Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Why is SP in a "package" with other ordinances?

Why is SP in a "package" with other ordinances? My ancestor married Sarah A Bush 9W6G-HYL. I would like to reserve her ordinances, but I should not do SP. I would like to be able to reserve/unreserve SP separately, because when I print the card for B, C, I, E, her SP is available to do as well. Sometimes I forget that I should not perform her SP when it is on the card. As it is now, I try to remember to X out the SP space; then I unreserve the SP after B,C,I, E are complete. Thanks for listening.
2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • Ron Tanner (FamilySearch.org Product Manager) June 20, 2018 18:53
    In the system, when you reserve a person, you are reserving all of their ordinances that need completion. Is there a specific reason why you are not doing the SP? You can share it with the temple, for instance.
    • It is because there are many people who still follow the old guidelines to not complete the sealing to parents for the spouse of a relative if the spouse's parents' ordinances, which they are not responsible for and should not submit, are not completed.

      You have stated many times now that we should complete the sealing to parents for the spouse but many people still have not gotten the news or simply do not believe you.
    • Maybe if the software were changed to not print that on the cards that print at the temple, more people would believe. As recently as a few months ago this still printed on the cards at the temple. I don't know if it has changed since then.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • The baptism, confirmation, initiatory, endowment, and sealing to parents all belong to the child.

    It does not matter if the parents' work has been completed or not because the sealing will not become effective until the parents' ordinances are completed and accepted by them.

    That has been stated previously in various articles. "Proxy ordinances performed out of sequence are valid; however, they become effective only after the prerequisite ordinances are complete."
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Ron Tanner (FamilySearch.org Product Manager) June 25, 2018 15:10
    You should always do it in proper order when possible. If you are not related to the parents of the descendant then do the SP without doing the parents.
    • view 1 more comment
    • Ron are you saying that I can go ahead and seal someone to their parents even when their parents have not been baptized , endowed, and sealed to each other? That is the frequent situation that I have run into with the spouses of siblings to my direct ancestors. In order to seal the spouse of a sibling of a direct ancestor of mine to their parents (i.e., the in-laws of my ancestor's sibling), I would have have to research them as well and first do all their ordinances as well--if not for any other reason than to verify that they ARE in fact the in-laws of the sibling of my ancestor.
    • That has been the position of the Church for at least the last decade or so (probably a lot longer).

      My wife and I served a mission in SLC at the (then) Church and Family History Mission.

      We were, as it the case now, not to even reserve unrelated parents of the spouse of one of our relatives, but we were to do all of the proxy work for the spouse. That included the sealing to the parents, even though their proxy temple work had not been completed.

      For some reason, that is something that people get hung up over, and yet is has been and continues to be the policy of the Church. Do all of the ordinances belonging to the child (including sealing to their parents). Sealing the children to the parents is not and has never been the parents' ordinance. It is the child's.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated



  • Sorry Tom, but as you can see from this picture of a card printed yesterday at the temple, the confusing language is still there. Ron's explanation makes sense, but that is not what the cards say. Thus the ongoing confusion among patrons.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Ron Tanner (FamilySearch.org Product Manager) June 28, 2018 03:37
    This is because this is an old-style card. The new print at home cards do not say this.
    • view 1 more comment
    • What's old about it? What could be simpler than omitting the text? If updates are being made to the system many times a day as we are told, the fact that this text remains would cause most users to conclude that they must follow the instruction.
    • But it also means that they are interpreting that "Whenever possible" means, "Always." That means that they are providing their own interpretation to the phraseology and, in essence, demanding that everyone else also do the same.

      I don't know what could be more clear, especially in light of the following:

      1) The sealing ordinance of the child to the parents belongs to the child.
      2) There is no absolute and exclusionary wording involved that dictates that the parents must have their work completed before that of the child.
      3) The sealing ordinance does not become effective until the parents' own ordinances are complete, including their being sealed to each other.
      4) The ordinances are not automatic -- that is, they must be accepted by those involved for them to have any validity.

      But, people do get strange ideas in their head and believe that their position is absolute.

      Just like I do with regard to this concern, which, to me, is not concern at all.

      By the way, I generally complete "fleshing" out the parents and the child's siblings records, but leave any ordinance work alone.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 1
    However there is language on the printout page next to the card.

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Keep in mind what "Whenever possible" means...

    The wording does not mean "Always"

    It means there will be times when the parents cannot be sealed to each other before the child is sealed to the parents.

    Thus.whenever possible allows the child to be sealed to the parents.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 1
    Tom, I think the thrust of Jean’s original post is that she should be given the option to not reserve/unreserve the SP until she has had the time to work the parent couple sealing or decide for herself if it fails into an exception. I agree with that.

    There are times when persons related to the parents are actively reserving/working on the parent’s ordinances and they should be allowed time to complete the couple sealing before I step on the preferred order by jumping in and doing the SP.

    Also my example of the card that prints at home further illustrates Earl’s assertion that there does exist “confusing language” on this subject.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 1
    Since November 2017, my husband and I have performed at least 6 dozen sealings of child to parents where the other ordinances were performed at least 5 years ago or more and other users have just left these individuals not sealed to parents in our family lines.

    Please complete the ordinances for the child by completing the sealing to the parents.

    If you are related to the parents - do all the parents ordinances including sealing to spouse, then do the child's SP.

    If you are not related to the parents - then just seal the child to them to complete the child's ordinances. The ordinance is valid as recorded by the temple and will become effective when the parent's sealing is complete. And ultimately is only effective when those in the spirit world choose to accept the ordinance.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m happy to know the policy!
    With my newly found knowledge from this discussion thread, I will be changing my workflow slightly to include some of these things.

    However, I do understand how this can be confusing to many. We have an obligation to not only do the work (research and then ordinances) for our relations, but also to those they may have married. We typically stay away from those spouse's siblings and parents because they are someone else's responsibility.

    So apparently having those spouses sealed to their parents is part of our responsibility. However, in order to handle this, we still have to research, identify, and validate the information for all of their parents (i.e., biological, adoptive, etc.) that is typically necessary for all the other ordinances anyway.

    That work would typically be viewed as belonging to other members of that family (i.e., other descendants of that spouse's parents). Also the person initially doing the work for the marriage and then the sealing to parents typically knows very little if anything about those parents (especially if they weren't even listed on the marriage license).

    It just doesn't seem as intuitively obvious when you view it from the standpoint of "who's relative is it", but I understand why it is now.

    I guess that's a side effect of a system where the children typically show up before the parents :-)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Thanks, Chad, for understanding. I have been taught numerous times that it IS appropriate for me to perform Bap, Conf, Init, and End for the spouse of my relative so that he/she can be sealed to his/her spouse and children, but it is NOT appropriate for me to seal him/her to his/her parents, whether or not the parents are sealed to each other. That is the privilege of a relative. The spouse of a relative is not my relative, so to comply, I do not do the SP for a spouse.

    Therefore, it seems logical to me that I should not be able to reserve the SP of the spouse of my relative, or I could at least have the choice when I reserve the other ordinances. Maybe that is a complicated thing, but if my understanding is correct, my request deserves consideration.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Ron Tanner is the FamilySearch.org Product Manager and 8 days ago he said, "You should always do it in proper order when possible. If you are not related to the parents of the descendant then do the SP without doing the parents."

    If anyone is aware of the policy, it is Ron Tanner. Short of having a General Authority respond with the same directive, why do you continue to believe that what you were taught is correct? It isn't and to be blunt, your understanding is faulty, especially in light of what Ron and other FamilySearch authorities have said on the subject.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated