Ordinances with No Valid Record: Testimony of Witnesses

I have a few questions regarding ordinances which were performed but never entered into MLS and the guidelines found in Handbook 1 16.1.10.

1) Is there a statue of limitations (a time limit or time frame) during which an ordinance needs to be inputted into MLS before it is considered as having "No Valid Record"?

2) Assuming the date of the ordinance is known, does it matter which ward inputs the information into MLS? For instance, if a child gets baptized in one ward but then moves to another ward before the former ward inputs it into MLS, can the latter ward go on word alone and input it into MLS?

3) Also assuming the date of the ordinance is known, if an ordinance is never entered in MLS, there will obviously be no record of it in MLS and the family/individual will not have a certificate proving it was performed. However, since the ordinance was never entered in MLS, the date it was performed was never really "missing." Rather, the entire entry was simply not entered in MLS. Would a "testimony of witnesses" be required in instances where the date of the ordinance is known but the ordinance was simply never entered into MLS?

4) Does it matter which Bishop signs the "testimony of witnesses"? The current ward or the ward in which the ordinance was performed?

I have thoroughly read the guidelines in the handbook. I am looking for you to respond and offer your 'interpretation' of the guidelines in the handbook. I know the handbook but it seems there are many interpretations of the handbook. That is why I am looking for others to offer their interpretation of the guidelines. If there are no guidelines for my questions, please state that.

TIA.

First off, the only interpretation that matters is the one done by your priesthood leaders. If they are not sure, they can check with their "upline".

krk22 wrote:1) Is there a statue of limitations (a time limit or time frame) during which an ordinance needs to be inputted into MLS before it is considered as having "No Valid Record"?

I'm not seeing a limit, but I'd say if there's been a breakdown in the ward's recordkeeping or memory of the leaders such that there is any doubt on "if" or "when", then 16.1.10 comes into play.

krk22 wrote:2) Assuming the date of the ordinance is known, does it matter which ward inputs the information into MLS? For instance, if a child gets baptized in one ward but then moves to another ward before the former ward inputs it into MLS, can the latter ward go on word alone and input it into MLS?

I'm not seeing anything on what ward, but I do question "who's word" are you basing this off of? If I was in the second ward, I think I'd either ask for two witnesses or for the first ward to enter the record and forward it.

krk22 wrote:Would a "testimony of witnesses" be required in instances where the date of the ordinance is known but the ordinance was simply never entered into MLS?

Known by whom? I'd tempted to say if this isn't firsthand knowledge of the leaders of the ward, then a testimony is needed.

krk22 wrote:4) Does it matter which Bishop signs the "testimony of witnesses"? The current ward or the ward in which the ordinance was performed?

It does not appear to matter.

The problem with the interpretation of my priesthood leaders is that they seem to want to add requirements that are not stated in the guidelines of the handbook. I say, stick to the handbook.

As for #1 - there is no question of "if" or "when" the ordinance was performed. A child was baptized, both his parents were present for it (two witnesses).

As for #2 - the word of the two parents (two witnesses). They were in the first ward and now are in the second ward.

As for #3 - It is firsthand knowledge. Again, the parents of the child are the two witnesses.

As for #4 - thank you for the response. It seems some interpret the guidelines as suggesting the former ward's bishop is required to co-sign the "testimony," seemingly regardless of whether the Bishop (or any member of the Bishopric) were around for the baptism or whether they ever knew the person (or family of the person) who was baptized.

Thanks for the feedback.

According to Handbook 1, 16.1.10, I would think the two parents should be able to provide a written statement to their current bishop containing the correct information and attesting that they were present and witnessed the ordinance. The would sign their statement in the presence of a member of the bishopric.

With that statement, the bishop would authorize the clerk to update the membership record, and once the record is updated the clerk would follow the disposition instructions for the witness statement(s).

There is no requirement for the bishop to sign anything. Just read the Handbook and follow the steps as they are written.

Edit: If the current bishop is concerned about the testimony of the witnesses, he can always contact the prior bishop and confirm that the ordinance took place, especially if the family has recently moved to the new ward. But other than that, the actual process is still the same.

The current bishop is NOT concerned about the validity or truthfulness of the testimony of the two parents but is still insisting on a written testimony signed by the former ward's bishop in order to be compliant with the CHOI (even though there is no requirement in the CHOI for doing what he is requiring). For some reason he is interpreting there to be requirements which are not stated in the CHOI.

The funny thing about it, there is no guarantee that the former ward's bishop was even in the ward or knew the person (or family of the person) who was baptized! Military ward's, for instance, can have a complete turnover just about every 3 years!

Furthermore, if there is no record of the ordinance in MLS, it seems unlikely that the former ward will be able to confirm that it took place!

krk22 wrote:The current bishop is NOT concerned about the validity or truthfulness of the testimony of the two parents but is still insisting on a written testimony signed by the former ward's bishop in order to be compliant with the CHOI (even though there is no requirement in the CHOI for doing what he is requiring). For some reason he is interpreting there to be requirements which are not stated in the CHOI.

I'm assuming you are the clerk. I'd suggest chatting with the stake clerk.

krk22 wrote:The current bishop is NOT concerned about the validity or truthfulness of the testimony of the two parents but is still insisting on a written testimony signed by the former ward's bishop . . .

Well, get the statement from the parents, and then if it is not too hard to get, have their former bishop sign it, too.

If the bishop still insists, even though it is not in the Handbook, you either have to humor him or send the stake president after him.

Your bishop has some reason for wanting something from the former bishop. He just doesn't have the Handbook to back him up in his request, unless he is thinking the former bishop is the bishop to which the Handbook refers.

All this fuss, and does he recall what is going to happen to the written statement when you have finished recording the ordinance?

Long-story short, we have a statement but it is garbage. They included the date the statement was signed and NOT the date the ordinance was performed!!!!

The process was initiated with the former Bishopric while I was gone for three months during the summer otherwise I would have caught the issue at inception.

The current Bishop seems to be holding onto a long-held belief of his of how he thought things were outlined in the handbook and he continues to justify it in various ways.

One justification of his is that when someone comes into our ward to perform an ordinance, he (our Bishop) checks worthiness because it is within our jurisdiction. So that is why we need the signature of the former bishop for baptism that was performed in another's jurisdiction but never recorded. Never mind that the current bishop of the former ward may not have even been in the ward at the time of the ordinance in question. Furthermore, ward boundaries may have changed and so which ward is now the ward with jurisdiction over that ordinance performed years earlier?

And, yes, I pointed out that the statement gets shredded but he is insisting that we use the process correctly even though he is willing to accept the garbage statement that we currently have and then just take the parents' word on the date of the ordinance.

It wouldn't be a big deal but I was just informed of five other child-of-record baptisms that were never recorded in our ward (dating back to my summer absence and before my call). I don't want a bunch of unnecessary work!

krk22 wrote:Long-story short, we have a statement but it is garbage. They included the date the statement was signed and NOT the date the ordinance was performed!!!!

Then you do not have a statement. Start over.

I have a suggestion.

Determine that the parents were old enough when the ordinance was performed, that they both saw and heard the ordinance, and that they are both Church members of record today.

Ask them to write the name of the person they saw baptized, the date the ordinance was performed and, hopefully, the name of the person who performed it. (Get the confirmation information, too.)

Ask them to sign the statement in the presence of a member of the bishopric.

If your current bishop insists, have the former bishop also sign the statement.

In other words, follow the Handbook. [grin]

Because at this point, it doesn't matter what the bishop thinks at all. It will when you actually have a statement, but it does not matter yet.

lajackson wrote: If your current bishop insists, have the former bishop also sign the statement.

Except the former bishop has moved clear across the country, so you can't just hunt him down after sacrament meeting.

krk22 wrote:Does it matter which Bishop signs the "testimony of witnesses"? The current ward or the ward in which the ordinance was performed?

The way I read it, the bishop is not signing as witness to the event in question, but as a witness to the testimony. It strikes me as the legal equivalent of placing one's hand on a bible when swearing to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as well as the legal equivalent of notary public who certifies that the person in question really did sign this paper and it wasn't forged.

While technically any bishop might be able to do this, I think it's preferable that it be a bishop that knows the member(s) signing the statement. I can see where the new bishop might not want to do that for a member who just moved in this week, but at some point the old bishop may not want to do it either as they have been out of the ward for some time. My best suggestion there is to handle this like a temple recommend - if the members have been in the ward for less then a year, the new bishop should consult with the old bishop.

Is the only problem an abundance of caution, or are there some red flags? I am a tad troubled that the two witnesses are the parents who are not disinterested bystanders, but there's nothing in the handbook that prohibits that. So unless they're the only ones who remember, I'm not sure what the problem is.

russellhltn wrote:

krk22 wrote:Does it matter which Bishop signs the "testimony of witnesses"? The current ward or the ward in which the ordinance was performed?

The way I read it, the bishop is not signing as witness to the event in question, but as a witness to the testimony. It strikes me as the legal equivalent of placing one's hand on a bible when swearing to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as well as the legal equivalent of notary public who certifies that the person in question really did sign this paper and it wasn't forged.

Actually, I don't see anything that says the bishop has to sign the "testimony of witnesses". It just says that the witnesses have to sign their testimony in the presence of a member of the bishopric (or higher authority). I suppose the bishopric member may want to include a note verifying this if the testimony is being sent to another ward. But if the testimony is being used in the same ward where the witnesses reside then there is definitely no need for an additional signature.

In addition, the handbook doesn't require that the testimony be signed in the presence of the bishop but of any member of the bishopric. So this isn't an issue of keys which only the bishop holds as is the case when signing the Baptism or Confirmation Record or the Baptism Certificate. Everything points to this being most closely similar to a notary public as russellhltn suggests.

russellhltn wrote:

krk22 wrote:Does it matter which Bishop signs the "testimony of witnesses"? The current ward or the ward in which the ordinance was performed?

The way I read it, the bishop is not signing as witness to the event in question, but as a witness to the testimony.

The way I read the HB the bishop does not have to sign the witness statement. It only has to be signed by the witnesses in the presence of a member of the bishopric or a higher Church authority. However the next paragraph says once the witness statement is obtained the Bishop may authorize the clerk to record the correction. I guess the Bishop could not authorize the correction even though there is a witness statement.

I am sorry to confuse. I stand corrected that the Bishop does NOT need to sign, just that the written "testimony" be signed in the presence of a member of the Bishopric.

The point of the question: Does the written "testimony" need to be signed in the presence of a member of the bishopric of the FORMER or CURRENT ward? My current Bishop interprets it as being in the presence of the FORMER Bishopric making the obtaining of a signed, written testimony VERY challenging and a lot of work for everyone around.

krk22 wrote:The point of the question: Does the written "testimony" need to be signed in the presence of a member of the bishopric of the FORMER or CURRENT ward? My current Bishop interprets it as being in the presence of the FORMER Bishopric making the obtaining of a signed, written testimony VERY challenging and a lot of work for everyone around.

Let me answer your question with a scenario: What if one of the witnesses is a return missionary testifying what he saw while on his mission? Some of those baptisms might have had a small turnout. Is he supposed to return to his mission? Or is signing the paper in the presence of his current bishopric (who would have absolutely no knowledge of this event) be sufficient?

I do think the bishopric member is essentially "testifying" that he has no reason to believe that the member is lying. But that's not the same as saying he has to have knowledge of the event.

But Gary brings up an interesting point. When presented with two witnesses, the bishop is not required to authorize the updating of the records. There's still bishop's discretion. So the bishop may be free to place additional conditions in this situation.

russellhltn (and any others), you would agree that signing a written "testimony" in the presence of the witness' CURRENT bishop would suffice, correct? That is what I am getting at. There is no requirement that a member of the Bishopric of the ward in which the ordinance was performed needs to serve as the witness, correct? Most of the time, the witnesses (the child's parents in the case of child-of-record baptisms) would sign in the presence of a member of their CURRENT ward and not have to travel back to the ward in which the ordinance was performed in order to sign in the presence of a member of THAT bishopric, correct? I think it is common sense, but other don't seem to see it this way.

Also, regarding a Bishop not authorizing the correction / update, or a Bishop placing additional conditions in the situation: If a Bishop does that, it screams of the Bishop "doing his own thing" and not following guidlines of the handbook. Short of a sure knowledge that the witnesses are falsifying their testimony (unlikely), no further requirements should be enacted. Any good Bishop, IMO, ought to limit their 'dominion' to that which is outlined in the handbook.

One further note, the way I read the guidelines, the Bishop is not validating that the ordinance was performed CORRECTLY or that it was performed with the proper AUTHORIZATION, but rather ONLY that it was merely performed (it is assumed that if it was performed, that it would have been performed correctly and with the proper authorization). The intent of the guidelines in Hb1 16.1.10 is simply for record keeping purposes; to valitate that the ordinance was actually performed; not to determine if it was performed correctly or with proper authorization.

Any further thoughts?

krk22 wrote:russellhltn (and any others), you would agree that signing a written "testimony" in the presence of the witness' CURRENT bishop would suffice, correct?

Yes.

krk22 wrote:That is what I am getting at. There is no requirement that a member of the Bishopric of the ward in which the ordinance was performed needs to serve as the witness, correct? Most of the time, the witnesses (the child's parents in the case of child-of-record baptisms) would sign in the presence of a member of their CURRENT ward and not have to travel back to the ward in which the ordinance was performed in order to sign in the presence of a member of THAT bishopric, correct?

Yes. That is exactly what happened when I had an ordination to Elder that had not been recorded. I created a short form and the elder asked his father (who had ordained him) and another who had been in the circle to fill out the information and sign it. They signed it in the presence of a member of their bishopric (which was not the same ward as where the ordinance took place and was not our ward either). So we had two wards involved and neither was the ward where the ordination occurred. The ward where the ordination occurred never came into it.

Unfortunately, the wording in the handbook says 'the' bishopric rather than 'their' or 'a' bishopric so I suppose someone could infer 'the' bishopric to mean the bishopric where the ordination occurred. We didn't interpret it that way and taking the section as a whole I don't think that interpretation makes sense but that isn't binding on your bishop. If involving the bishop where the ordination took place was easy then I'd say just go along. But it doesn't sound like it is. Perhaps your bishop would be willing to discuss it with the stake president.

krk22 wrote:Any further thoughts?

On the whole I agree with your interpretation, but it matterth not. The bishop is the one with the keys to interprate the manual within his ward. If you want to "overrule" him, you'll have to go to the stake.

The Stake Clerk is in charge of training for the ward clerks, so it's a good way to raise the issue without "going over his head".

russellhltn wrote:
The bishop is the one with the keys to interprate the manual within his ward.

"Keys to interpret the manual"???? Not sure one needs "keys" to interpret the manual. We are asked to work according to the CHOI not the "Bishop's interpretation" of the CHOI.

If the Bishop decides on additional requirements, I would wonder why he is insisting on it while those who serve with him are in disagreement.

krk22 wrote:Not sure one needs "keys" to interpret the manual.

You haven't seen our thread on "broadcasting" meetings in the chapel. There are any number of ways of looking at it and someone's has to be the final say for the unit.

krk22 wrote:The current bishop is NOT concerned about the validity or truthfulness of the testimony of the two parents but is still insisting on a written testimony signed by the former ward's bishop in order to be compliant with the CHOI (even though there is no requirement in the CHOI for doing what he is requiring). For some reason he is interpreting there to be requirements which are not stated in the CHOI.

If the objective is to get a baptism and confirmation recorded, then someone needs to find out the "some reason" the bishop is hesitating. And someone still needs to get a statement in the first place.

While there may be a discussion about whether the members should sign the statement in front of a member of the old bishopric or in front of a member of the new bishopric, the Handbook is very absent a statement that any bishop needs to also sign the statement.

Has he not read the Handbook recently?

And if the former bishop has moved across the country, then the current bishop is placing an obstacle to the recording of the ordinance(s).

There are two people who would normally speak with the bishop about this, the clerk or the stake president. If your bishop has assigned a counselor to oversee the work of the clerks, you might speak with him and ask him to consult with the bishop. If not, you might speak with the stake clerk and suggest he consider having the stake president speak with the bishop.

This is a very interesting discussion. But there are some key pieces missing from this story.

So, if the objective is to get a baptism and confirmation ordinance recorded, I would start by getting a statement from the parents with the needed information and then deal with (or have someone else deal with) the bishop after that.

And if the objective is to have a nice discussion about bishops interpreting the handbook, speak on. (Although I think we have pretty much covered most of the opinions and options in the discussion so far.)

At some point, it would be fun to learn the rest of the story. And you should all be very glad I am not one of the parents.

lajackson wrote:There are two people who would normally speak with the bishop about this, the clerk or the stake president. If your bishop has assigned a counselor to oversee the work of the clerks, you might speak with him and ask him to consult with the bishop. If not, you might speak with the stake clerk and suggest he consider having the stake president speak with the bishop.

Would the High Councilor that's assigned to the ward be of any help?

russellhltn wrote:Would the High Councilor that's assigned to the ward be of any help?

Sure, if he is tactful, knowledgeable, and the bishop respects his opinion. He might be the person to better understand the concern of the bishop.

But the way the scenario has been described, either the stake president is going to tell the bishop, er, suggest to the bishop what to do, or the ward budget is going to fund a trip for the couple across country to visit their old bishop. Now that would be a hot topic, wouldn't it? [grin]

russellhltn wrote:

krk22 wrote:Not sure one needs "keys" to interpret the manual.

You haven't seen our thread on "broadcasting" meetings in the chapel. There are any number of ways of looking at it and someone's has to be the final say for the unit.

No doubt. I don't think there is anyone who would argue against someone having the final say and that person being the Bishop.

lajackson wrote:
I think we have pretty much covered most of the opinions and options in the discussion so far.

At some point, it would be fun to learn the rest of the story. And you should all be very glad I am not one of the parents.

We have covered most of it and I thank everyone who has contributed. This is all good discussion. I plan on discussing with the Bishopric this Sunday. Before then, I needed to make sure that I was interpreting the handbooks according to generally accepted interpretations. At least now I can tell my Bishop that his interpretation is in the minority.

I will make sure to post a follow-up with the conclusion to the story.

russellhltn wrote:
Would the High Councilor that's assigned to the ward be of any help?

I did CC the High Counselor in an email which explained my interpretation of the 16.1.10 guidelines. However, he has always historically said, "It is up to the Bishop" regardless of circumstances.

lajackson wrote:
But the way the scenario has been described, either the stake president is going to tell the bishop, er, suggest to the bishop what to do, or the ward budget is going to fund a trip for the couple across country to visit their old bishop. Now that would be a hot topic, wouldn't it? [grin]

More likely that the Bishop would require the Baptism to be redone.

Are you able to figure out what the bishop's concern is? I suspect the parents have photos - probably not of the baptism itself, but the typical dressed in white next to the person who is going to baptize him. Not "proof" according to the manual, but certainly collaborating evidence - and perhaps something that would put the bishop at ease. And quite likely it has a date electronically embedded in the photo.

His concern is that the ordinance was performed under another Bishop's / Ward's jurisdiction and so evidence from that Bishop / Ward is required to validate the ordinance in order to update the membership record. He compared it to him having to "validate worthiness" (his words) of an individual from another ward who is visiting to perform an ordinance in our ward.

That is his concern, that the ordinance was not performed under his (our ward's) jurisdiction so he has reservations with "validating" it himself. When really, the guidelines in 16.1.10 are not for "validation" of the ordinance, per se, but validation of the validity / truthfulness of the "testimony" of the witnesses. It is (or should be) assumed that IF the ordinance was performed, it was performed properly and with the proper authorization.

If the former bishop has moved some distance away, perhaps after the members sign their testimony the new bishop might be willing to call the old bishop to satisfy his concerns with a direct conversation between the two bishops on the subject.

lajackson wrote:If the former bishop has moved some distance away, perhaps after the members sign their testimony the new bishop might be willing to call the old bishop to satisfy his concerns with a direct conversation between the two bishops on the subject.

Much like HB1: 3.3.3 under "Members Who Have Not Lived in the Same Ward for at Least One Year". If it's good enough for a temple recommend, it should be good enough for vouching for the witness.

krk22 wrote:His concern is that the ordinance was performed under another Bishop's / Ward's jurisdiction and so evidence from that Bishop / Ward is required to validate the ordinance in order to update the membership record. He compared it to him having to "validate worthiness" (his words) of an individual from another ward who is visiting to perform an ordinance in our ward.

I guess I can understand that he's concerned about overstepping his personal stewardship. But you might point out that the handbook does explicitly say under what circumstances a bishop much verify the worthiness of someone performing an ordinance out of their ward (i.e. when acting as voice) and how they should do it (by temple recommend or a recommend to perform an ordinance). On the other hand, the handbook does not say anything about verifying the ordinance with the presiding authority in order to validate it. The presiding authority may not even be available anymore due to death.

Personally, if the bishop where the ordinance was performed is no longer the bishop I'm not sure his testimony means anything more than anyone else's who was there. He no longer has those keys. But if he is still the bishop then he has the keys and authority to print and sign a Baptismal Certificate which would be sufficient evidence for the new ward to record the baptism. I see the two witnesses route as something to handle the situation when the presiding authority is no longer in his position for whatever reason.

eblood66 wrote: The presiding authority may not even be available anymore due to death.

Just to clarify, my Bishop is NOT suggesting we contact the presiding authority at the time of the ordinance, just the current Bishop of the ward where the ordinance was performed because it was under that ward's jurisdiction that the ordinance took place.

krk22 wrote:

eblood66 wrote: The presiding authority may not even be available anymore due to death.

Just to clarify, my Bishop is NOT suggesting we contact the presiding authority at the time of the ordinance, just the current Bishop of the ward where the ordinance was performed because it was under that ward's jurisdiction that the ordinance took place.

Interesting. If it isn't the same bishop as when the ordinance was performed then there is no reason to think they have any greater knowledge of the ordinance than the parents do. If it's just a matter of whether the parents are trustworthy (assuming they haven't been in your ward long) then I agree with russellhltn, a call to the former bishop should be sufficient, just as it is for a temple recommend.

If your bishop doesn't see it that way then I don't know how you could convince him otherwise since I can't see any support for his position in the handbook. The analogy to someone performing an ordinance outside their ward doesn't really apply. That's a matter of judging someone's worthiness. Only the bishop of the ward where they reside is authorized to do that. In this case the only judgement is whether the witnesses are reliable and that responsibility falls to your bishop since they are now in your ward.

I guess I would tell him (respectfully) that his interpretation seems at odds with how others interpret that section and ask if he would discuss it with the stake president (which is what the handbook says to do when there are questions). If the stake president agrees with him then you just have to figure some way around it (which may mean doing the baptism over).

I think I would take myself completely out of the picture and let the Bishop handle the whole affair his way. He can be the one to get the witness statement and to contact the other wards Bishop. Once has has done this and is satisfied he can give me the paper work and authorization to proceed. Then and only then would I get involved.

While I'm a strong advocate of taking all the administrative tasks off of the Bishop as much as possible what is currently happening is unreasonable, so is an incident where the Bishop can handle the situation as a whole.

Gary_Miller wrote: While I'm a strong advocate of taking all the administrative tasks off of the Bishop as much as possible what is currently happening is unreasonable, so is an incident where the Bishop can handle the situation as a whole.

Exactly my thoughts. If he wants to do it his way, fair enough. Let me know when you have the paperwork ready for me. After all, it is the responsibility of the Bishop or one of his counselors to hand the clerk the requisite paperwork for it to be inputted into MLS. It is not the clerk's responsibility to track all the happenings of the ward and track down all that information.

Again, thanks for all the input everyone. It has been most helpful.

krk22 wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote: While I'm a strong advocate of taking all the administrative tasks off of the Bishop as much as possible what is currently happening is unreasonable, so is an incident where the Bishop can handle the situation as a whole.

Exactly my thoughts. If he wants to do it his way, fair enough. Let me know when you have the paperwork ready for me.

Yup. It shouldn't fall to the clerk to explain this touchy situation to the parents. Let the bishop handle it and then he can do it his way.