That's awesome! Thanks for sharing it with us! In GOD we trust! Love, Debbie Bailey Conger FUEL - Focused.Unlimited.Extraordinary.Life ~ Mindset Journal You know, I once had a dream that didn’t come true. I know how that is. Ouch!! Painful!! Humiliating!! Until I realized, it wasn’t too late to dream something better. It’s never too late. ~ The Universe - Mike Dooley Please delete details of all previous senders, including mine, to reduce spam, viruses, and identity theft. It is best to use the Bcc when forwarding. To do this, click your pointer at the very end of the list of addresses, then hold down the ‘backspace’ key. When using the Bcc, space between each email address, the address will not show on the forwards. This will prevent unwanted email addresses from being automatically added to your contact list. Thank you! > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:28:42 -0400 > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] quote > > I found the quote Megan shared in a May 1980 Ensign article by Elder A. > Theodore Tuttle as well. Also a quote that caused me to smile that I will > share here that is a quote by the Prophet Joseph Smith. (It follows his > well known quote regarding the Saints who neglect it in behalf of their > deceased relatives, do it at the peril of their own salvation): > > Yet, in his anxiety the Prophet once observed, "but there has been a great > difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has > been like splitting hemlock knots with a corndodger for a wedge, and a > pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand" (Teachings, > p. 331). > > I really do not know about hemlock knots, corndodgers, and the pumpkin for a > beetle but I can imagine it. > > Nancy Scott > > > > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This one I have to deal with - considering number of siblings I have. 11 step mothers and 4 stepfathers, all have children who are either half or step siblings (mind you, I have 19 in all.) David Samuelsen On 5/23/2012 7:36 AM, Scott and Tammy Stevenson wrote: > Answer Four: > > You can find most of the policies related to this question in chapter 7, > page 30, of the Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work. You can > access this guide online, or request one from your ward clerk or pick one up > at any Church distribution center. In the manual it explains that you can > submit work for your biological, adoptive, or step family lines.

Anyone ancestry of that spouse is off limit unless related. Descendants are ok since they are related. David Samuelsen On 5/23/2012 7:36 AM, Scott and Tammy Stevenson wrote: > Answer Two: > > You can continue to work collateral or descendant lines. Just be sure that > you are staying in your own family line. For example, once you cross over a > spousal line, you are no longer related. That family is the family of a > spouse. The key to almost every policy is that you be related. If you stay > within that guideline, you will be fine.

Subject: Policies for Submitting Names for Temple Ordinances An important notice from the Family History Department. Is this email not displaying correctly? <http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b0de542dc933cfcb848d187ea&id=283e81086f&e=2a0cdf40d6> View it in your browser. <http://gallery.mailchimp.com/b0de542dc933cfcb848d187ea/images/LDS_Logo_600.jpg> Notice _____ Date: March 9, 2012 To: Family History Consultants, Family History Center Directors, and Staff From: Family History Department Subject: Policies for Submitting Names for Temple Ordiances _____ Recently, the First Presidency of the Church reiterated the policies, first stated in 1995, concerning the submitting of names for proxy temple ordinances. As both a user of the system (new.familysearch.org) where temple ordinances are cleared and submitted and as a leader in family history, you should help users follow these policies. You will find the policy letter below this e-mail. In a related Church News article, Brother Dennis C. Brimhall, managing director of the Family History Department, reported that “the searching out of our family and preparing the names for the work to be done in the temple is . . . a responsibility, but it is also a privilege. That privilege is extended to the members by those who hold the keys to [do] the work. The[se] keys . . . are held by the First Presidency of the Church” (Sarah Jane Weaver, “Family History—Church Asks Members to Understand Policies,” Church News, Mar. 1, 2012). ( <http://familysearch.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b0de542dc933cfcb848d187ea&id=fd478b9d80&e=2a0cdf40d6> Click here to see the article.) The First Presidency set these policies. Accordingly, the Conditions of Use for users of new.familysearch.org and familysearch.org require compliance to the policies before you can submit names to the temple. As a family history consultant, family history center director, or staff member, many times you are the first person whom members go to for guidance and direction. It is imperative that you understand these policies and are able to articulate what they mean and that you teach compliance to them. Noncompliance could mean the loss of privileges to use new.familysearch.org. Over the next few months a series of e-mail communications will be sent to all registered users of new.familysearch.org reminding them of these policies. _____ <http://gallery.mailchimp.com/b0de542dc933cfcb848d187ea/images/10281_000_letter_1.jpg> <http://gallery.mailchimp.com/653153ae841fd11de66ad181a/images/transparent.gif> Copyright © 2012 FamilySearch, All rights reserved. You are receiving this newsletter because you opted in at our website FamilySearch.org/serve. Our mailing address is: FamilySearch 50 E. North Temple St. Salt Lake City, UT 84150 <http://familysearch.us2.list-manage.com/vcard?u=b0de542dc933cfcb848d187ea&id=1de54741fa> Add us to your address book <http://familysearch.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=b0de542dc933cfcb848d187ea&id=1de54741fa&e=2a0cdf40d6&c=283e81086f> unsubscribe from this list | <http://familysearch.us2.list-manage1.com/profile?u=b0de542dc933cfcb848d187ea&id=1de54741fa&e=2a0cdf40d6> update subscription preferences <http://familysearch.us2.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=b0de542dc933cfcb848d187ea&id=283e81086f&e=2a0cdf40d6>

Great idea, Miles. Here we go. (There really is nothing new, except the recent change of the 95-year rule into the 110-year rule.) The first screen shows the following message: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FamilySearch: Church Policy Agreement Please read before continuing. Temple ordinances are sacred and should be treated with respect. Please make sure that you do the following as you submit these ordinances: * Abide by Church policies. [ ] I have read and will comply with the above statements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The expression "Church Policies" is underlined in blue. When clicking it, the following message is displayed: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Persons Born within the Last 110 Years To do ordinances for a deceased individual born in the last 110 years, you must either be one of the closest living relatives, or you must obtain permission from the closest living relative. If you are not a spouse, child, parent, or sibling of the deceased, please obtain permission from the closest living relative before doing the ordinances. The closest living relatives are, in this order: an undivorced spouse (the spouse to whom the individual was married when he or she died), an adult child, a parent, or a brother or sister. Restricted Submissions Church members should not submit individuals that they are not related to (with the exception of close friends as provided in the full policy statement). This includes: Famous people. Those gathered from unapproved extraction projects. Jewish Holocaust victims. Members cannot do the ordinances for these people except under the following conditions: They are an immediate family member of the deceased (defined as parents, spouse, or children), or They have permission of all living immediate family members, or They have the permission of the closest living relative if no immediate family members are living. To view additional policies, please click on the following link: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Mensagem Original----- From: Miles Meyer Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] new temple ordinance guidelines? I think that if someone would copy the instructions/agreement that we all click "I Agree" to when we prepare temple names we would have the answer as to what the policy is. I am at work so I can't do it right now. But since the letter is a reiteration of the current policy it should have the answer. My understanding is that we can do the work for our ancestors/in-laws and extended trees as long as we follow the rules (birth year, closer living relatives, etc). I have noticed that if someone selects a name which may fall within those, i.e. born within the last 110(?) years, another window pops up asking you if you have contacted the closest living relative or are you the closest living relative. You have to chose one of the options before you can move forward. By this time, if you are doing a restricted name, you would have had to "lie" twice about your intentions in order to do the work for non-relatives. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing new here. The rule was put in place to attempt to stop people from harvesting names of non-relatives against their families wishes. Too many people are doing work for people like Daniel Pearl, the Pope, and even living people. I even had a member say that Michael Landon came to them in a dream and asked for his work to be done. So they did it - for the 17th time! Miles Meyer Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=b0de542dc933cfcb848d187ea&id=e712b5a827& e=2a0cdf40d6 This is the April 2012 issue, click on View Past Issues for others, including the Policies for Submitting Names for Temple Ordinances. Shanna Jones -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] new temple ordinance guidelines? Does anyone know of a site where email newsletters are posted that we receive from FamilySearch? Or was wiser than I am and saved the last newsletter we received?

Does anyone know of a site where email newsletters are posted that we receive from FamilySearch? Or was wiser than I am and saved the last newsletter we received? As I mentioned in my reply posting, it was a link off of the newsletter under the heading FAQ so unless you clicked on that link, you would not have read the guideline. If anyone has the most recent newsletter from FS, would they forward it to me at: [email protected] Thanks so much. Btw there have been at least 2 or 3 of the newsletters sent from FamilySearch restating what was said by the First Presidency. This link was in the most recent one. Thanks for any assistance. I would like to follow up further as I have never received the clarification I requested. Nancy Scott Sent from my Epic 4g -----Original Message----- From: "Jill N. Crandell" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 23 May 2012 1:19 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] new temple ordinance guidelines? I'm seeing many "theys" and references to newsletters, but I would like to know who "they" are and what newsletter this information is in. I have heard that representatives "from Salt Lake" are teaching that we can't perform work for in-law spouses, but I have not heard the Brethren say this. The letter from the First Presidency repeated the previous rule that we need to be "related" to those for whom we perform ordinances, and all other statements I'm hearing are (thus far) not from authoritative sources. Right now, this feels like the latest Mormon urban legend. When all of these rumors started, I sent an email to the [email protected] email address the First Presidency letter gave for sending questions. It has been two weeks, and I have not received a response. When I saw the postings tonight, I went to FamilySearch chat to see if I could get someone's attention. After I explained the issue, the missionary stated that he would escalate my question and get the message through to the appropriate people, and that the "branchout" emails need responses. I will continue to ask for an authoritative answer to how the Brethren are defining "related". My opinion is that we are getting someone's personal interpretation of the prophet's letter, and that it's going beyond what was intended. I'll let all of you know what I find out. If any of you actually have a name of the newsletter and/or who is writing and making these statements, I would like to know the source of the information. As with all quality genealogical research, we need to evaluate the source! :o) Thanks, Jill Crandell Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Tamara, Thanks for sending the blog link. It's helpful to see where some of this is coming from. I still see the specifics of this discussion coming from personal opinion, so I will continue to pursue an authoritative answer. Have a nice day, Jill

Dear Jill, Here's the copy of the "letter in question," it was a link of an e-mail from FamilySearch and on the familysearch blog. For all of the comments in connection to this go to the website https://familysearch.org/blog/submission-policies/ * * * * * Name Submission Policies April 27, 2012 By dgreen The First Presidency recently issued a statement reinforcing policy on names submission to the temple. There were several questions that were asked by consultants; here are five of the most asked questions and the answer we provided: Question One: Hi and thank you for sending the e-mail about the names submissions. Did I receive this e-mail (and possibly more of these e-mails) because I did submit a name that was unauthorized? Answer One: The e-mails you received were sent to all members registered in new FamilySearch. They weren't directed at anyone in particular. Question Two: How far out on the "twigs" of the family tree is no longer considered family or relations? Answer Two: You can continue to work collateral or descendant lines. Just be sure that you are staying in your own family line. For example, once you cross over a spousal line, you are no longer related. That family is the family of a spouse. The key to almost every policy is that you be related. If you stay within that guideline, you will be fine. Question Three: Can we complete temple ordinance work for family members after they have been deceased 95 years? Answer Three: There has been a recent update on policy so that ancestors need to have been born at least 110 years ago before temple work can be submitted without requiring the permission of the closest living relative. Proxy work that has been started for persons born within the last 95 years under former submission rules can be completed. Question Four: Our family has several family lines that are not necessarily legally connected to us. For example, my mother was legally adopted by her grandparents, but as a teenager she was raised by her mother and a stepfather. Which line can we follow? Answer Four: You can find most of the policies related to this question in chapter 7, page 30, of the Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work. You can access this guide online, or request one from your ward clerk or pick one up at any Church distribution center. In the manual it explains that you can submit work for your biological, adoptive, or step family lines. Question Five: My mother's family is Jewish and some of my family members perished in the Holocaust in Poland during WWII. I would like to do their temple work but need to know if I am allowed to do it. Also, should I do only direct family such as grandparents, great-grandparents, cousins, and so forth? Answer Five: Submitting names for temple work for people that died in the Holocaust is very sensitive, and there are specific rules for doing so. Below is the official Church policy, which can be found in the Help Center in new FamilySearch. Members cannot do the ordinances for Jewish Holocaust victims except under the following conditions: They are an immediate family member of the deceased (defined as parents, spouse, siblings, or children), or They have permission of all living immediate family members, or They have permission of the closest living relative if no immediate family members are living. This policy applies only to Holocaust records. Other records need to follow standard Church policies referred to in the member's guide referenced in answer four." * * * * It appears that a lot of people have been commenting on the blog with differing ideas and thoughts. But I can't determine from the names if any of these folks are officially connected with FamilySearch or just other consultants sharing their own ideas. I would like to see clarification officially from FamilySearch as I have been working on collateral lines for some time. Including the spouses of those I find. My thinking: "I would want someone finding my name to seal me to my husband, and my husband to his parents and siblings. They are "his" family by blood, but these would be my in-laws as well." A previous policy on 14 Feb 2012 stated: * * * * Document ID: 2709m Policy regarding the performing of temple ordinance work for names gathered or extracted from a film or book (2709) Resolution "Members should identify their kindred dead, request temple ordinances if needed, and provide these ordinances by proxy if possible. As a beginning, members should try to identify three to five generations of their ancestors. "Members' preeminent obligation is for their own ancestors. They may do family history research on natural, adoptive, and sealing lines. They also may submit names of persons who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate, such as those who have the same surnames and resided in the same areas as known ancestors. "Members should be considerate of the feelings of close family members when submitting names of recently deceased relatives. "Names of nonrelated persons should not be submitted, including names of celebrities or famous people, or those gathered from unapproved extraction projects such as Jewish Holocaust victims. For information about participating in extraction projects that are approved by the Church, see pages 267-68" (Church Handbook of Instruction, Book 2: Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders,Section 9: "Temple and Family History Work," 262). "Concentrate on getting the temple ordinances completed for your own ancestors and their families. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said: 'The Spirit of Elijah will inspire individual members of the Church to link their generation rather than submit lists of people or popular personalities to whom they are unrelated' ('The Spirit of Elijah,'Ensign, Nov 1994, 86). Doing work for those who are not our own progenitors may needlessly duplicate efforts and ordinances or distract us from the work we should be doing for our own ancestors" (Paul E. Koelliker, "I Have a Question," Ensign, July 1999, 65).. * * * That seems a lot more lenient "natural, adoptive, and sealing lines." and "probably family relationships" If anyone has any other official information I would love to have it. Thanks, Tamara Stevenson ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 23:19:34 -0600 From: "Jill N. Crandell" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] new temple ordinance guidelines? To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm seeing many "theys" and references to newsletters, but I would like to know who "they" are and what newsletter this information is in. I have heard that representatives "from Salt Lake" are teaching that we can't perform work for in-law spouses, but I have not heard the Brethren say this. The letter from the First Presidency repeated the previous rule that we need to be "related" to those for whom we perform ordinances, and all other statements I'm hearing are (thus far) not from authoritative sources. Right now, this feels like the latest Mormon urban legend. When all of these rumors started, I sent an email to the [email protected] email address the First Presidency letter gave for sending questions. It has been two weeks, and I have not received a response. When I saw the postings tonight, I went to FamilySearch chat to see if I could get someone's attention. After I explained the issue, the missionary stated that he would escalate my question and get the message through to the appropriate people, and that the "branchout" emails need responses. I will continue to ask for an authoritative answer to how the Brethren are defining "related". My opinion is that we are getting someone's personal interpretation of the prophet's letter, and that it's going beyond what was intended. I'll let all of you know what I find out. If any of you actually have a name of the newsletter and/or who is writing and making these statements, I would like to know the source of the information. As with all quality genealogical research, we need to evaluate the source! :o) Thanks, Jill Crandell ------------------------------ To contact the LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT list administrator, send an email to [email protected] To post a message to the LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT mailing list, send an email to [email protected] __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 114 ***************************************************

I think that if someone would copy the instructions/agreement that we all click "I Agree" to when we prepare temple names we would have the answer as to what the policy is. I am at work so I can't do it right now. But since the letter is a reiteration of the current policy it should have the answer. My understanding is that we can do the work for our ancestors/in-laws and extended trees as long as we follow the rules (birth year, closer living relatives, etc). I have noticed that if someone selects a name which may fall within those, i.e. born within the last 110(?) years, another window pops up asking you if you have contacted the closest living relative or are you the closest living relative. You have to chose one of the options before you can move forward. By this time, if you are doing a restricted name, you would have had to "lie" twice about your intentions in order to do the work for non-relatives. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing new here. The rule was put in place to attempt to stop people from harvesting names of non-relatives against their families wishes. Too many people are doing work for people like Daniel Pearl, the Pope, and even living people. I even had a member say that Michael Landon came to them in a dream and asked for his work to be done. So they did it - for the 17th time! Miles Meyer

I know just a certain person who can answer this. I keep in contact with this lady. She's Area Advisor with her husband. David On 5/22/2012 11:19 PM, Jill N. Crandell wrote: > I'm seeing many "theys" and references to newsletters, but I would like to > know who "they" are and what newsletter this information is in. I have heard > that representatives "from Salt Lake" are teaching that we can't perform > work for in-law spouses, but I have not heard the Brethren say this. The > letter from the First Presidency repeated the previous rule that we need to > be "related" to those for whom we perform ordinances, and all other > statements I'm hearing are (thus far) not from authoritative sources. Right > now, this feels like the latest Mormon urban legend.

I'm seeing many "theys" and references to newsletters, but I would like to know who "they" are and what newsletter this information is in. I have heard that representatives "from Salt Lake" are teaching that we can't perform work for in-law spouses, but I have not heard the Brethren say this. The letter from the First Presidency repeated the previous rule that we need to be "related" to those for whom we perform ordinances, and all other statements I'm hearing are (thus far) not from authoritative sources. Right now, this feels like the latest Mormon urban legend. When all of these rumors started, I sent an email to the [email protected] email address the First Presidency letter gave for sending questions. It has been two weeks, and I have not received a response. When I saw the postings tonight, I went to FamilySearch chat to see if I could get someone's attention. After I explained the issue, the missionary stated that he would escalate my question and get the message through to the appropriate people, and that the "branchout" emails need responses. I will continue to ask for an authoritative answer to how the Brethren are defining "related". My opinion is that we are getting someone's personal interpretation of the prophet's letter, and that it's going beyond what was intended. I'll let all of you know what I find out. If any of you actually have a name of the newsletter and/or who is writing and making these statements, I would like to know the source of the information. As with all quality genealogical research, we need to evaluate the source! :o) Thanks, Jill Crandell

I saw the email that stated this about spousal lines but I deleted it as well. Before deleting it however, I asked for clarification which I have never received. If FS means by "related" that that individual has to be a blood relation, FS is not following several dictionary definitions of the work related. Several dictionaries state that a person is related to you either by blood or marriage. (My nonmember sister and I had a long discussion regarding whether or not my uncle (by marriage) was a relative of ours. She did not believe so but the definitions that I found supported my view and I believe that my uncle is a relative.) In the email that I read it in, it was under FAQs so you would have needed to open that link to view it. I just tried to find a site where the recent emails are posted but no luck. Personally, I have done work for my nonmember husband's family for a number of years as guided by the Spirit. I do believe in following guidelines but I questions how well thought out this guideline was. The guideline was in response to the question about how far one could go off on branches and twigs. I am still hoping for clarification on the guideline. My feedback stated that the word related, as defined in the dictionary, does not follow what the newsletter was stating as the definition of "related". Nancy Scott -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of DORIS BATEMAN Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:13 PM To: lds-ward-consultant Subject: [LDS-WC] new temple ordinance guidelines? I got an email from a friend asking if I had seen a message from FamilySearch regarding a new statement on temple policies. I did not get one, and I usually do. Can anyone give me more info about the following: She stated, "they are telling members that they can no longer submit for ordinances anyone who is not on your direct line and especially spouses and their lines......There has been a lot of discussion online about it and many people are upset....My husband got the message on his computer this morning and deleted it because he thought I would be getting it. It started out as a small item in a newsletter: You can continue to work collateral or descendant lines. Just be sure that you are staying in your own family line. For example, once you cross over a spousal line, you are no longer related. That family is the family of a spouse. The key to almost every policy is that you be related. If you stay within that guideline, you will be fine. but drew so much attention that the First Presidency had to come out and put this in a special message and that's what I wanted to see." Doris Bateman Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The statement was meant to reiterate that we do not submit names of individuals to whom we are not related in some way. Given the bad press because people have submitted everyone from Anne Frank to past Popes and Daniel Pearl, it was a reminder to stay in the bounds that have been set. Michele In a message dated 5/22/2012 7:14:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: I got an email from a friend asking if I had seen a message from FamilySearch regarding a new statement on temple policies. I did not get one, and I usually do. Can anyone give me more info about the following: She stated, "they are telling members that they can no longer submit for ordinances anyone who is not on your direct line and especially spouses and their lines......There has been a lot of discussion online about it and many people are upset....My husband got the message on his computer this morning and deleted it because he thought I would be getting it. It started out as a small item in a newsletter: You can continue to work collateral or descendant lines. Just be sure that you are staying in your own family line. For example, once you cross over a spousal line, you are no longer related. That family is the family of a spouse. The key to almost every policy is that you be related. If you stay within that guideline, you will be fine. but drew so much attention that the First Presidency had to come out and put this in a special message and that’s what I wanted to see." Doris Bateman Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The letter restates the 1995 policies that everyone agrees to when they submit names for the temple. There is nothing new, just a reiteration that people comply with the guidelines. This is what the letter said: Subject: Policies for Submitting Names for Temple Ordinances Recently, the First Presidency of the Church reiterated the policies, first stated in 1995, concerning the submitting of names for proxy temple ordinances. As a user of the system (new.familysearch.org) where temple ordinances are cleared and submitted, you should follow these important policies. You will find the policy letter attached to this e-mail. In a related Church News article, Brother Dennis C. Brimhall, managing director of the Family History Department, reported that “the searching out of our family and preparing the names for the work to be done in the temple is . . . a responsibility, but it is also a privilege. That privilege is extended to the members by those who hold the keys to [do] the work. The[se] keys . . . are held by the First Presidency of the Church” (Sarah Jane Weaver, “Family History—Church Asks Members to Understand Policies,” Church News, Mar. 1, 2012). (Click here to see the article.) The First Presidency set these policies. Accordingly, the Conditions of Use for users of new.familysearch.organd familysearch.org require compliance to the policies before you can submit names to the temple. Noncompliance by a user could mean the loss of his or her privileges to use the system. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask your local family history consultant or anyone serving at a family history center. You may also e-mail questions directly to [email protected] On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:13 PM, DORIS BATEMAN <[email protected]>wrote: > > I got an email from a friend asking if I had seen a message from > FamilySearch regarding a new statement on temple policies. I did not get > one, and I usually do. Can anyone give me more info about the following: > She stated, "they are telling members that they can no longer submit for > ordinances anyone who is not on your direct line and especially spouses and > their lines......There has been a lot of discussion online about it and > many people are upset....My husband got the message on his computer this > morning and deleted it because he thought I would be getting it. It > started out as a small item in a newsletter: You can continue to work > collateral or descendant lines. Just be sure that you are staying in your > own family line. For example, once you cross over a spousal line, you are > no longer related. That family is the family of a spouse. The key to almost > every policy is that you be related. If you stay within that guideline, you > will be fine. but drew so much attention that the First Presidency had to > come out and put this in a special message and that’s what I wanted to see." > Doris Bateman > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I got an email from a friend asking if I had seen a message from FamilySearch regarding a new statement on temple policies. I did not get one, and I usually do. Can anyone give me more info about the following: She stated, "they are telling members that they can no longer submit for ordinances anyone who is not on your direct line and especially spouses and their lines......There has been a lot of discussion online about it and many people are upset....My husband got the message on his computer this morning and deleted it because he thought I would be getting it. It started out as a small item in a newsletter: You can continue to work collateral or descendant lines. Just be sure that you are staying in your own family line. For example, once you cross over a spousal line, you are no longer related. That family is the family of a spouse. The key to almost every policy is that you be related. If you stay within that guideline, you will be fine. but drew so much attention that the First Presidency had to come out and put this in a special message and that’s what I wanted to see." Doris Bateman

There have been a lot of questions on how to use the SharingTime app that is available on the new FamilySearch website Free for Family History Centers. It is a set of tools that lets you do everything from research names on other websites directly from the person in your pedigree on new FamilySearch to seeing who needs temple ordinances and contacting groups of other researchers. Ohana Software is doing a Free webinar on SharingTime this Thursday May 24th at 6:00 PM MDT. For more information or to register you can go to https://www.ohanasoftware.com/?sec=webinars One of the questions we get is "Isn't SharingTime for Primary?". This SharingTime App is for FamilySearch and full of timeserving and useful tools. Paula

I found the quote Megan shared in a May 1980 Ensign article by Elder A. Theodore Tuttle as well. Also a quote that caused me to smile that I will share here that is a quote by the Prophet Joseph Smith. (It follows his well known quote regarding the Saints who neglect it in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at the peril of their own salvation): Yet, in his anxiety the Prophet once observed, "but there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corndodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand" (Teachings, p. 331). I really do not know about hemlock knots, corndodgers, and the pumpkin for a beetle but I can imagine it. Nancy Scott

This quote was in our Institute handout this week - we covered Malachi. Just found it interesting and wanted to share it - have a good Sabbath! "The spirit and influence of your dead will guide those who are interested in finding those records. If there is anywhere on earth anything concerning them, you will find it." (Melvin J. Ballard, in Sermons and Missionary Services, 230.)

Go to youtube.com and search for the video "Why Mormons build temples". It is 3:15 minutes long. Carrie in VA ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 20:47:25 -0700 From: Warren and Katherine White <[email protected]> Subject: [LDS-WC] Can you help? To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I have a good memory, but it is short. ; ) I recall watching a video of an interview with a high ranking (I believe) Episcopal Priest who spoke of having a 'holy envy' for the Church because of our understanding of Temples. Can anyone point me to where i might view and download that interview? Thank you so very much! Warren White *********************