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

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 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.

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

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?