Not long ago the Bishop approached me and invited me to be re-baptised (because of excommunication - not name removal). At the time I said no as I have done for a number of years. However, I recently asked for a disciplinary council to be held to see what the outcome would be but this has been denied by the Stake President and also (technically) the Bishop although it's not his jurisdiction. So, despite the "come back" and "be baptised" invitations from the Bishop, the Stake President isn't even currently considering holding a disciplinary council. Mixed messages by any chance? I think so - especially when a council "must be held" in order to consider ending church discipline (according to the 2010 handbook) - God being the judge and all that.

Why on earth would anyone want to rejoin this "church" and cede control of every facet of their life over to authorities who are only interested in their money?

Who said anything about rejoining? It wasn't me.

Make it clear to them you have no intention to ever come back. Ever. That if you weren't ex'd you have resigned by now anyway.

Then move on.

Moving on must be easier when your family move in the same direction. However, if a disciplinary council decided I had "repented" and could be re-baptised - it means the choice is then my own.

To "repent" in Mormon terms must mean living the Mormon commandments, including scripture study, personal prayer, Word of Wisdom etc. Assuming you would not wish to do this just to make a point, the only other way you could be considered "repentant" would be to lie.

Either way compromises personal integrity and would be a waste of your time.

This is an unwritten law of the culture - but has nothing to do with the principle of repentance which they teach. There are many counted as members who do not do the things you mention. Many who are not members of the church and do not believe in Mormonism can answer yes to all those specific "commandments" you mention - I'm sure there are some that you need to believe in Mormonism to say 'yes' to though. My post is more about the ideas of power, control, authority and contradictions to the policys and beliefs of the system - it is certainly not about rejoining.

Take my word for it. Don't go there.

That is unless you enjoy emotional and spiritual abuse at its finest. I'm talking from the upper echelons down to the smallest child who hears all about you at the dinner table.

If you have a greater knowledge than the institution - they have no power over you - whatever the circumstance.

Rebaptism = rejoining.

You are correct. But if a disciplinary council says an individual can be re-baptised - the individual still has the choice so the control is then in their hands. If the individual chooses not to "rejoin" they are one now in control - it is no longer the church's decision but the individual's. That sends a message and takes back the power.

I find it iteresting to look at the decision making here. Decisions are made by men outside of the established procedures and policies - which dictate that the answer, and thus decision, comes from God and not man. So why, more often than not, does man make such decisions considering the beliefs that are behind such practices?

They don't determine what the future consequences of their judgments made in these church courts could be.

There is no divine authority present during the courts despite what they think.

They are mere mortals trying to decide the fate of the faithful without wearing the same shoes of those on trial.

Without the ability to face their accusers, the defendant's trial is a sham in and of itself.

The LDS court system is rife with problems.

The decisions if men us evident in tge fact that decisions are made before a council is even reconvened - for example the judgement that it's not the right time to reconvene. Or even the decision that such a persons "sin" means that a council should be held - although technically formal discipline doesn't have to be the result but I dint know of a council where this has been the case. In this case - we're nit going to hold a council yet = we've already made a decision.

had been reached prior to me even stepping foot in the BP's office for the appeal court. I lasted 20 minutes and stood up, said, "thank you for your time gentlemen" and walked out. The BS was piled to the ceiling by the end of the 20 minutes. I knew that they had no intention of returning my membership.

It took four years of intermittently sending emails to the SP and finally, he investigated the situation. You can't be exed for what I was exed for.

I accomplished two things: I proved that the facts were either not factual, misleading, or embellished to make the situation worse that it actually was.

Secondly, I told the truth of what actually happened. I did not hide the fact that, YES, I did make the comment in the institute class.

And third, my story never varied. The facts were the facts and I took responsibility for my actions. Unfortunately, the BP's story changed over time. It was his downfall. And he fell hard.

Saturday in February last year. The BP would not submit the paperwork to SLC necessary to obtain their permission for rebaptism. At that point, I took my power back and said, "No, thank you."

But I did receive the apology from the SP, four years after the exing, that I needed to move on. He apologized for the excommunication after determining that it was "forced through the system." He wasn't sure why it was, but it was. I knew it had been because you can't be excommunicated for what I was told I was exed for.

Thank you, President M, for your apology!!!!!

It was the apology that I needed before moving on.

I hope you find peace with your excommunication. It may take a few years, but you will reach a point where you may still be in disagreement, but you will be able to move on.

Love,
Sandie

Thanks - somebody who understands where I'm coming from - and what a great story from your experience. I'm my situation I believe I will have to live with Mormonism for my entire life -because 1. It's part of my history and therefore my current identity and 2. My family may always be part of the religion. Having the latter close ties with Mormonism means that you have to live with it as you can't cut all ties. Excommunication places you in the 'wrong' but if they later find no fault and it becomes the individual's choice - such judgements are no longer in place, or at least it can be said that the church finds no fault with you - even if the individual remains excommunicated. It's hard for (what I call fundamental) believers to understand that I am also a victim because of the system as well as the one who committed an offence.

As a nevermo, I find the whole notion that a religion would throw you out and then subsequently invite you back to be hilarious. I sure know how I would respond to that.

Yes, me, too, Summer.

Why worry about fake authority and cult judgments that are stacked against you. Mormonism is more simplistic and shallow than you are making it out to be.

Repentance = paying tithing
Re-joining = paying tithing
Being re-baptized = paying tithing

It has very little to do with Christian love, repentance, or morality. Look at all the Mormons who lie to go to the temple, for example. As long as you pay them money, nothing else matters all that much.

As an experiment, start paying tithing, and see how quickly all the problems vanish!

Unfortunately, the repentance plans are not God centered because they are man made and have little to do with the Biblical forgiveness.

Jesus was never part of my repentance plan or the SP would not have felt the need to apologize. The Mormon suits just don't make mistakes like that. I didn't even need to forgive the BP for the excommunication prior to my rebaptism. "That will come later" according to the SP.

Ah... happy days are here again!

He has far too much to think about than coming on here! I've challenged his whole view of the church and it's gospel. Literally turning it in it's head.

The following talk (unedited version) should be enough to challenge his views.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml

so by sitting through a church court you are showing them that YOU are in control of the relationship???

Actually, yes. If it's held at my request I am asking them to hold it. Ok there is the whole questioning bit but if I requested it they are doing so at my request - so although it's a bit strange, I'm still in charge because it's happens because I initiate it. I also respond how and if I wish - the outcome could be their 'decision' to end church discipline. It's nit actually their decision because i'm the one that has to be baptised to do that. So everything is then my choice - not theirs.

I don't think it will happen though because I don't think they like the idea of someone being in control - asking them to hold a council. Not in their comfort zone if someone's making the decisions for them - that is apart from the yes or no to ending discipline decision. I've already had a list of do this and this before we can do that etc etc... despite documenting that there are no prior conditions to holding a counci. Althought it seems that the decision if the council needs to be made before the council happens - funny that!

You could consider a different approach a la Hestor Prinn of The Scarlet Letter. You could treat your excommunication as a badge of honor. That might be far more satisfying than what you are currently pushing for. It could also be particularly vexing for those who tried to punish you with excommunication that you absolutely revel in your status as an excomunicant of the Mormon Church.