Importance of accurate records

I have been asked to address the bishopric training meeting tomorrow on the importance of maintaining accurate records. I have tried to think of scenarios (horror stories) where inaccurate records can cause confusion, delay, and heartbreak. Please feel free to suggest your own scenarios, or to correct those I have described below.

- An 8-year-old girl's baptism is not recorded. Her bishop does not see her listed on the Action and Interview list under "Members age 9 and over who have not been baptized." She remains listed as an unbaptized child of record. This goes unnoticed until she wants to go on a mission or get married. Documentation and witnesses are needed to reconstruct the ordinance.

- A new convert's confirmation is not recorded, which causes his baptism and membership to be cancelled.

- A brother's ordination to the office of elder is not recorded. His bishop issues a temple recommend for living ordinances. The stake president signs the recommend, but cannot activate it. The temple office stops the endowment during the records check.

- A young man's ordination to the office of Priest is not recorded before his family moves out of the ward. His new bishop sees him listed on the Action and Interview list under Overdue Aaronic Priesthood Ordinations. He attempts to interview the young man for ordination, and they have to contact his previous ward to reconstruct the ordination.

- Attendance counts are not entered into MLS regularly, resulting in low numbers on the quarterly report. This results in a significantly reduced quarterly budget disbursement three months later.

- A online missionary application lists the home ward or branch as the YSA ward. When the missionary goes to the MTC, the YSA ward's missionary fund is charged $400, rather than the missionary's true home ward. The bishop of the home ward must call the Missionary Department to change the home ward and refund the $400 to the YSA ward.

Many years ago I was serving as the Membership Clerk in our ward.
We had been doing a review of records, which at that time, were not maintained on any computer but in a card file (I know - it was a while ago). I ran across a record for a member of the ward who I knew to be ordained as a Seventy. Yet his record showed him as an Elder.

I asked him about the error and he confirmed that he had been ordained as a Seventy years earlier. So the hunt was on. He didn't have any printed information that would confirm that he was indeed a Seventy. He was never given any certificate and apparently never followed up.

The only thing we could think of was to contact a couple of people who were serving in leadership positions at the time of his ordination. One person that we found was his Bishop at that time. We obtained his phone number and I contacted him.

When I asked him about Brother So-and-So he confirmed that indeed he had been ordained as a Seventy. When I asked him about any certificates or other printed material. He told me his horror story.

Apparently at the time he was serving as a Bishop the Clerk got behind in his work and started tossing paperwork into a box so he could go through it later. Later never arrived and when he got so far behind that he didn't feel he could catch up, he threw out the box!

We had no where else to go. So we took council from the scriptures and in the testimony of a few people we made our best guess as to the date and updated his records. He was now officially a Seventy.

Bottom line? Accurate records are indeed important, even though it may take years before realizing it.

drepouille wrote:- An 8-year-old girl's baptism is not recorded. [...] Documentation and witnesses are needed to reconstruct the ordinance.

How about she ends up being re-baptized? (How does that make her feel?) After 10 years, what are the odds that can be reconstructed?

Real life story: A sister in a student ward wanted to get her endowments before she went back to her home country which had no temple. A check showed the ward didn't have her records. The clerk calls SLC to rush the record (this is back in the days when everything was by mail.) The computer in SLC showed it in her country, but formal requests for the record came back empty. Fortunately a search of the historical record turned up her baptism. She was able to get her endowments. Had she been re-baptized, that wouldn't have been possible.

drepouille wrote:A new convert's confirmation is not recorded, which causes his baptism and membership to be cancelled.

Huh? Either the record is never entered (by the mission) or it just has a empty ordnance. I've never heard of one getting canceled. The only thing close to that is if a "member of record"'s baptism isn't recorded and they turn 18.

drepouille wrote:A brother's ordination to the office of elder is not recorded. His bishop issues a temple recommend for living ordinances. The stake president signs the recommend, but cannot activate it. The temple office stops the endowment during the records check.

And his mission is delayed.

The biggest problem we have in our clerks office is getting the information back from the Bishopric when the ordnance or action is completed. There are forms for all the ordinances that need filled out and signed before and after an ordnance is preformed. We also have a local form for callings where they are suppose to signed of on the sustaining and setting apart. Yet it seems that us clerks are always having to ask for the information. We tell them that nothing happens without the properly signed paper work.

Often, baby blessings happen in a grandparent's ward or just somewhere other than the baby's home ward. Then clerks aren't always clear whose responsibility it is to record the blessing.

I'm aware of a brother whose baptism date was said to be a few weeks before his 8th birthday. Then, the young man was baptized again at about age 15 in an attempt to correct the problem. But the re-baptism doesn't show up on the records and now, some 30 years later, it's very hard to document the correction. As far as I know, this is still not resolved. Although the man is a returned missionary and married in the temple, etc., we're still wondering if he'll need another baptism just to satisfy the record-keeping problem. But how would that affect his priesthood and temple status?

Gary_Miller wrote:We tell them that nothing happens without the properly signed paper work.

If you google for "No Job is Finished Until the Paperwork is Done" you'll find a some visual aids. I'll trust you to pick a tasteful one.

There's also D&C128:8

whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven, and whatsoever you do not record on earth shall not be recorded in heaven;

If it's not recorded, it didn't happen.

mrrad wrote:Often, baby blessings happen in a grandparent's ward or just somewhere other than the baby's home ward. Then clerks aren't always clear whose responsibility it is to record the blessing.

Blessings are largely "parent appeasement". It's not a saving ordinance and while it can be recorded in MLS, it won't survive a move-out. The most important thing is that the child is recorded in the home ward's MLS. For that, I'd put the burden on the home ward's clerk(s).

mrrad wrote:I'm aware of a brother whose baptism date was said to be a few weeks before his 8th birthday. Then, the young man was baptized again at about age 15 in an attempt to correct the problem. But the re-baptism doesn't show up on the records and now, some 30 years later, it's very hard to document the correction. As far as I know, this is still not resolved. Although the man is a returned missionary and married in the temple, etc., we're still wondering if he'll need another baptism just to satisfy the record-keeping problem. But how would that affect his priesthood and temple status?

I think that's just the carping of the computer system because it sees a discrepancy. I don't think that has standing to affect his membership. But you might want to apply to call support and see if there's a way to get this resolved.

As Russell said, blessings are not saving ordinances. The child's record must be created in the child's home unit, period. A blessing is not needed to create a record.

You'll notice I kept quiet about who does the certificate. (I'll say it's the ward it was performed in. They witnessed it and can get the signatures, even if they don't have all the data.)

The child's record must be created in the child's home unit, period.

I don't think it's the best way, but it could get created in the remote unit and then moved to the home ward. As long as the child is recorded and properly linked to their parents. That's what's important.

russellhltn wrote:Blessings are largely "parent appeasement". It's not a saving ordinance and while it can be recorded in MLS, it won't survive a move-out. The most important thing is that the child is recorded in the home ward's MLS. For that, I'd put the burden on the home ward's clerk(s).

drepouille wrote:The child's record must be created in the child's home unit, period.

Although you might think that makes sense, that's exactly the opposite of what is supposed to be done.

See the MLS Manual, section "Child Blessing or New Child of Record", subsection "Blessing a child from another ward" (page 10), which says:

MLS Manual wrote:Use the same procedure for creating a record for a child in your own ward, with the following differences:

• Record the child’s head of house from the child’s home ward.
• Record either the member record number or birth date of the child’s head of house from the child’s home ward.
• Record the unit name and number of the child’s home ward.

This will cause the administration office to send the new member record to the child’s home ward, not to your ward.

Certainly the home ward clerk should follow up to make sure it gets done, but it is the responsibility of the clerk where the ordinance actually took place to record it. The recording of a baby blessing is the trigger for the creation of the membership record.

This has been the documented procedure for so many years that I'm amazed how many clerks are still confused about it.

mrrad wrote:Although the man is a returned missionary and married in the temple, etc., we're still wondering if he'll need another baptism just to satisfy the record-keeping problem. But how would that affect his priesthood and temple status?

The baptism may have been ratified, and probably has been if the temple sealing is recorded on the membership record. There would not be a record in MLS if that were the case.

A member of the stake presidency in Costa Rica took his wife-to-be to the temple in Guatemala for his sealing (before he was in the stake presidency). Sorry, they had no record of him ever having been ordained to be an elder. Or having been baptized. Or having been born. They had to scramble to get all of their records back up from home.

aclawson wrote:they had no record of him

You would think this might have been noticed as they were filling out the temple recommend. [smile]

Or when they submitted him to be called as a member of the stake presidency.
Or when they submitted the LUCR to update the CDOL.
Or...

This was long before he was in the stake presidency - it was what happened to him when he was much younger.

In another tale of record keeping horror stories, I was in a small branch that had an average weekly attendance of 20ish members. My companion and I volunteered to go through the membership records and track down address changes, deceased members, look for people to reactivate - that kind of thing.

There were well over 1,000 members on the books for that tiny little branch. Many of whom had addresses of record showing that they lived thousands of miles away on another continent.

aclawson wrote:In another tale of record keeping horror stories,

I was called as a new bishop in the early 1980s, when computerized records had become generally established, and we received a quarterly mailing from Church Headquarters with the directory, action and interview lists, etc. (Quarterly by mail -- I am still amused when someone strolls into the clerk's office needing a printout "immediately", but I digress.)

My first quarterly printout included a two-page list of children who were over nine years of age and had not been baptized. Or so the membership records said. It seems that there had not been a baptism held in that ward for years that was recorded on the membership records. These included children of active members who were serving in ward and stake leadership callings, including nearly every member of the ward council.

Over the next few months I gained more experience than I ever would want in using the procedure in the handbook to record an ordinance missing from the membership record. I gained a great appreciation for those who kept journals and records, for those who had printed up baptism programs with names (and kept them), and for those who had witnessed ordinances and actually remembered them (I could not remember very many of the names of those I have witnessed being baptized.)

Using a combination of journals, baptism programs, and always following the rule of two witnesses, we were able to establish the baptism and confirmation information for almost every name on the list who had been baptized. "Yes, Sally was baptized the same day Johnny was, and brother and sister so and so were there." "No, he was confirmed at the baptism and not in Church the next day because the grandparents were there." "Brother so and so baptized my son the same day he baptized his daughter, and confirmed them both." "He was baptized on the Saturday before Fast Sunday, the week after general conference that year."

It was quite an introduction to the ward for me. I was fairly new in the area, and got to know most of the families quite intimately over the course of the first few months I served. I never did meet the clerk. He had moved out before our family moved in.

It is so much easier to record an ordinance at the time it is completed than to try and reconstruct it years later. Yet, even President Spencer W. Kimball was baptized again when he turned 12 just before he was ordained a deacon, because his baptism at 8 had not been recorded on his membership record.

lajackson wrote:I never did meet the clerk. He had moved out before our family moved in.

Probably just as well you didn't.

russellhltn wrote:

lajackson wrote:I never did meet the clerk. He had moved out before our family moved in.

Probably just as well you didn't.

I like to think I would have been kind, loving, and encouraging. And then had him serve for about 25 more years. [grin]

I was just put in as membership clerk when the (also new) bishop was informed that a former member of the ward was not dead. Turns out her daughter had been doing some familiy history work on line and found that her mother was listed as deceased. After a few phone calls it was confirmed her mother was indeed alive and residing in rest home in the neighboring stake. A couple calls to church HQ got it resolved. So sad to think that (very possibly) this sister did not have the local priesthood bretheren looking after her for the previous three years..

In the mid-90s I learned that a member we did not know of, but who lived in our ward, had died. I requested information from Church headquarters to determine if special funeral preparations were needed and to obtain help in locating family members to advise them of the death.

The kind lady in the membership department helped me gain the information I needed. When I asked if she should send the membership record so we could record his death, she said it was already recorded, ten years earlier, and named the ward and stake that did it (I have never revealed them to anyone, but still remember the location even though I never wrote it down).

Then she said, "I will update the date of death for you."

Besides, entering the record or updating it in the MLS. I found out that we don't have standard form for any ordinance. Whenever ordinance were performed, sometime you got a note from the Bishop, sometime you got a piece of paper from the Executive Secretary or Missionary. Or you're told verbally that some kind of ordinance were performed and they may not even have the full name for you. A standard form for people to fill in the details will really help us as a clerk to have all the data handy when needed. Even when we are not around and information will be there in writing.

joecondanmic wrote:Besides, entering the record or updating it in the MLS. I found out that we don't have standard form for any ordinance.

Standard ordination recommendation forms do exist in MLS for both Aaronic and Mechizedek Priesthood ordinations. They have places for you to enter all the details you need as the process proceeds from recommendation to interview to ordination. I'd highly recommend that you consider using these forms to make sure that each step is followed properly.

In MLS, you find the forms under Reports/Forms > Ordinance Record Forms.

joecondanmic wrote:Besides, entering the record or updating it in the MLS. I found out that we don't have standard form for any ordinance. Whenever ordinance were performed, sometime you got a note from the Bishop, sometime you got a piece of paper from the Executive Secretary or Missionary. Or you're told verbally that some kind of ordinance were performed and they may not even have the full name for you. A standard form for people to fill in the details will really help us as a clerk to have all the data handy when needed. Even when we are not around and information will be there in writing.

Besides using the MLS forms you may need to insist that the Bishopric member return the form after the ordnance is complete. We don't put anything in MLS without the proper form it gets frustrating at times trying to get the form but its necessary that nothing happens without the paper work.

I never handle the original form. Sometimes my clerk will give me a copy if I need to get a sustaining voted in sacrament meeting. But he (or the membership clerk) attends the ordinations, baptisms, and so on, and fills out the forms, gets the membership number if the person ordaining is outside the ward and so on. He then has me sign it and he keeps it.

I always thought that was just one of the clerks duties. ?

LOL... Maybe they just don't trust me to get it back...

TinMan wrote:I never handle the original form. Sometimes my clerk will give me a copy if I need to get a sustaining voted in sacrament meeting. But he (or the membership clerk) attends the ordinations, baptisms, and so on, and fills out the forms, gets the membership number if the person ordaining is outside the ward and so on. He then has me sign it and he keeps it.

I always thought that was just one of the clerks duties. ?

LOL... Maybe they just don't trust me to get it back...

Sounds like something born from experience to me. Maybe it was from a former bishop.

TinMan wrote:I never handle the original form.

Then what do you do when your interviewing someone. The forms is designed to be filled out mostly by the Bishop during the interview process the signed by him when the ordinance is accomplished.

TinMan wrote:Sometimes my clerk will give me a copy if I need to get a sustaining voted in sacrament meeting. But he (or the membership clerk) attends the ordinations, baptisms, and so on, and fills out the forms, gets the membership number if the person ordaining is outside the ward and so on. He then has me sign it and he keeps it.

Seems like a lot of unnecessary work on the side of the membership clerk having to attend all these ordinances just to ensure he has the paper work.

Generally a member of the Bishopric has to attend and is officiating anyway so they should be able to make sure the need signatures are on the forms and return the form back to the clerk.

TinMan wrote:I always thought that was just one of the clerks duties. ?

Funny I always thought that making sure the ordinance was accomplished properly was the Bishopric responsibilities which would include making sure they had the correct information on the paper work. The clerks duty was to make sure the information was recorded properly after the action has been taken care of.

TinMan wrote:... Maybe they just don't trust me to get it back...

That could be the case. Just be thankful for the good clerks you have.

Gary_Miller wrote: Seems like a lot of unnecessary work on the side of the membership clerk having to attend all these ordinances just to ensure he has the paper work.
...
The forms is designed to be filled out mostly by the Bishop during the interview process the signed by him when the ordinance is accomplished.

Hummm... Perhaps you are right. Here is how it works for us:

On Friday or Saturday, I get an email from my executive secretary with the interviews I have Sunday or later in the week. The Ward Clerk also gets a copy of this email.

When we meet Sunday Morning for bishopric meeting, the ward clerk will hand me forms for the ordination interviews. They are all ready filled out except for the name of the person who will do the ordinances and my signatures and date. I don't know how he gets all that information. I guess I always assumed it was automatically all there in MLS someplace. I guess, based on your comment, I am wrong.

I go ahead and interview the people and make arrangements. If I am sustaining them in Sacrament meeting that day, I will keep the form, otherwise, I toss it. I know there is a place in MLS where the clerk can save this form.

The Priesthood ordinations are all done right after the block on Sunday, so I guess I am burdening the clerk by making him stay 15 minutes after the block to witness these ordinations and get the membership numbers if an "outsider" does the ordination.

The next Sunday, he brings me the form with all the dates filled out and I sign them. I don't know if he reprints it or just fills out a copy and hands it to me.

So you are saying it is more of a hassle to attend the ordination and get the proper information first hand than it is to hassle the bishop or whatever counselor is presiding at the ordination for the paperwork?

Gary_Miller wrote:Funny I always thought that making sure the ordinance was accomplished properly was the Bishopric responsibilities which would include making sure they had the correct information on the paper work.

I believe I am fulfilling my responsibility to make sure the ordinance is accomplished properly. I am just doing it differently than you are. In 3 years, we have not had a single ding in a membership audit for not having the forms to match the ordinances. If asking a clerk to stay fifteen minutes after the block a dozen or so times a year, or missing elders quorum for a few minutes to attend an ordination in the priest quorum (where we invite all the priests to participate in the ordaining), gets that accomplished, then I would think it would be okay.

In fact, you also said this: "We don't put anything in MLS without the proper form it gets frustrating at times trying to get the form but its necessary that nothing happens without the paper work."

As for attending baptisms, yeah. That could be a burden. I will talk to them about it and see what they want to do. But one of the clerks wife is in the primary presidency, so he is there most of the time anyway.

TinMan wrote:They are all ready filled out except for the name of the person who will do the ordinances and my signatures and date. I don't know how he gets all that information. I guess I always assumed it was automatically all there in MLS someplace. I guess, based on your comment, I am wrong.

No, you're not wrong. With just a few clicks to select the correct person and a few key presses to enter the date all the information can be filled in by MLS automatically. The information for the person performing the ordinance can also be filled in quickly if that person is known (although I often leave it blank as well because I don't know for certain who will do the ordinance when I print it).

It would certainly be more work for you to fill all that out by hand during the interview.

Thanks. That is what I always assumed.

TinMan wrote:I guess I always assumed it was automatically all there in MLS someplace. I guess, based on your comment, I am wrong.

I go ahead and interview the people and make arrangements. If I am sustaining them in Sacrament meeting that day, I will keep the form, otherwise, I toss it. I know there is a place in MLS where the clerk can save this form.

Yes the form is printed out of MLS. In my ward the Exec Sect prints the form for the bishop. The bishop interviews the person, fills out the information that was not available to the ES at the time he printed the form and keeps the form until everything is completed. Then he places the form in the membership clerks box to record and print the certificate. The clerk never has to attend any ordination.

TinMan wrote:The Priesthood ordinations are all done right after the block on Sunday, so I guess I am burdening the clerk by making him stay 15 minutes after the block to witness these ordinations and get the membership numbers if an "outsider" does the ordination.

Its never just 15 minutes it takes at least that long just to get everyone in the room. And if there is more than one ordination or setting apart, well........

TinMan wrote:The next Sunday, he brings me the form with all the dates filled out and I sign them. I don't know if he reprints it or just fills out a copy and hands it to me.

So you are saying it is more of a hassle to attend the ordination and get the proper information first hand than it is to hassle the bishop or whatever counselor is presiding at the ordination for the paperwork?

I'm saying that if the Bishopric member keeps the paper work until the ordinance is completed and then places it in the Membership Clerks box that there is no hassle for anyone.

TinMan wrote:If asking a clerk to stay fifteen minutes after the block a dozen or so times a year,

Its never 15 minutes nor is it a dozen times a year, and you are not just asking the clerk to stay but also his family is probably waiting as well.

TinMan wrote:or missing elders quorum for a few minutes to attend an ordination in the priest quorum (where we invite all the priests to participate in the ordaining), gets that accomplished, then I would think it would be okay.

I don't have a problem with missing elders quorum I just don't see the necessity when the form can be filled out and returned by the Bishopric member.

TinMan wrote:In fact, you also said this: "We don't put anything in MLS without the proper form it gets frustrating at times trying to get the form but its necessary that nothing happens without the paper work."

I guess its not really frustrating as much as the ordinance does not get recorded and the next thing you know is one of the Bishopric members is saying we ordained so and so a couple of months ago why is it not in MLS. To which I say "Where is the form showing it was accomplished nothing get recorded without the paper work.", at which time they get a sheepish look on their face and pull the form out of there notebook.

Gary_Miller wrote: Its never 15 minutes nor is it a dozen times a year, and you are not just asking the clerk to stay but also his family is probably waiting as well.

I guess it is a luxury that where I live, my clerk lives three houses from the Church.

Gary_Miller wrote:I guess its not really frustrating as much as the ordinance does not get recorded and the next thing you know is one of the Bishopric members is saying we ordained so and so a couple of months ago why is it not in MLS. To which I say "Where is the form showing it was accomplished nothing get recorded without the paper work.", at which time they get a sheepish look on their face and pull the form out of there notebook.

Seems to me I have eliminated that particular problem. And in our ward, it is the opposite: My ward clerk lets me know Sunday mornings anyone who is not ordained in the system that he thinks should have been. We never go a "couple of months" without getting an ordination recorded. In fact, it is very unusual if I am not signing the certificate of ordination the week following the ordination.

To each his own, I guess.

Gary_Miller wrote:Seems like a lot of unnecessary work on the side of the membership clerk having to attend all these ordinances just to ensure he has the paper work.

Actually, in an official letter dated 25 March 2003, we were told:

When ... priesthood ordinations are performed, the appropriate Church representative should attend and ensure that the ... ordination is recorded....

• Baptism and confirmation of member of record: Ward clerk or assistant
• Aaronic Priesthood ordination: Ward clerk or assistant
• Melchizedek Priesthood ordination: Stake clerk or designee

I've seen no communication that supersedes this instruction, so it is still in force. Thus it is policy, not "a lot of unnecessary work" that should inspire a clerk to attend.

TinMan wrote:Hummm... Perhaps you are right. Here is how it works for us:

On Friday or Saturday, I get an email from my executive secretary with the interviews I have Sunday or later in the week. The Ward Clerk also gets a copy of this email.

Here is my ward's approach to the process.

In the first part of the month, one of the clerks prints all of the ordinance record forms for ordinances that should happen the next month. For example, ordinance record forms that are expected to be needed in November are printed in early October. Those go to the executive secretary. He uses those as part of the process of scheduling interviews and gives them to the bishop before he conducts the interview.

The clerks don't see the form again until after the ordinance is completed. It took a little bit of training, but the bishopric member who presided at the ordinance delivers the form to one of the clerks.

We gave the bishop a small stack of blank child blessing forms that he could fill out with the parents since those are a little more difficult to print with all of the completed information.

Thanks Aaron.

I guess I won't be talking to my clerks about not attending baptisms...

scgallafent wrote:
We gave the bishop a small stack of blank child blessing forms that he could fill out with the parents since those are a little more difficult to print with all of the completed information.

Again. I don't fill these out. There is a stack pinned to the bulletin board in the clerks office. If someone says, "we want to bless our baby on Fast Sunday," I tell them to go to the clerks office and get a form and fill it out and get it back to the clerk before the sacrament meeting where the blessing takes place. He checks and if someone other than a ward member is blessing the baby, he alerts me and together we ask grandpa to see his temple recommend or letter authorizing him to perform the ordinance from his bishop. I only get the completed form so we can read the name prior to the blessing. My clerk comes to the pulpit after sacrament meeting and retrieves the form. If he doesn't, we stick it in his box with our conducting sheet that has the releases and sustainings on it.

As Gary said: I have great clerks (and counselors) who try to take away from me as much of the "administering" part of my calling as they can. It is something I appreciate and let them know as often as I can.

TinMan wrote:

scgallafent wrote:We gave the bishop a small stack of blank child blessing forms that he could fill out with the parents since those are a little more difficult to print with all of the completed information.

Again. I don't fill these out. There is a stack pinned to the bulletin board in the clerks office. If someone says, "we want to bless our baby on Fast Sunday," I tell them to go to the clerks office and get a form and fill it out and get it back to the clerk before the sacrament meeting where the blessing takes place.

That's not a bad approach. I don't know if it would work with the way our bishop handles things, but I like it.

aebrown wrote:Actually, in an official letter dated 25 March 2003, we were told:

When ... priesthood ordinations are performed, the appropriate Church representative should attend and ensure that the ... ordination is recorded....

Arguably the 2010 Handbook superseded it. The Online Communication Library doesn't seem to have anything prior to 2005, so I'd question if that's still in force.

Handbook 1: 16.1.3 indicates that the clerk merely obtains the information. I don't see any requirement to attend.

Handbook 2: 20.7.1 also provides some info as to who is the representative.

russellhltn wrote:

aebrown wrote:Actually, in an official letter dated 25 March 2003, we were told:

When ... priesthood ordinations are performed, the appropriate Church representative should attend and ensure that the ... ordination is recorded....

Arguably the 2010 Handbook superseded it.

Actually, I did some further research and found that the 17 August 2006 official letter explicitly made the 25 March 2003 letter obsolete. So please ignore my statements about it being official policy. It's certainly an option for a ward clerk to attend all such ordinances and ordinations, but is not required by current policy.

aebrown wrote:Actually, I did some further research and found that the 17 August 2006 official letter explicitly made the 25 March 2003 letter obsolete.

And the 2010 Official Handbooks of Instruction made the 17 August 2006 letter obsolete.

The bottom line is keeping accurate records are of up most importance and a unit needs to do what works best for them.

Gary_Miller wrote:

aebrown wrote:Actually, I did some further research and found that the 17 August 2006 official letter explicitly made the 25 March 2003 letter obsolete.

And the 2010 Official Handbooks of Instruction made the 17 August 2006 letter obsolete.

Actually, it didn't . Because the 17 August 2006 letter includes instructions as to exactly which letters were to be destroyed when the next Handbook 2 was published, and that did not occur until 2010. If that letter had become obsolete upon the publishing of the 2010 handbooks, we wouldn't have had a way to know which letters to destroy.

There's a common misconception that the publication of new handbooks makes every former official letter obsolete, which is clearly not the case -- if so, there would have been no reason for the 17 August 2006 letter to have been written, specifying exactly which letters needed to be destroyed.

Although, I can't find any 2006 letter in the communication library. But if it's sole purpose was to instruct what letters were be to destroyed, then perhaps by removing it from the on-line library, it's no longer needed.

Lot great talk about baby blessing forms, but I'm really new at this. Getting calls from members saying the bishops told them to call. WOW! Where do I get help from? I need to know where I can get the baby blessing form to print it out?

You can print it from MLS.

scgallafent wrote:You can print it from MLS.

Specifically select Membership > Ordinances > Forms > Child Blessing Record from the menu in MLS.