One more thing: We will be receiving notification through regular channels when the change in the ruling is "official". Sue On 2/9/2012 10:07 AM, Sue Maxwell wrote: > I haven't jumped into the discussion because there were so many > conflicting comments going around at Rootstech about the 95/110 rule > change. However, I was in a meeting at the very end of Rootstech with > (Elder) Dennis Brimhall, the new CEO of FamilySearch, and a couple > others. They purposefully have not notified consultants of the change > because the system isn't ready, and the change has not made it through > all levels of approval yet. However, we did talk a bit about it. > > There already is a 110-year-rule where, if the person has no death date > entered, then nFS assumes the person is still living if the birth date > is less than 110 years ago. (This protects someone from trying to do > work for my 103-year-old mother-in-law who IS still living. It does > nothing if someone makes up a death date, however.) > > The current 95-year-rule says you need permission from next of kin even > if you have a death date for a person and the birth date is less than 95 > years ago. The new 110-year-rule will make both rules the same at 110 > years. However, permission will only be required from ONE of the closest > living relatives (current wife, children, parents, siblings - in that > order). This rule change protects those family members who may be the > closest living relative and have chosen not to do the work YET. > > And, now we don't have to stop and think about which rule fits; both > will be 110 years. Bottom line, if you are not the closest living > relative, WAIT or GET PERMISSION. If you are the closest living > relative, the go get the work done. > > Sue > > > On 2/8/2012 10:33 PM, W David Samuelsen wrote: >> 1. long-standing 110 year rule for no death dates, still in effect for >> long time. >> >> 2. Abolished 95/100 year rule for doing family ordinances without >> permission and replaced with stricer 110 year rule. Written permission >> is required before death. I asked this question specifically to clarify >> the new rule. >> >> I can send to anyone who want to see what was presented, in PDF format >> (needs Adobe Reader), contact me direct. Details are laid out. Please >> note the 95 year in pdf had been superseded by decision barely 2 weeks ago. >> >> W. David Samuelsen >> >> -- Sue Maxwell http://granitegenealogy.blogspot.com/ Vice President - Utah Genealogical Association Sandy Utah Granite South Tri-Stake FHC