Separate SP from BCIE when requesting ordinances

LegacyUser

Auntie M said: Please make SP separate from BCIE in the Temple lists....I have worked up the information for a spouse of a relative, but I do not wish to work up the info for the parents of that spouse (not relatives of mine). However, sometimes, other people have, and so when I request BCIE, I get stuck with SP also. But, I do not feel comfortable with accepting a parental relationship I didn't do genealogy on. So, if the SP is separate, then I could uncheck it when I reserve the ordinances.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: SP means Sealing to the Parents and it is an ordinance that belongs to the child.

This comes up from time to time and there is a notion that the SP must be done only after the parents' vicarious ordinances are completed. This notion is incorrect.

If you read the article on the correct order of ordinances (https://www.familysearch.org/help/hel...), you will see some very important exceptions:

Sealing of a husband and wife and sealing of children to parents (if possible). Whenever possible, parents should be sealed to each other before the children are sealed to the parents.

Although vicarious ordinances performed out of sequence are valid, they become effective only after the prerequisite ordinances are completed.

If possible and whenever possible are not must.

You have run into the situation where you are reserving the ordinances for an unrelated spouse of your relative, which is correct. However, you are not authorized to reserve the ordinances for the unrelated spouse's parents.

The SP does not belong to the parents, but to the child. Ron Tanner said that "we do not want to leave any ordinances undone" in speaking of this misunderstanding about the SP ordinance.

You are authorized to complete all of the ordinances, including SP, for the spouse of your relative.

LegacyUser

Auntie M said: I am not concerned about the "must" or "may" issue. I understand that the SP belongs to the child and not the parents. That is *not* the reason I am requesting the separation of SP from BCIE. What I am concerned about is the quality of the genealogical research.

If I have not done the research to show that the spouse of a relative (for which I have found the verifying records) is in fact the child of the parents indicated in Family Tree (which relationship was put there by someone else, whom I do not know and whose genealogical verification levels I cannot prove), I do not want to be responsible for making an SP available that may be fraudulent.

I also understand that if a child is sealed to the wrong parents and this is later corrected and they are sealed to the right ones, that that is OK, too. I am still not happy with being responsible for a mistaken sealing.

We have too much temple work to do to be doing ordinances that are not needed or are incorrect.

This could be easily solved by just making it possible to reserve a person's ordinances individually instead of wholesale.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Because the SP belongs to the child, it is part of the child's individual ordinances. As such it is included with the other individual ordinances.

If there is sufficient information in the tree, the ordinance will be available for you to reserve. Otherwise, it cannot be reserved.

Most users who do not want to perform the SP have the misunderstanding that I expressed in my initial response. Don't shoot the messenger.

Since temple ordinances are sacred, this is a matter between you and the Lord.

LegacyUser

Auntie M said: SP is an ordinance having to do with a */relationship/*. It is not an individual ordinance, as BCIE are.

LegacyUser

Auntie M said: Dear Brother Huber (whom I am by no means trying to shoot),

I am not satisfied by Brother Tanner's answer to this. I have heard him give talks in which he stresses the need for good genealogical research before doing ordinances. I am 100% behind this position.

My request for the separation has to do with that genealogical research quality. I am not impressed by the "let's not leave anyone incomplete" argument, if by so doing we seal someone to the wrong parents! That way, someone could think the correct work has been done, when it has not.

The SP (a sacred ordinance that is about relationship) should be the responsibility of the person who verifies the parentage of the individual, just as the SS (a sacred ordinance that is about relationship) is the responsibility of the person who verifies a marriage. While I agree with Brother Tanner that the SP belongs to the child and not the parents, it is still a relationship ordinance, not an individual ordinance, which BCIE are. Therefore, it has a distinct character from the BCIE and should be separated in FamilySearch temple ordinance reservations.

As long as the icon indicates that not all the person's work has been done, someone will see that later on, and find that it is the SP that is missing, and it is to be hoped that person will do the verification of the parentage and then reserve-the-ordinance and/or share-with-temple. I don't have time to check the parentage of all the spouses of my cousins; I have too much to do just to find and verify the spouses in the first place. On the other hand, I spend lots of time thoroughly documenting the families of my cousins and request SPs when I know the proper parentage relationship.

I think that I, as a responsible genealogist, should have the option to indicate that I have not verified the parentage of an individual (a relationship) although I have verified that the individual exists (purely individual documentation) and that s/he is/was married to my relative (a relationship). I have to claim the latter, marriage, relationship separately from the individual ordinances. Why should I also have to claim another relationship ordinance, the parentage one, for a relationship that I personally have not verified?

Please pass this to Brother Tanner and Brother Rencher (and whoever else needs to be in on it) for further consideration. I am just not convinced that there is a good justification for the "incomplete" argument.

LegacyUser

Auntie M said: Just realized I said something I didn't quite mean. There is justification for Brother Tanner's "incomplete" argument, *if* the parentage is properly documented, and the person who reserves the SP is confident of that.

I agree 100% about trying hard not to leave a person's ordinances incomplete; the worth of each soul is great in the sight of the Lord. The ordinances *are* sacred, and therefore deserve to have records that show that the ones we perform are in fact *worthy of all acceptation*.

What I am not convinced of is that the temple reservation system (which is a separate thing from the ordinances themselves) should prevent a genealogist from being able to decline to reserve an ordinance for which that genealogist is not convinced of the proper worthiness.

It is *not* impossible to make a "BCIESP" block and a separate "SS" block in the computer system, which we know because that is the way it is now. Therefore, it cannot be impossible to make a third, separate, block for the "SP". In fact, this is trivial, comparatively speaking (I worked for a decade in the world of complex, online databases, so I am not speaking from ignorance). This is all I am asking for.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: You will need to take it up with the council, led by Elder Bednar and has two other members of the Quorum of the Twelve on it. When it comes to the temple and those elements associated with it, the directions come from that council.

Good Luck.

LegacyUser

Auntie M said: Wow.

LegacyUser

Christine said: Tom, she is only making a suggestion. I know you don't mean to sound so harsh. One suggestion to work around your concern (which is valid) is to reserve all ordinances, complete those individual ones you desire to do, and then unreserve the seal to parent. And thank you for recognizing that you should not do temple ordinances for your relative's spouses' parents and siblings. I fear many do not understand or follow this guidance.

LegacyUser

Auntie M said: Christine, thanks. Yes, I understand that, and in fact that's the kludge I use to get around this problem. It's just that it is a kludge that could easily be avoided.

LegacyUser

Auntie M said: OK, my challenge now is to find out what the "council" is that Tom refers to, and send my letter to them via my Stake President, if I understand how us ordinary members are supposed to communicate with the General Authorities.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The council is one of many councils that involve the Quorum of the Twelve. In this case, it is attended by at least one representative for FamilySearch, but it is primarily a Temple Department council, which is led by Elder Bednar.

What it boils down to is that the decisions made by the council are carried out by FamilySearch development teams consisting of managers and engineers. In some instances, the First Presidency may be involved.

Concerns about decisions made by Church Leadership start with your Stake President.

While I am sure that you mean well by not completing the SP ordinance where minimal information is available for the parents, I always spend time completing the parents' profiles so they are worthy of all acceptation.

Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation. (Doctrine and Covenants 128:24 (part)

While I am not authorized to do their work, I have at least completed as much as can easily be done for each of the parents' profiles.

To me, that is part of making a person's record complete.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: By the way, FamilySearch does have limited latitude with respect to how the site works,

But in this case, the sealing to the parents has always been a major part of a person's ordinances.

In the past (going all the way back to the old 8-1/2x14 family group sheets, each child's line included Baptism, Endowment, and sealing to parents. Missing were confirmation and initiatory, which were performed at the same time as the baptism and endowment, respectively.) there was no separation of the individual ordinances (it doesn't matter if the ordinance involves others or not). Only the couple ordinance was separate because it is what pulled the family together.

LegacyUser

Auntie M said: Thanks for the info about the Council, and as I said, I knew that I would need to go through my stake president. But, you have convinced me that I should not attempt to do so. So, I will let it go. I will not ask any more.