there was a registered sex offender in the ward (as I believe was part of his sentence). He was never asked to not come to church, but he obviously wasn't in full fellowship either. That I understand.

However what I have trouble understanding is this:

"I, too, love GC, but unable to receive broadcast now and I'm not wanted at Church. So, I can't go there to listen. Right after ******* died, I was told not to come back. I was not welcome."

I don't think I have ever heard of an individual being asked not to come back... Has that ever happened before/any instruction regarding that?

To my knowledge he has not attempted to get rebaptized, but he does read, and from what I am told would attend church. Aren't those part of the process of repentance for large transgressions? Increasing ones faith, etc?

[MormonMason]

This person must have caused a lot of trouble or have been predatory in some way to be told this. People considered harmful to the well being of members of his Ward can be asked to leave and not return. I have no desire to offend but another possibility is that the story about the circumstances is not true.

I know a woman in an old Ward, who has borderline personality disorder, who will tell all sorts of horrible stories about people, little of which are true but which may be, in part and from time to time, based upon a kernel of truth for more impact. Not knowing the context of the situation we have no idea of knowing the situation here, or how much is true at all, if any. You certainly are not being told the whole story, though.

[Saints Alive]

I believe that the 70x7 thing refers to minor offences...

Do you have any scriptural support for that or is it just your opinion?

[Vex]

This person must have caused a lot of trouble or have been predatory in some way to be told this. People considered harmful to the well being of members of his Ward can be asked to leave and not return. I have no desire to offend but another possibility is that the story about the circumstances is not true.

I know a woman in an old Ward, who has borderline personality disorder, who will tell all sorts of horrible stories about people, little of which are true but which may be, in part and from time to time, based upon a kernel of truth for more impact. Not knowing the context of the situation we have no idea of knowing the situation here, or how much is true at all, if any. You certainly are not being told the whole story, though.

And of that I have no doubt. I was just curious if there was even a little bit of a possibility in such things being accurate.

All; I appreciate your input, comments, and thoughts on this subject. I will consider this matter discussed in full.

[Kenngo1969]

I suspect that a conviction for pedophilia would warrant an invitation not to show up at the church. Especially if one was a repeat offender. There are just too many children and the atmosphere is too relaxed to take chances on that one.

It might depend on the circumstances. I'm not sure. Perhaps this was before a tightening of policy which no longer permits this kind of thing, but I have heard of cases in which someone, while he or she is not told of the reason for the assignment, is assigned to "shadow" someone at Church to ensure that the "shadowee" is never alone with children under questionable circumstances.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[ERayR]

It might depend on the circumstances. I'm not sure. Perhaps this was before a tightening of policy which no longer permits this kind of thing, but I have heard of cases in which someone, while he or she is not told of the reason for the assignment, is assigned to "shadow" someone at Church to ensure that the "shadowee" is never alone with children under questionable circumstances.

I would suspect that how it would be handled would be at the discretion of the Bishop.

[Calm]

It might depend on the circumstances. I'm not sure. Perhaps this was before a tightening of policy which no longer permits this kind of thing, but I have heard of cases in which someone, while he or she is not told of the reason for the assignment, is assigned to "shadow" someone at Church to ensure that the "shadowee" is never alone with children under questionable circumstances.

This happened in our ward though the people instructed to 'shadow' the individual were told what had happened so as to be better able to fulfill this responsibility. A mentally challenged and physically handicapped man fondled a girl. He was not of the mental level to understand the significance of what he had done. He was in a group home due to his parents being too old to care for him anymore and had picked up on some sexual behaviour there. He had grown up in the ward, it was his extended family and it would have been cruel to deny him the ability to come, especially after his parents died. However, for the safety of others, he was never to be left alone again and he was not to be allowed within a certain distance of children, being confined to a wheelchair made it very possible to enforce these restrictions.

The girl's mother wanted him banned from church (understandably) and they moved shortly there after, but I don't know if they chose to move when it was seen as acceptable for him to come with the restrictions in place or whether it was a job issue. The ward was very transient in some ways due to the location of the ward being in an older, but affluent section of the city where one could get at least twice the house by moving further out.

[Calm]

I would suspect that how it would be handled would be at the discretion of the Bishop.

I can see in cases where the individual did not follow the restrictions being placed on them being banned.

[Buzzard]

I have never seen an official "banning", though I could see if someone was disrupting services there might be a restraining order issued, but from the limited information dispensed, it SOUNDS like that after the episode that resulted in excommunication, word got around and people were less than welcoming, maybe even downright unfriendly. Not what should happen, but human nature often takes over.

[Calm]

Do you have any scriptural support for that or is it just your opinion?

Rebaptism after excommunication does not simply involve forgiveness for an offence. If it were so, then it would have nothing to with the person who had been excommunicated and would depend simply on those who were in the position to forgive or not forgive him.

[Saints Alive]

Rebaptism after excommunication does not simply involve forgiveness for an offence. If it were so, then it would have nothing to with the person who had been excommunicated and would depend simply on those who were in the position to forgive or not forgive him.

Do you have scriptural support for that or is it your opinion?

[Calm]

Do you have scriptural support for that or is it your opinion?

It is logic. The person who forgives is the person who is the victim. The person who is excommunicated is the person who receives the forgiveness. However, when one is excommunicated they don't judge the victim's response to see if the person deserves excommunication or not, nor do they judge the victim's response to see if the person is ready for rebaptism or not.

I think you are confusing acceptance of someone's repentance with forgiveness. They are not one and the same. You can forgive someone who had not repented.

Edited April 16, 2013 by calmoriah