110 year permission order is inconsistent
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Kathryn Rose Barrick said: The Temple Policy page that comes up when we request ordinances says the order of nearest living relative is (in this order) "undivorced spouse, child, parent, sibling". HOWEVER, in the "Request permission" option, you have the order as "undivorced spouse, Parent, child, and sibling". It needs to be consistent. Who comes first in priority, the Parent or Child? We don't know what to tell people is the real order for getting permission. Please address this problem soon. Thank you
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
S. said: Kathryn their is the Need of Improvement of this area for many reasons. the main question is how is the church going to fix it. I totally agree it needs to be fixed.0
-
Chas Howell said: There needs to be one place where one can read the current policies. Policies statements should be dated. English majors should proof read the statements.
Kathryn, I believe a closer reading of the Temple Policy page you site does not give an order. It does not use "in this order". It only states what a close relative is and that you must have permission from "a" close relative. I believe the former requirement with a permission priority order has been eliminated. Because there is no priority order now there is no inconsistency between "spouse, child, parent, sibling" and "spouse, parent child, sibling."
The policy could/should be written more clearly. It is open to misunderstanding, especially if you understood the previous policy as having a priority order or found an older KD or training video.0 -
Kathryn Rose Barrick said: Thank you for bringing my attention to the fact that the words "in this order" are no longer on the Temple Policy page. However, the words "in this order" do still show on the Member's Guide to Temple and Family History that is linked at the bottom of the Temple Policy page. Maybe that should be edited. I will tell my class that there appears to be no order for permission. Is that the bottom line?
By the way, I think we should be able to read the Policy page prior to finding a name to request. And, yes, it should be dated and links updated to coincide with the changes.0 -
Lynne VanWagenen said: The most current versions of the policy are those shown online when you reserve ordinances in Family Tree and the version that is maintained in the knowledgebase for FamilySearch.org at https://familysearch.org/ask/salesfor....
Whenever the Member's Guide seems to be different from what is displayed online or in the knowledgebase, use the most current version of the policy. The Brethren do ask us to change policy from time to time.
To get to the knowledgebase, click Get Help. Then click either Questions and Answers or Help Center. You can search for your question there. To see the temple-related content, you need to be signed in.
You are correct that there is no order for permission. However, I think it would be a really good idea to point out to your class that the current policy emphasizes that families should work together in deciding when ordinances will be done and who will do them.
There are numerous instances of people who decide to delay performing ordinances that they could do according to the policy. They do so out of respect for those living family members.0 -
Ammon E. said: If I may add something...
Perhaps also emphasizing that, while there is no specific order for close family anymore, the feelings of all close family should be considered, and if you know one says "yes" (say most of the children), and one says "no" (say one child), while you have permission to do it, it's heavily suggested not to perform the ordinances.0 -
Chas Howell said: Lynne, here is an example of some of the difficult to understand language used in the same document.
Find the document “How to reserve ordinances for an ancestor born within the last 110 years.” (I don’t know why these document s can’t have ID numbers)
Under Solution, the paragraph that starts “For individuals born within the last 110 years... if related and not a spouse, child, parent, or sibling...obtain permission from THE closest living relative...” If there is not a priority order then “THE” should not be used but “A” instead. Right?
Second problem, the yellow box gives a totally different policy statement in regard to the 110 yr policy, it reads, “policy requires that you be a close living relative to reserve his or her ordinances” then it defines what a close relative is, “spouse, parent, child, or sibling”. That statement would preclude one from doing aunts, uncles, cousins etc. even with permission, which is not true. Now what I think is partly going on here is that there are TWO types of permissions. One the kind of permission you would get from a close relative of the deceased and another kind of permission you would get from FamilySearch. But I think that is far from clear.
I know there is logic here somewhere, maybe I need a flow chart/decision tree visual.0 -
Lynne VanWagenen said: Yes. The clearest statement would be to say "a living relative."
In the yellow box, I'm trying to figure out where the confusion occurs.
I think it might be in the transition from the sentence "A close living relative is a spouse, parent, child, or sibling" to this phrase "To do this person's ordinances..."
I think you are pointing out when it says "this person," it's not clear whether the word "this" refers to the person whose ordinance you tried to reserve or to spouses, parents, children, or siblings.
Is that correct?0 -
Lynne VanWagenen said: You are correct in pointing out that two types of permission are required. I wouldn't have thought about it that way until you pointed it out.
It's a process:
1. The Church member obtains permission to do a deceased person's ordinances from a close living relative.
2. The Church member submits a request that provides a data administrator an explanation that the relative's permission was given.
3. The data administrator then gives the Church member the rights (or permission) to reserve the ordinances.0 -
S. said: I under stand the 110 Year Policy my comment was reguarding things outside the 110 year Policy, Yes If you wondering I have read the (blanken Thing), but I still have many question that is not answered their. that is what I was referring to things that need fixing.0
-
I have a relative this was born in 1903 and still has the 110 year pop up asking me not to proceed.
No relatives to request.
Carl Kressbach
1903 – 3 November 1977
• L699-WDK
any suggestions?
0 -
Kurt, the birth year for L699-WDK needs to be added and standardized.
Please see these help articles
1
