If a Latter-day Saint Converts, is that Considered a Sin?

[Navidad]

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin? If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure. I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

One other different thing; I ask this because of a real historical situation I am researching. I would like your thoughts. In 1889 a Saint was arrested and convicted for incest (not for plural marriage). He was sentenced to 10 years in Yuma Federal Penitentiary.  He escaped and ran to a small Mexican colony  where he lived, we know for at least 23 years. He had been excommunicated for his crime. He then was re-baptized and had "his blessings restored." - not sure what that means, in his new home ward. All this time he was wanted for his escape from prison. It is said he was then murdered in his home, but there are no civil records of his death and no records of his being buried in the LDS cemetery in the colony. Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest? I know this was 100 years ago, but I have been asked to look into it by some of his descendants. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts?

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin? If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure. I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

One other different thing; I ask this because of a real historical situation I am researching. I would like your thoughts. In 1889 a Saint was arrested and convicted for incest (not for plural marriage). He was sentenced to 10 years in Yuma Federal Penitentiary.  He escaped and ran to a small Mexican colony  where he lived, we know for at least 23 years. He had been excommunicated for his crime. He then was re-baptized and had "his blessings restored." - not sure what that means, in his new home ward. All this time he was wanted for his escape from prison. It is said he was then murdered in his home, but there are no civil records of his death and no records of his being buried in the LDS cemetery in the colony. Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest? I know this was 100 years ago, but I have been asked to look into it by some of his descendants. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts?

It's hard to speak of events and the circumstances surrounding why people made certain decisions so long ago.  It's difficult for us to understand the context and culture that the people in your story lived in.  Best to not judge.

A person who has resigned cannot be excommunicated, as that person is not a member of the church.  Whether a person resigns or is excommunicated really doesn't matter, the result is the same.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin? If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure. I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

One other different thing; I ask this because of a real historical situation I am researching. I would like your thoughts. In 1889 a Saint was arrested and convicted for incest (not for plural marriage). He was sentenced to 10 years in Yuma Federal Penitentiary.  He escaped and ran to a small Mexican colony  where he lived, we know for at least 23 years. He had been excommunicated for his crime. He then was re-baptized and had "his blessings restored." - not sure what that means, in his new home ward. All this time he was wanted for his escape from prison. It is said he was then murdered in his home, but there are no civil records of his death and no records of his being buried in the LDS cemetery in the colony. Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest? I know this was 100 years ago, but I have been asked to look into it by some of his descendants. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts?

Excommunication and resignation have the same effect.

Current church policy is not to end church discipline until the terms of any civil or criminal judgement have been fulfilled that are tied to the original cause of discipline. Exceptions require the approval of the First Presidency. This was not policy in the past.

Why have descendants asked you specifically to look into the incest case of one of their ancestors? That is weirder to me then the case you present. Why would they ask you to research an excommunication and rebaptism when you seem to know nothing about the process? Or is this supposed commission a smokescreen you are using while trying to chuck mud at the church so you can pretend to be a disinterested investigator?

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

It's hard to speak of events and the circumstances surrounding why people made certain decisions so long ago.  It's difficult for us to understand the context and culture that the people in your story lived in.  Best to not judge.

A person who has resigned cannot be excommunicated, as that person is not a member of the church.  Whether a person resigns or is excommunicated really doesn't matter, the result is the same.

Thanks, that really helps.

[Calm]

“why have descendants asked you specifically to look into the incest case of one of their ancestors?“

Navidad is a historian so it makes sense that someone interested in family history, but not a researcher would ask him for help. 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin? If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure. I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

I don't know if its a sin or not but it really does not matter.  Only the LDS Church has the stuff that can get a person to the Celestial Kingdom.  If the goal is to get to a lower kingdom, one can achieve that outside the LDS Church.  It is up to the individual to what they want.  We don't get to decide the rules.  We just get to decide if we want to comply with the rules that are established.

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Excommunication and resignation have the same effect.

Current church policy is not to end church discipline until the terms of any civil or criminal judgement have been fulfilled that are tied to the original cause of discipline. Exceptions require the approval of the First Presidency. This was not policy in the past.

Why have descendants asked you specifically to look into the incest case of one of their ancestors? That is weirder to me then the case you present. Why would they ask you to research an excommunication and rebaptism when you seem to know nothing about the process? Or is this supposed commission a smokescreen you are using while trying to chuck mud at the church so you can pretend to be a disinterested investigator?

Shame on you. I deeply and thoroughly resent your implication. They were given my name as someone who might be able to help them in their quest to find out what happened to their ancestor. That is all I know. Your implication that no one outside of the Church could help a Saint track down the circumstances of an ancestor is so sad. I guess it is for the same reason that I have good relations with the Church History dept. and the MHA, and my bishop, and a score of other Saints who come to our house to ask questions every few weeks or so. it is for the same reason I am coordinating a family reunion for a Saint who tragically died about 500 yards from my house. It is for the same reason I publish in the Journal of Mormon History. Your reply is deeply offensive. But, I suppose you really don't care about offending a non-Mormon. I am so sorry I asked.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin? If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure. I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

One other different thing; I ask this because of a real historical situation I am researching. I would like your thoughts. In 1889 a Saint was arrested and convicted for incest (not for plural marriage). He was sentenced to 10 years in Yuma Federal Penitentiary.  He escaped and ran to a small Mexican colony  where he lived, we know for at least 23 years. He had been excommunicated for his crime. He then was re-baptized and had "his blessings restored." - not sure what that means, in his new home ward. All this time he was wanted for his escape from prison. It is said he was then murdered in his home, but there are no civil records of his death and no records of his being buried in the LDS cemetery in the colony. Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest? I know this was 100 years ago, but I have been asked to look into it by some of his descendants. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts?

 Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 of the CHI defines "apostasy" as follows:

Quote

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

“why have descendants asked you specifically to look into the incest case of one of their ancestors?“

Navidad is a historian so it makes sense that someone interested in family history, but not a researcher would ask him for help. 

Thank you. I am so discouraged at being accused by the very folks I am trying to help.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Shame on you. I deeply and thoroughly resent your implication. They were given my name as someone who might be able to help them in their quest to find out what happened to their ancestor. That is all I know. Your implication that no one outside of the Church could help a Saint track down the circumstances of an ancestor is so sad. I guess it is for the same reason that I have good relations with the Church History dept. and the MHA, and my bishop, and a score of other Saints who come to our house to ask questions every few weeks or so. it is for the same reason I am coordinating a family reunion for a Saint who tragically died about 500 yards from my house. It is for the same reason I publish in the Journal of Mormon History. Your reply is deeply offensive. But, I suppose you really don't care about offending a non-Mormon. I am so sorry I asked.

Your story strains credibility. I do not feel obligated to assume people are telling me the truth. If you are telling the truth, I apologize. If you are not, shame on you.

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Your story strains credibility. I do not feel obligated to assume people are telling me the truth. If you are telling the truth, I apologize. If you are not, shame on you.

How big of you to sort of, kind of, maybe, apologize. I utterly reject it.  It is only your credibility that it strains, not mine. Why and how would I make up such a story for bad purposes? I am not an investigator in the traditional sense. I think you know that by now. Neither am I anti-Mormon, I think you know that by now. I respected those who wrote me by not naming names. Why don't you privately email me for the name of my bishop, stake president, the name of the highest officials in the Church History department who know and respect my knowledge? I will happily give them to you. You can ask them, instead of me. Maybe that will unstrain your credibility!

Edited October 25, 2018 by Navidad
Eliminate negative verbiage that I regret!

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin?

No.

Quote

If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure.

The answer is no I believe. I've never heard of a resigned person being excommunicated.

Quote

I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

Potentially, yes. If someone is excommunicated for a serious sin, more will be involved with re-admittance into the Church, than in a simple case of resignation. So, I would say the answer depends on how much  the Church knows about the reason for the resignation. If such a person does seek readmittance, however, a disciplinary hearing may still be required.

Quote

One other different thing; I ask this because of a real historical situation I am researching. I would like your thoughts. In 1889 a Saint was arrested and convicted for incest (not for plural marriage). He was sentenced to 10 years in Yuma Federal Penitentiary.  He escaped and ran to a small Mexican colony  where he lived, we know for at least 23 years. He had been excommunicated for his crime. He then was re-baptized and had "his blessings restored." - not sure what that means, in his new home ward. All this time he was wanted for his escape from prison. It is said he was then murdered in his home, but there are no civil records of his death and no records of his being buried in the LDS cemetery in the colony. Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest? I know this was 100 years ago, but I have been asked to look into it by some of his descendants. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts?

I would say it is rare. My guess is the Church did not realize he was still wanted, but that he lied. He then feigned repentance enough to regain admittance into the Church. However, it is possible that he was sufficiently repentant for the Spirit to indicate he could still be readmitted into the Church even though he hadn't finished his sentence. 

[Navidad]

Just now, RevTestament said:

No.

The answer is no I believe. I've never heard of a resigned person being excommunicated.

Potentially, yes. If someone is excommunicated for a serious sin, more will be involved with re-admittance into the Church, than in a simple case of resignation. So, I would say the answer depends on how much  the Church knows about the reason for the resignation. If such a person does seek readmittance, however, a disciplinary hearing may still be required.

I would say it is rare. My guess is the Church did not realize he was still wanted, but that he lied. He then feigned repentance enough to regain admittance into the Church. However, it is possible that he was sufficiently repentant for the Spirit to indicate he could still be readmitted into the Church even though he hadn't finished his sentence. 

Thank you ever so much for answering my questions without accusing me. This is so hard. Today is Wednesday. Monday night my wife and I hosted an "Empty-nesters" gathering from our ward here at our home. We had a wonderful time eating chile and cornbread and chatting with those who are direct descendants of some of the wonderful old leaders of the Church. We had a great time talking the history of our colonies. My wife and I were so grateful for their friendship and confidence in us. Then one post and kazaaaaaaam------I am accused of really mean things. This is really hard! I haven't gotten around to writing about the prompting I had on our way home from the US this past weekend. Now, I think some will simply mock it. Sigh!

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest? I know this was 100 years ago, but I have been asked to look into it by some of his descendants. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts?

Interesting case. Is it possible that he did not commit the crime and felt justified in escaping? I can kind of sympathize with that kind of scenario. If I was sent to prison for a crime I didn't commit, I might do the same thing--especially if it was the wild and woolly west.

[Calm]

I am not that versed in Church history, but I was told some stories by Canadians when living in Calgary about ancestors going up to Canada to avoid prosecution on more than just polygamy.  I have no awareness of what happened in those cases as far as Church discipline, but it seemed to me there was a disregard/dismissive attitude for the States' laws once one left the States.  If the individual wasn't sharing much detail of why he was considered a criminal in the States, colonists might be likely to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume there was inappropriate persecution involved and not pry for details.

And depending what the incest was, it might have been viewed as borderline rather than monstrous (half or step siblings that didn't live together or young uncle and older niece, one time thing as opposed to abusing one's younger children).  And he might have been truly repentant of the act while believing that a prison sentence was inhumane (given the conditions at the time) and therefore he had a right to escape and provide restitution in some other way.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Calm

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not that versed in Church history, but I was told some stories by Canadians when living in Calgary about ancestors going up to Canada to avoid prosecution on more than just polygamy.  I have no awareness of what happened in those cases as far as Church discipline, but it seemed to me there was a disregard/dismissive attitude for the States' laws once one left the States.  If the individual wasn't sharing much detail of why he was considered a criminal in the States, colonists might be likely to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume there was inappropriate persecution involved.

And depending what the incest was, it might have been viewed as borderline rather than monstrous (half or step siblings that didn't live together or young uncle and older niece, one time thing as opposed to abusing one's younger children).  And he might have been truly repentant of the act while believing that a prison sentence was inhumane (given the conditions at the time) and therefore he had a right to escape and provide restitution in some other way.

Good questions. He was in the same territorial prison that housed, about four years earlier many of those arrested for plural marriage. His incest involved his oldest daughter by his first wife. It may be true that he was truly repentant for what he did and that the local leaders here thought that anyone who was jailed in Yuma was jailed inappropriately. To this day there is a memorial in the prison museum to the Saints who were jailed there for plural marriage. It is interesting to me that among all the names listed, my person of interest was not listed. There are some things, I guess we will never know. This particular story involved Pancho Villa in ways he could not have possibly been involved. It could be this fellow left in the 1912 exodus under an assumed name and invented his murder to clear the path for him to return to the US with no problems or challenges. We know curious things happened here with several of those indicted for MMM. Some lived here for some time. It is well said here that some folks came here "For their Health." It is not a negative reflection on the Church; it is simply curious stories at a time that was very difficult for so many.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Navidad

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, Navidad said:

How big of you to sort of, kind of, maybe, apologize. I utterly reject it.  It is only your credibility that it strains, not mine. Why and how would I make up such a story for bad purposes? I am not an investigator in the traditional sense. I think you know that by now. Neither am I anti-Mormon, I think you know that by now. I respected those who wrote me by not naming names. Why don't you privately email me for the name of my bishop, stake president, the name of the highest officials in the Church History department who know and respect my knowledge? I will happily give them to you. You can ask them, instead of me. Maybe that will unstrain your credibility!

That sounds like way too much work but thanks for the offer.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin?

The definition of sinning is turning away from God.  So... is this person turning away from God in the process of what they're doing?  If they're converting to a faith to deny the divinity of Christ and go about gladly living a life of sin, that's definitely turning away from God.  But many other cases aren't so cut-and-dry.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure. I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

Starting big picture here, then working down to this question.  Sorry if some of this info is a review.

LDS aren't once-saved-always-saved people.  Rather, you relationship with Christ is always a choice.  If you want, you can choose to leave Him and cast off His name-- it's not like He's going to hold you prisoner.  If somebody want to formally cast off His name and have nothing to do with His Church (writing this from the LDS perspective) they can formally resign and revoke the promise they made to take on His name at baptism (as well as rest of the promises they've made with God).  That's completely their choice.

Excommunication has the same end result: the person is throwing off the name of Christ and severing their relationship/promises with Him.  While the end result is the same, the procedure to get there is different.  Formally resigning is initiated completely by the person just choosing to not be a part of things.  Excommunication is an act of Church discipline: this person has committed a serious sin and this the consequence, with the hope that they will later decide to repent and return to Christ.  

So, to directly answer your question: no a person cannot be both excommunicated and resign, that'd be very redundant. If a person is choosing to resign rather than be excommunicated, that because they know they're doing something that Christ/Church does not approve of and are choosing essentially to self-excommincate themselves rather first.  It's essentially a "you can't fire me, I quit!" move.  

(Note: Church excommunication does NOT involve getting kicked out of the church building, being shunned, or even other people knowing.  Rather it's a private affair, with the hope the person will repent.  The person is still entitled-- and in fact encouraged -- to meet with their Bishop and other people to help them on this process.  )

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

One other different thing; I ask this because of a real historical situation I am researching. I would like your thoughts. In 1889 a Saint was arrested and convicted for incest (not for plural marriage). He was sentenced to 10 years in Yuma Federal Penitentiary.  He escaped and ran to a small Mexican colony  where he lived, we know for at least 23 years. He had been excommunicated for his crime. He then was re-baptized and had "his blessings restored." - not sure what that means, in his new home ward. 

Incest definitely ranks as an excommunication worthy offense.

"Blessings restored": as I said earlier, excommunication is a disciplinary action meant to encourage repentance, a major "kick in the pants" so to say.  The hope is that a person will repent and return to Christ.  If/when a person does this, they are re-baptized and re-take on His name.  They have returned to their old relationships/promises with God and have all the joy/blessings of that relationship restored to them.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

All this time he was wanted for his escape from prison.....   . Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest?

LDS believe in being abiding the laws of righteous governments.  Nowadays, the USA government is pretty good (not remotely perfect).  A person in this man's shoes nowadays would be required to serve his criminal sentence as part of the repentance process.  

I cannot speak as to the shape the Mexican government/legal process was in the 1890's, so can't commit further on that historical case.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thank you ever so much for answering my questions without accusing me. This is so hard. Today is Wednesday. Monday night my wife and I hosted an "Empty-nesters" gathering from our ward here at our home. We had a wonderful time eating chile and cornbread and chatting with those who are direct descendants of some of the wonderful old leaders of the Church. We had a great time talking the history of our colonies. My wife and I were so grateful for their friendship and confidence in us. Then one post and kazaaaaaaam------I am accused of really mean things. This is really hard! I haven't gotten around to writing about the prompting I had on our way home from the US this past weekend. Now, I think some will simply mock it. Sigh!

Like I've said, I think LDS Christians have a subliminal hurt they are not real cognizant of. Sometimes fairly innocent questions are viewed with suspicion about ulterior motives.  People come to this site who are "doing homework on the LDS faith" or worse, they are just trolls. Then there are the honest seekers. This is where I place you, although I do feel to some extent you are investigating the LDS faith - whether that be for a book or other reason. Nevertheless, I like you, and am upfront with you. I am a seeker too, so I identify with you. I do hope you share - even if that is privately. I can't say no one  will mock you. but I know I will not. I see you as someone trying to bridge that gap I told you about - that subliminal hurt many LDS experience. So I hope you don't mind that we do not always agree with you. Nevertheless, I believe your insights are valuable as a sincere non-LDS Christian.

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

His incest involved his oldest daughter by his first wife. 

That is really disgusting. I do believe in repentance and forgiveness but I admit that some perversities would be beyond my personal ability to forgive and forget (especially if I was the wife)...

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Excommunication and resignation have the same effect.

Current church policy is not to end church discipline until the terms of any civil or criminal judgement have been fulfilled that are tied to the original cause of discipline. Exceptions require the approval of the First Presidency. This was not policy in the past.

Why have descendants asked you specifically to look into the incest case of one of their ancestors? That is weirder to me then the case you present. Why would they ask you to research an excommunication and rebaptism when you seem to know nothing about the process? Or is this supposed commission a smokescreen you are using while trying to chuck mud at the church so you can pretend to be a disinterested investigator?

Okay, rereading this after the drug-induced haze has passed it does not come across as the hilarious joke it was originally in my brain and it actually seems kind of mean. Navidad also does not appear as a humorless straight man making an amusing pratfall taking my obvious joke too seriously while I hilariously poke him for the amusement of myself and others. In fact it reads like I am mindless jerk who should be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Navidad, I apologize for any and all offense. The insult was not intentional. I also apologize to everyone else for not being funny. I was going for obvious overwrought hyperbole and failed miserably. I will try to stay away from my tablet while I am on narcotics in the future.

I should probably also check to see if I posted anything inane in other threads. Walk of shame time.....

Edited October 25, 2018 by The Nehor

[katherine the great]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I will try to stay away from my tablet while I am on narcotics in the future.

 

Did you have your wisdom teeth out?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Did you have your wisdom teeth out?

No, I did that as a teen. Had a kidney stone. I get them occasionally. Garbage genetics, they run in the family.

[mfbukowski]

"If a latter Day Saint converts, is that considered a sin?"

By whom?

If a Latter Day Saint converted to being a Mennonite would Mennonites consider it a sin?

I doubt that.

Do you mean would other LDS people consider the LDS person who converts to a different religion as having committed a sin?

I would not,  I would consider that as a person for whom the church did not work, though others may consider it  a sin.

I doubt that the one converting would consider it a sin- he would think it a good step- that he found the "truth" in the other faith.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin? If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure. I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

One other different thing; I ask this because of a real historical situation I am researching. I would like your thoughts. In 1889 a Saint was arrested and convicted for incest (not for plural marriage). He was sentenced to 10 years in Yuma Federal Penitentiary.  He escaped and ran to a small Mexican colony  where he lived, we know for at least 23 years. He had been excommunicated for his crime. He then was re-baptized and had "his blessings restored." - not sure what that means, in his new home ward. All this time he was wanted for his escape from prison. It is said he was then murdered in his home, but there are no civil records of his death and no records of his being buried in the LDS cemetery in the colony. Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest? I know this was 100 years ago, but I have been asked to look into it by some of his descendants. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts?

If the disciplinary council thought it was OK after listening to all the facts, it would be OK.

It does sound odd however that he would be allowed to have his blessings restored without - as you say- restitution etc- but under extraordinary circumstances I can image that there could be things that would allow that to happen.

Perhaps he could not make restitution though he had tried his best, for example.  His being wanted though would be a serious problem since we believe in following the laws of the land.