flameburns623 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Another LDS message board seems to indicate that a person must actually have ATTENDED CHURCH for a full year with the intent of being restored, before they can be rebaptised. As I have understood things here and elsewhere, this seems a misapprehension. My understanding is that one cannot be rebaptised until a full year after the date they resign, but that it is up to the local bishop to determine what steps a prospective returnee must undertake and how soon to wait to allow them to be rebaptised. As long as it has been a year since the person resigned, this reinstatement period can take weeks or months. What is your understanding of the issue? Thanks!
ksfisher Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: Another LDS message board seems to indicate that a person must actually have ATTENDED CHURCH for a full year with the intent of being restored, before they can be rebaptised. As I have understood things here and elsewhere, this seems a misapprehension. My understanding is that one cannot be rebaptised until a full year after the date they resign, but that it is up to the local bishop to determine what steps a prospective returnee must undertake and how soon to wait to allow them to be rebaptised. As long as it has been a year since the person resigned, this reinstatement period can take weeks or months. What is your understanding of the issue? Thanks! Readmission is not usually approved until one year after the name removal. That's almost a direct quote from handbook 1. Worthiness would be determined by the bishop, but in general the person would need to demonstrate the same worthiness as any otner baptismal candidate. Edited August 2, 2016 by ksfisher 2
Garden Girl Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 When I reactivated in 1995 (I had not taken my name off the rolls), I had to wait and be active for a year before I could get my temple recommend to attend for the first time for my Endowment. GG
Popular Post cinepro Posted August 2, 2016 Popular Post Posted August 2, 2016 They should make new converts follow the same requirements as returning members. Attending for a full year with the intent to be baptized sounds like a good idea for investigators. 7
flameburns623 Posted August 2, 2016 Author Posted August 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Garden Girl said: When I reactivated in 1995 (I had not taken my name off the rolls), I had to wait and be active for a year before I could get my temple recommend to attend for the first time for my Endowment. GG I'm not expecting to do my endowments, although I expect that the current emphasis on limited use temple recommends means I may be encouraged to work towards qualifying for the limited-us recommend. Kfisher seems to confirm my own understanding: a person can be rebaptised any time following one year after name removal, as determibed by the local bishop.
mnn727 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, cinepro said: They should make new converts follow the same requirements as returning members. Attending for a full year with the intent to be baptized sounds like a good idea for investigators. I've said that for years. It would cut way back on inactives.
flameburns623 Posted August 2, 2016 Author Posted August 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, cinepro said: They should make new converts follow the same requirements as returning members. Attending for a full year with the intent to be baptized sounds like a good idea for investigators. If I have understood Kfisher, the Church DOES NOT require returnees to "attend for a full year". They require that it be a full year after a name is removed. 2
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 8 minutes ago, mnn727 said: I've said that for years. It would cut way back on inactives. ...not to mention it would cut way way back on convert baptisms. Hey, we're already at an all time low, why not try and get below that?
rongo Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Did you hold the Melchizedek Priesthood? It sounds like you did, because my understanding is that you had also been through the temple. If that's the case, you will have to wait a minimum of one year after rebaptism to have your priesthood (including Aaronic) and temple blessings/privileges restored. In that case, you won't be able to get a limited-use recommend for temple baptisms until a year after your rebaptism. Some people coming back from name-removal need First Presidency authorization to be rebaptized, too.
smac97 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 31 minutes ago, Garden Girl said: When I reactivated in 1995 (I had not taken my name off the rolls), I had to wait and be active for a year before I could get my temple recommend to attend for the first time for my Endowment. GG In our stake, the rule of thumb is six months of temple worthiness (attendance at meetings, child support, tithes, etc.) prior to seeking a temple recommend. Thanks, -Smac
ksfisher Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: If I have understood Kfisher, the Church DOES NOT require returnees to "attend for a full year". They require that it be a full year after a name is removed. Right. The handbook says that the usual period is one year from the date of removal. There may be circumstances that would extend that period of time, I doubt if it would be reduced (but don't know that). If the person has committed serious transgression before or after the name removal the First Presidencies approval would be required. Edited August 2, 2016 by ksfisher 2
ksfisher Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: In our stake, the rule of thumb is six months of temple worthiness (attendance at meetings, child support, tithes, etc.) prior to seeking a temple recommend. Thanks, -Smac Sounds like a good rule of thumb.
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 I'll admit I don't like that "let's consult the rule book" mindset that we have at Church. Particularly as it pertains to eternity and salvation. The letter of the law, rule based way of the Church seems too pharisaic to me. But I'm an oddball for sure.
Popular Post flameburns623 Posted August 2, 2016 Author Popular Post Posted August 2, 2016 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: Right. The handbook says that the usual period is one year from the date of removal. There may be circumstances that would extend that period of time, I doubt if it would be reduced (but don't know that). I imagine that ultimately it would be the First Presidencies decision if any extenuating circumstances exist. I had my name removed eight ( nearly nine) years ago. I soon will have resumed attending seven months ago. I have been actively participating in the life of the Ward for that entire time. Most ward members do not even know my situation. I was expecting that I might soon be planning my rebaptism. I wanted to confirm my hopes were not premature. Thanks Kfisher! 5
jkwilliams Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 minute ago, flameburns623 said: I had my name removed eight ( nearly nine) years ago. I soon will have resumed attending seven months ago. I have been actively participating in the life of the Ward for that entire time. Most ward members do not even know my situation. I was expecting that I might soon be planning my rebaptism. I wanted to confirm my hopes were not premature. Thanks Kfisher! I'm glad you have found peace and happiness in returning to the church. 4
flameburns623 Posted August 2, 2016 Author Posted August 2, 2016 15 minutes ago, rongo said: Did you hold the Melchizedek Priesthood? It sounds like you did, because my understanding is that you had also been through the temple. If that's the case, you will have to wait a minimum of one year after rebaptism to have your priesthood (including Aaronic) and temple blessings/privileges restored. In that case, you won't be able to get a limited-use recommend for temple baptisms until a year after your rebaptism. Some people coming back from name-removal need First Presidency authorization to be rebaptized, too. Never been endowed; never even held a Recommend. Attended the St. Louis Temple dedication. I was a Melchizedek priesthood holder. As my bishop explained it at the time, they intended to rebaptise me and conduct a restoration of ordinances at the same time, one ordinance on the heels of the other. He admitted he was checking on some of the details involved. The First Presidency's approval would not be needful in my case. Only the approval of my bishop followed by an interview by my Stake President. So far as my bishop understood things, anyhow. 3
Buckeye Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 10 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: Never been endowed; never even held a Recommend. Attended the St. Louis Temple dedication. I was a Melchizedek priesthood holder. As my bishop explained it at the time, they intended to rebaptise me and conduct a restoration of ordinances at the same time, one ordinance on the heels of the other. He admitted he was checking on some of the details involved. The First Presidency's approval would not be needful in my case. Only the approval of my bishop followed by an interview by my Stake President. So far as my bishop understood things, anyhow. Best of luck to you. I grew up in Southern Illinois, close to Springfield. 1
ksfisher Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 18 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'll admit I don't like that "let's consult the rule book" mindset that we have at Church. Particularly as it pertains to eternity and salvation. The letter of the law, rule based way of the Church seems too pharisaic to me. But I'm an oddball for sure. The handbook is not meant to take anything away form inspiration. What is does do is provide a basis for how we do things in the church, every ward and stake isn't needing to reinvent the wheel every 5 years. Imagine if every bishop came up with his own temple recommend questions or had a different definition of what it meant to pay a full tithe. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 52 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: If I have understood Kfisher, the Church DOES NOT require returnees to "attend for a full year". They require that it be a full year after a name is removed. What does "attend a full year" mean? Every Sunday? Twice a month? The phrase is about as vague as instruction to wear the garment throughout your life. It can mean lots of different things to the individual but also to the leader who may impose his understanding of it. The 1 year rule is generally followed but I've seen exceptions. If you're comfortable discussing it I'd be interested to hear your story about why you left and what led you to want to rejoin. Good luck on achieving your goals! 2
Guest Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 57 minutes ago, cinepro said: They should make new converts follow the same requirements as returning members. Attending for a full year with the intent to be baptized sounds like a good idea for investigators. It would help those who want to join the Church to understand how important it is to make and undertake the covenants they will be making and importance of keeping abiding by these commandments. Without fail, almost every member who joined after only a few weeks, left the Church within a year, most in just a few months. One sister I baptized committed to baptism within 5 weeks, and left with 3 weeks.
Jeanne Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 It seems odd that you would have to wait that long in regards to your attendance already and support of your Bishop. Especially when missionaries are baptizing like crazy people who have not really been or had a chance to be active for a year. Best to you and happiness always. 1
Ahab Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: It would help those who want to join the Church to understand how important it is to make and undertake the covenants they will be making and importance of keeping abiding by these commandments. Without fail, almost every member who joined after only a few weeks, left the Church within a year, most in just a few months. One sister I baptized committed to baptism within 5 weeks, and left with 3 weeks. Yeah, like maybe having every new member sign something and carry that with them 24/7 to help remind them of what they have said they are committed to doing. And maybe wear something too, that they will see every day to help them remember that they have made certain commitments. As things are now it is way too easy to be a covenant breaker. As if people don't even remember what they have said they are committed to doing.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: It seems odd that you would have to wait that long in regards to your attendance already and support of your Bishop. Especially when missionaries are baptizing like crazy people who have not really been or had a chance to be active for a year. Best to you and happiness always. They want to make sure he's not an apostate danger to the rest of the community. Therefore they set arbitrary timelines. If only there were a way for a priesthood leader to discern the real intent of his heart 1
rongo Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The phrase is about as vague as instruction to wear the garment throughout your life. You are aware of the updated statement about garments that accompanies the TR questions, right? It's a lot less vague than it used to be. A lot less.
Recommended Posts