Can someone who has been excommunicated later receive temple ordinances again, and what is the reinstatement process?
Executive summary
Yes — people removed from membership by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called “excommunication” in older language) can be returned to full membership and receive temple ordinances again, but that restoration is conditional, often involves rebaptism and interviews, and may include waiting periods or ongoing restrictions; the church’s General Handbook describes the discipline and readmission processes [1] [2]. Independent and church-aligned explainers note rebaptism after “sincere repentance” and interviews with leaders are typical steps [3] [4].
1. What “excommunication” means now and why language matters
The church has moved away from the word “excommunication,” using terms such as “withdrawal of membership” or “formal membership restrictions” in its handbook, but the functional result — removal from membership and loss of temple access — remains the same and is described in church materials as the most severe disciplinary action [5] [2]. Journalists and analysts still use “excommunication” because it communicates the practical consequence: the person is no longer a member and cannot hold temple-related privileges [2].
2. The short answer: readmission and temple ordinances are possible
Multiple sources say an individual who has been removed can be rebaptized and restored to full membership, which is the prerequisite to regain temple ordinances and related blessings; this restoration is conditioned on repentance as judged through interviews with local leaders and procedures laid out in the General Handbook [3] [1] [4]. Community-oriented sites and church forums report that rebaptism and restoration of blessings generally restore prior membership status and temple eligibility, though administrative steps follow [6] [7].
3. The procedural steps people are told to expect
Contemporary guidance and community reporting indicate key steps: confession and demonstrated repentance, interviews with a bishop and/or stake president, approval for rebaptism, the rebaptism ordinance itself, and then restoration of blessings and ordinances after administrative processing; in some instances a waiting period of about a year before certain privileges are fully restored is mentioned in community sources [4] [6] [3]. The General Handbook covers “Repentance and Church Membership Councils,” which governs how councils and readmissions are to be handled [1].
4. Variations, discretionary judgments and limits
Sources emphasize discretion. Church leaders decide whether repentance is “sincere” and whether readmission is appropriate; some sins—especially those involving abuse—carry long‑term consequences, and local or higher leaders’ judgments shape timing and restrictions [3] [6]. Historical and community accounts show variations: some restored members later served in leadership, while other guidance and community posts suggest restrictions on certain callings or delays — the reporting shows disagreement about who can immediately resume leadership after restoration [8] [6].
5. Records, administrative details and what is restored
When a person is rebaptized and has blessings restored, membership records are updated; community discussion on church technology forums reports that the membership record is returned to the ward and that some dates (like original baptism dates) may not be restored until a “restoration of blessings” is processed, which can take time [6] [9]. The church’s public resources also explain that withdrawal of membership removes someone from membership rolls until readmission occurs [2].
6. Competing perspectives and transparency concerns
Church-produced guidance frames discipline as aimed at repentance, protection and integrity, with readmission part of mercy and healing [1] [2]. Independent explainers and community voices reinforce that narrative but also report uncertainties and variability in practice—some critics and former members say the process can feel opaque or punitive in ways that silence dissent, a point raised in broader reporting about disciplinary actions [10] [11]. Public cases and forum threads show both personal stories of restoration and complaints about lack of transparency in disciplinary decisions [12] [6].
7. What available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention a universal, single timetable or checklist that guarantees readmission in every case; they also do not provide a public, step‑by‑step form issued by the First Presidency that specifies exact interview questions or timing for every circumstance—those details are left to local leaders and the General Handbook (noted generally in [1] and in community sources [10]1).
Closing note: For anyone considering or affected by this process, the church’s General Handbook and local leaders are the formal authorities; community resources and personal accounts capture lived experience but also show disagreement about timing, restrictions and transparency [1] [6] [4].