Hi everyone, Having a great time with the webinars learning to use the search engine on FamilySearch, but that does not apply here. I believe the phrase to use in the situation Mary describes is "Valid not Efficacious" meaning the work done is valid but not in effect until all ordinances are complete. This situation and explanation came up frequently in the early days of extraction circa 1950-60 David - San Diego District ---- Megan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: In our Temple office, we tell patrons that ordinances are not valid until they are all completed in the proper sequence, so if the endowment is completed on a card before the initiatory, for example, it won't be valid until the initiatory is finished. I would assume the same is true for the sealing. That said, I run into similar situations all the time doing my own family history when I find couple that have been sealed through extraction without their individual work being done. So I go ahead and finish it and it all works out in the end. :) Megan Smith -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1:16 PM Subject: [LDS-WC] Interested in your thoughts on sharing family file submissions with others In May I was approached by someone who said that they were related to a person I had in my reserve list.   The female in my family file still needed her initiatory and endowment.   Her husband's individual ordinances were all completed. He was also sealed to his own parents.   The couple still needed to be sealed together.   Since my family file runneth over, I released the information for this other patron to do.   Yesterday I was updating my records and noticed that the woman had reserved the female's needed individual ordinances BUT had completed the sealing to spouse ordinance for the couple.   Should I be concerned since the female's initiatory and endowment are still not done?   I know we are supposed to do the the ordinances in order but wonder if that rule exempts couple sealings. I wouldn't think so but was just wondering.   Any thoughts?   Thank you.   Mary Scott