Without a doubt YES... if you were engaged.. and her parents would not object (which seems to be the case). Yours is not the first time this has happened... Ahh the joys of marriage.. without all the irritability. Please don't stop looking for a second wife to take to the Temple and share the joys and hardships of this life. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:23 AM, jeff_campbell <jeff_campbell@myway.com>wrote: > I am convert to the church and have a question regarding temple sealing. > Having grown up with many LDS friends I was familiar with temple marriage > though not really the depth of the covenants etc. During a meeting last > night with the missionaries I asked the Elders a question which they had no > answer for so I thought I'd search it out on the Internet when I found this > forum and so I though I'd ask here. > > I was engaged to a young lady earlier this year that passed away tragically > in a car wreck. She had joined the church a year ago and is responsible for > my path to conversion and to the conversion of her parents who hope to be > sealed in the temple this coming year. I want to be sealed to my fiancée > and I am wondering if the church would allow this to happen? Meaning, since > she is dead and I am not, would the church allow for our sealing together? > Her parents would stand up on my behalf and testify to this. I want to be > with her for eternity and I know that she wanted to be with sealed to me > while alive. > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Unsecured Loan > Save hundreds on an Unsecured Loan - Click here. > > http://216.21.215.31/fc/FgElN1mCAkK6iffD0HKAeZigJAo4a7lJq3i3PszIhJK6dPMg4jKjMUwZIfm/ > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

----- Original Message ----- From: susanne@katskraft.com To: www.lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Cc: susanne@katskraft.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:52 PM Subject: Question... It has been a while that I have helped prepare someone to get their own ordinance work done in the Temple. This sister is going to get her ordinance work on June 30. She has a son who wishes to take his deceased brother's name to get his work done at the same time. What is the current procedures to take to make this all come together? Thanks, Susanne

It also seems to me that it would be very useful to have "in progress" indicate "in progress by temple" Ro "in progress by me" At least that way I can see if I have the cards I am supposed To and am getting the work done. Do others have the same problems? Steve Kelsey

When selecting names from my reserved list, I have come across "Needs more information" on several names now on the list. That Was not indicated to me when I added them to the list to do the Ordinances but now it seems to appear. If I add more information to that person in nfs I do not think That it updates the list (or does it?) How do I get these names Off the list? I can't figure why it says needs more information As it usually allows work done for people with very minimal information as long as they are connected. Some of these are direct ancestors and I would like to do their work--they are connected, have birth dates approximated as well as birthplaces. I am not sure what else to add or do. Steve Kelsey

Leslie wrote: I have found from marriage extraction work that couples are sealed, however their individual ordinances have not been done?? Yes! There is no way that the extraction process can research each individual and identify them. It is our job to seek out our ancestors, identify them, and pull in these ordinances that apply to our families. We then perform the remaining ordinances, and they all become valid at that point. Jill Crandell

Personally, I am not as critically concerned about the parents ordinances first when it comes to children who die before age 8 if I do not have enough information to complete the parents first. This is because the sealing ordinance is the only one a child needs if he or she died before 8. And, because of the concept or purpose of the ordinance, which gives them the right to have righteous parents. So, if I have to wait to get more information to complete the parents ordinances, I will go ahead and seal the child. This would go under the "preferred" but not mandatory concept Jill points out. With the one ordinance completed for the child who died before age 8, all the work is done for that person. As Jill points out, it becomes effective when I have completed the parents ordinances. I see this often when it comes to the parent's marriage. I often can find the parents and the children, but have difficulty determining when and where the marriage took place, so that has to wait until I can find it. > From: jncrandell@broadweave.net > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:04:32 -0600 > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] ordinances done in order > > Stephen wrote: > I thought the rule was: Children should not be sealed to their parents > unless their parents Have first been sealed. > > Actually, the rule is that it is "preferred" that children not be sealed to > the parents until the parents have been sealed. The problem is that the > parents' sealing can't be done until their individual ordinances are done. > If you follow that back strictly, it would eventually mean that we would > have to start with Adam and Eve--which isn't possible. So, there is a > "break" in the rules in order to proceed with ordinances. From the NFS Help > Center: > > * Whenever possible, parents should be sealed to each other before the > children are sealed to the parents. > > Out-of-sequence ordinances > * Vicarious ordinances performed out of sequence are valid, but become > effective only after the prerequisite ordinances are completed. > > Notice that the statement is "whenever possible." If the rules allow > something to be done out of order, even if it isn't preferred to be done > that way, the program will allow it. The main concern in sealing children > before the parents are sealed is to follow up and be sure the rest of the > ordinances are completed. > > Jill Crandell > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

By the way, the reason I'm asking if this JSBerry could be someone who is not yet on the system is because there are things in my reserved file that would cause many of you to misjudge me with the same judgments being passed on this person. I am on the system, but things were put in my reserved list that I didn't put there from earlier TempleReady submissions. They are people whose information is not complete enough to do the work, yet they are in my file. There they sit, with no way to get rid of them other than to do the work or release it to the temple to do the work. They aren't ready to be done, so it has been "two years" that they have been reserved with "nothing happening." The difference on this one is that my contact information is there. If this person isn't on the system yet, they haven't had a chance to claim their submissions and provide contact information. They may not even know that these are in their holding file if the names came from an earlier TempleReady submission. They could also be ordinances that have been completed, but something happened on the recording. This person may believe that they are all done, but without seeing that they are still reserved, they wouldn't know yet to resolve the issue. I can think of all kinds of scenarios that this person could be totally innocent of "sitting on names," when that may not be what is actually happening. We're still in transition folks. I plead for patience with others, because I need people to have patience with me as well! :-) Have a good day, Jill Crandell

Nancy wrote: If you want to keep the B & C from being redone by anyone who sees it in NFS for now until it is straightened out, you could go to FS FamilyTree and enter the data yourself as having been completed at least for the women. I'm not sure if they are accepting this information as a validation of the work or not if it is entered into FS Family Tree? Jill or anyone else know the answer to that one? Or even have an idea where one should look to find the answer? Nancy and everyone interested, I have had this same problem. I had a full batch of sealings that were performed two years ago in the Provo Temple, and four of the ordinances have never shown up in NFS. I asked the temple with the cards in hand, and I believe in my case, the ordinances were recorded. I actually sent feedback this morning to ask again, and I'm hoping they will find the "lost" recordings. As for adding it to FamilyTree, there is actually a problem with that. If the work shows as "Ready," you can add the information and the program will then indicate that the work has been completed. However, if it says "In progress," you can't add the data because the option to add it is not available. So, mine shows in progress, when in fact it's completed, but I can't add the information myself because the button isn't there. Ain't it great!?!? Anyway, I'll let you know what I hear back. If you can't add the data on a "ready" ordinance for some reason, I would reserve it and don't print the FOR. If ordinance dates are added later, this will drop out of your reserved file without duplicating the work. At least, that is what has happened for me. Ordinances done out of order are valid, so even if you ended up redoing the baptisms down the road, you wouldn't have to redo ALL of the ordinances. Yes, we need to follow the rules, yes, we need to do them in order, but when we don't for some reason, it doesn't affect the validity of the ordinances. The point is that they are not in force until they are all done, and doing them in order forces us to be sure all of the work is done. As for recording ordinances by hand, I believe they are using that process to locate missing batches of ordinances. Anything we add by hand, they can then go find in the system and figure out why it isn't showing. Theoretically, the official recordings will be found and brought into the system, and then our hand entries will go away. So, our entries are not "official," but they are preventing duplication while glitches in the system are being resolved. Jill Crandell

Alice, If you can post their ID #s one can tell more about the status by looking in FS Family Tree. Nancy Scott Cincinnati, Ohio -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of DC & Alice Allen Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:01 PM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] ordinances done in order I was working with a family last night where many of the children were sealed to parents in March 2009, but the endowments were not done yet. They were in process (or progress, whichver it is). The baptisms were done in 2007, I had those dates in my PAF files from the IGI, with the "in progress" notations also from the IGI. Two years later the endowments are still not done. I did notice that there were some Initiatories done recently, so I expect these are names that are being pulled in by the Temples, correct? The submitter is not on nFS, apparently. And some show the Extraction program as a source. Alice Allen Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant Vancouver WA Stake Portland OR Temple District *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 6/17/2009 at 9:04 AM jncrandell@broadweave.net wrote: <snip> > >Notice that the statement is "whenever possible." If the rules allow >something to be done out of order, even if it isn't preferred to be done >that way, the program will allow it. The main concern in sealing children >before the parents are sealed is to follow up and be sure the rest of the >ordinances are completed. > >Jill Crandell > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Stephen wrote: I thought the rule was: Children should not be sealed to their parents unless their parents Have first been sealed. Actually, the rule is that it is "preferred" that children not be sealed to the parents until the parents have been sealed. The problem is that the parents' sealing can't be done until their individual ordinances are done. If you follow that back strictly, it would eventually mean that we would have to start with Adam and Eve--which isn't possible. So, there is a "break" in the rules in order to proceed with ordinances. From the NFS Help Center: * Whenever possible, parents should be sealed to each other before the children are sealed to the parents. Out-of-sequence ordinances * Vicarious ordinances performed out of sequence are valid, but become effective only after the prerequisite ordinances are completed. Notice that the statement is "whenever possible." If the rules allow something to be done out of order, even if it isn't preferred to be done that way, the program will allow it. The main concern in sealing children before the parents are sealed is to follow up and be sure the rest of the ordinances are completed. Jill Crandell

I was working with a family last night where many of the children were sealed to parents in March 2009, but the endowments were not done yet. They were in process (or progress, whichver it is). The baptisms were done in 2007, I had those dates in my PAF files from the IGI, with the "in progress" notations also from the IGI. Two years later the endowments are still not done. I did notice that there were some Initiatories done recently, so I expect these are names that are being pulled in by the Temples, correct? The submitter is not on nFS, apparently. And some show the Extraction program as a source. Alice Allen Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant Vancouver WA Stake Portland OR Temple District *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 6/17/2009 at 9:04 AM jncrandell@broadweave.net wrote: <snip> > >Notice that the statement is "whenever possible." If the rules allow >something to be done out of order, even if it isn't preferred to be done >that way, the program will allow it. The main concern in sealing children >before the parents are sealed is to follow up and be sure the rest of the >ordinances are completed. > >Jill Crandell > >

Karen wrote: My friend even wrote to the membership office in Salt Lake to try to forward a letter to whoever this JSBerry is, and they couldn't help figure out who it is. Karen, I remember this conversation from earlier, but I can't remember the details. Is this a person who is on the NFS system and there is no contact information available? Or, is this someone who could be in Utah or Idaho who doesn't have access to the system yet? Jill Crandell

I have to say that I agree with the clarification of the clarification that Bro. Samuelson just gave in the previous thread and it was worded very well. I believe reason you need to get permission at 110 from the nearest living relative is so you are sure the person is deceased and did not live beyond 110 years old. In the clarification that Support sent, if they would have worded it the way Bro. Samuelson just did it would have been perfect in my opinion. My nonmember husband who is very good at understanding things and I had a very long discussion about this last night. In the end, I just avoided addressing it on my 3x5 cards that I hand out. He felt that the clarification said that between 95 and 110 years that you could do the work if you had permission from the closest living relative but the death date was not known. He also said that he thought was what David was saying in my forwards emails to him. My husband and I discussed this until we both were laughing so hard that we could not quit laughing. I had the thought later in the evening that I wondered if Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother were thinking, "Those kids" and shaking their heads. I looked at every possible reference I could find searching the NEW online Member's Guide to Temple and Family History and the NFS User's Guide and came up with 2 rules on my card and DELAYED addressing the 95-110 year thing until I was completely sure of the clarification. What I put on my 3x5 cards is: To Submit Temple Work For: 1. Persons born within the last 95 years & death date is known: Obtain Permission from the closest living relative, in order; Un-divorced spouse, adult children, parents, then siblings. Birth years 1915-2009 require above permission. 2. For all persons born within the last 110 years or married within the last 95 years, You must provide death information (a death date or death place.) Birth years 1899-2009 require death known. 3. All qualified persons, wait one year from death date to submit Church Family History Websites: New.FamilySearch.org, Labs.FamilySearch.org, www.FamilySearch.org Nancy Scott Cincinnati, Ohio -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of W. David Samuelsen Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:01 AM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] reserved names not quite correct Stephen J. Kelsey wrote: > Using the guidelines recently presented here, > 1) if someone has a relationship and > 2) the person was born 110 years ago or more no requirement to obtain permission from closest. > 3) the person was born 95 years ago and you have a death date 95 years or less - must have death date and have permission. the key is BETWEEN 95 years and 110 years, where no death date can be located, the ordinances is delayed to 110 years and still get permission from nearlest relative at 110. > Then you can do the work. > Is this correct? > > This does not seem to be completely correct. > > And if so, it certainly could be that > Someone could reserve many people's grandparents as they > Could easily meet that criteria. My own grandparents were > Certainly born 110 years ago. > > Stephen Kelsey Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I thought the rule was: Children should not be sealed to their parents unless their parents Have first been sealed. On the temple ordinance pages of nfs the "on hold" classification occurs; However, note that for children who die before 8 years old they all appear As able to be sealed to their parents BEFORE the parents are sealed and While the status of the parents sealing is "on hold." Is this an error In the program? I checked to see if the sealing for the child to the Unmarried parents went through and it certainly does. Stephen Kelsey

And/or: institute the stipulation that if the work has been cleared for a certain amount of time (a couple years or up to five years perhaps--depending on where they live?), that if it doesn't get done, that the reservation drops off. It's not fair to have nothing progressing at all when there are people willing and eager to do the work for the individuals, especially who may be closer related. Karen In a message dated 6/16/2009 11:24:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time, dsam52@sampubco.com writes: This is what triggered my strong recommendation to the support to impose requirement for email contact/phone number. Without either one, nothing get forwarded in the ordinances. David Samuelsen Paula Goodfellow wrote: > Couldn't the help people figure out who this is? Particularly if she > or he has reserved someone's grandparents, it seems to me that someone > should be able to help with releasing the names for work. Paula > On Jun 16, 2009, at 6:54 PM, W. David Samuelsen wrote: > >> you, too? >> >> I have this same guy in my lines, reserved some of mine. >> >> David Samuelsen Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222865043x1201494942/aol?redir=http:%2F%2F ad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215692145%3B38015538%3Bh)

My friend even wrote to the membership office in Salt Lake to try to forward a letter to whoever this JSBerry is, and they couldn't help figure out who it is. Karen In a message dated 6/16/2009 9:01:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sootica@mac.com writes: Couldn't the help people figure out who this is? Particularly if she or he has reserved someone's grandparents, it seems to me that someone should be able to help with releasing the names for work. Paula On Jun 16, 2009, at 6:54 PM, W. David Samuelsen wrote: > you, too? > > I have this same guy in my lines, reserved some of mine. > > David Samuelsen > > Sahara346@aol.com wrote: > >> PS: Does anybody know a JSBerry, or someone whose name could be >> shortened >> to that? They've got my friend's grandparents on reserve and not >> doing a >> thing with the names for over a year now. Whoever it is, they're >> not as >> closely related as she is...and nobody had contacted her about >> permission to >> do the work, as we've been reminded strongly of in the last few days. >> Whoever he/she is, they did not have the information quite correct, >> but it is >> the same person, nonetheless. Katherine has now gone through the >> Temple and >> could do all of her Grandmother's ordinances, but we can't find out >> who >> submitted the work. > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222865043x1201494942/aol?redir=http:%2F%2F ad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215692145%3B38015538%3Bh)

Tina It is ok to stop combining when there is only ONE version of the same person. If I find my 4thGGmother 15 times I have to combine till there is only one version of her, whether there be 0 or 15 various ordinance dates. The only time I do NOT combine is when I am not positive it is the same person. Then it requires a bit more research. Our forefathers want the blessings of Abraham and they help us constantly. Helle -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] På vegne af IMCMB621@aol.com Sendt: 16. juni 2009 21:32 Til: lds-ward-consultant-l@rootsweb.com Emne: [LDS-WC] When to stop combining Dear List, When is it all right to stop combining? Am I mistaken in the thinking that combining records will lessen the duplicates? If we find that ordinances have been done do we NOT combine the record of a duplicate who is not done? Should I only be combining duplicates who need work done? Thank you for all your great insight into all things family history... Tina Brisbon **************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823265x1201398681/aol?redir=htt p://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun eExcfooterNO62) Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message E-mail checket af Spyware Doctor(6.0.1.441) Databaseversion: 6.12620 http://www.pctools.com/dk/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

not quite correct Stephen J. Kelsey wrote: > Using the guidelines recently presented here, > 1) if someone has a relationship and > 2) the person was born 110 years ago or more no requirement to obtain permission from closest. > 3) the person was born 95 years ago and you have a death date 95 years or less - must have death date and have permission. the key is BETWEEN 95 years and 110 years, where no death date can be located, the ordinances is delayed to 110 years and still get permission from nearlest relative at 110. > Then you can do the work. > Is this correct? > > This does not seem to be completely correct. > > And if so, it certainly could be that > Someone could reserve many people's grandparents as they > Could easily meet that criteria. My own grandparents were > Certainly born 110 years ago. > > Stephen Kelsey

This is what triggered my strong recommendation to the support to impose requirement for email contact/phone number. Without either one, nothing get forwarded in the ordinances. David Samuelsen Paula Goodfellow wrote: > Couldn't the help people figure out who this is? Particularly if she > or he has reserved someone's grandparents, it seems to me that someone > should be able to help with releasing the names for work. Paula > On Jun 16, 2009, at 6:54 PM, W. David Samuelsen wrote: > >> you, too? >> >> I have this same guy in my lines, reserved some of mine. >> >> David Samuelsen

Using the guidelines recently presented here, 1) if someone has a relationship and 2) the person was born 110 years ago or more or 3) the person was born 95 years ago and you have a death date Then you can do the work. Is this correct? This does not seem to be completely correct. And if so, it certainly could be that Someone could reserve many people's grandparents as they Could easily meet that criteria. My own grandparents were Certainly born 110 years ago. Stephen Kelsey