Tech Forum

eblood66 wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:They are recorded in the churches records in Church Headquarters.

What is your source on that? As far as I know that information is not retained at CHQ. The information needs to be entered when recording a baptism so that the certificate can be printed. And it's retained in the local MLS in case the certificate needs to be reprinted but I don't believe it gets transferred out of the local MLS.

eblood66, I think you may be correct on this if only from my observations and spot-checking a bunch of records. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation as to why no one in our ward seems to have the name of the person listed who baptized or confirmed them, unless they were recently baptized in our ward (even new convert member records come in with this information missing, which actually seems to add to the theory that moving the records from one MLS location to another strips out this info and/or that it is only retained in order to print a certificate). On the other hand, I can confirm that priesthood ordainers are being tracked at CHQ where possible so that the Church can provide copies of brethren's complete priesthood lines of authority. Sincerely speaking, what led you to believe that this information is only locally maintained in MLS?

Rambling post alert:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At one time the church recorded all the information about who did baptisms, blessings and each priesthood ordination. This included who did the proxy work for the deceased. But then sometime in the 80's or 90's the church went though a high-level review of the record-keeping. The kind where someone has to explain to the consultant how everything worked and why everything was recorded. The kind where "we've always done it that way" isn't acceptable.

The result was it was found there was no need to record all that information. So it was dropped from the membership records and the aging mag-stripe readers used in the temples were pulled out. There was no need for them if the name of the proxy was no longer being recorded.

Later it was found that they should have been recording Melchizedek priesthood ordinations to be able to research line-of-authority.

Note that the Baptism certificate was never changed. It still has blanks for "Done by".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what does this have to do with the OP?

Like others, I think the "done by" blanks in MLS is just for printing the certificate and it's not used or transferred beyond that.

I think you should be able to see who did the Melchizedek priesthood ordinations. If that's missing and you can find the records in your ward or stake, then those do need to be filled in.

christianjacobsen wrote:Sincerely speaking, what led you to believe that this information is only locally maintained in MLS?

I have also heard Russellhltn's account of how this information used to be recorded but was dropped after a policy review. I can't point to any authoritative source for this account but it is supported by the fact that the temple mag-card readers were removed. Add that to the fact that in my experience who performed a baptism or confirmation never transfers with a record and the most reasonable explanation seems to be that the information is not tracked at CHQ any longer.

eblood66 wrote:

christianjacobsen wrote:Sincerely speaking, what led you to believe that this information is only locally maintained in MLS?

I have also heard Russellhltn's account of how this information used to be recorded but was dropped after a policy review. I can't point to any authoritative source for this account but it is supported by the fact that the temple mag-card readers were removed. Add that to the fact that in my experience who performed a baptism or confirmation never transfers with a record and the most reasonable explanation seems to be that the information is not tracked at CHQ any longer.

Thanks eblood66, that makes a lot of sense now.

russellhltn wrote:Rambling post alert:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At one time the church recorded all the information about who did baptisms, blessings and each priesthood ordination. This included who did the proxy work for the deceased. But then sometime in the 80's or 90's the church went though a high-level review of the record-keeping. The kind where someone has to explain to the consultant how everything worked and why everything was recorded. The kind where "we've always done it that way" isn't acceptable.

The result was it was found there was no need to record all that information. So it was dropped from the membership records and the aging mag-stripe readers used in the temples were pulled out. There was no need for them if the name of the proxy was no longer being recorded.

Later it was found that they should have been recording Melchizedek priesthood ordinations to be able to research line-of-authority.

Note that the Baptism certificate was never changed. It still has blanks for "Done by".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what does this have to do with the OP?

Like others, I think the "done by" blanks in MLS is just for printing the certificate and it's not used or transferred beyond that.

I think you should be able to see who did the Melchizedek priesthood ordinations. If that's missing and you can find the records in your ward or stake, then those do need to be filled in.

Thanks Russellhltn for your most masterful response ("rambling post alert" - LOL!). Sorry if this is not 100% tied to the original post; it seemed to be the most relevant thread I could find and maybe I should have started a new thread (kind of new at this [my first post, actually] and wasn't sure starting a new thread would get any attention). I do appreciate all the helpful responses I got so quickly -- what a surprise. Your response in particular fills in a lot of gaps as we've been researching both the "missing baptizer" and "missing ordainer" matters. And yes, we have been able to run a Custom Report that shows those who have no one listed in the "Ordained By" field and we have made a local decision to focus on those in that category who hold the office of Elder and High Priest. Probably just a coincidence but sounds like the policy changes occurred around the time of the "Correlation" reviews and subsequently around the time disk space started getting much cheaper ... perhaps not too great a coincidence in this day of advancing technology? Thanks again!

eblood66 wrote:I have also heard Russellhltn's account of how this information used to be recorded but was dropped after a policy review. I can't point to any authoritative source for this account but it is supported by the fact that the temple mag-card readers were removed.

I can't point to anything authoritative either. I was a membership clerk at the time and that was what I was told by the clerk/bishopric at the time. Certainly that type of business re-engineering was popular back then. Looking at the history of the ward, I'd say it happened between 1982 and 1993. But most likely before 1990.

I've heard many stories about why the mag stripe readers were pulled out. I'm sure it was coming due for a technology refresh. From what I've read elsewhere, it wasn't a IBM PC as it pre-dates that. So it would have been quite a undertaking to update. It does seem like a lot of work just to check for a valid recommend at the front desk. But the system does make sense if one was logging the names.

russellhltn wrote:

eblood66 wrote:I have also heard Russellhltn's account of how this information used to be recorded but was dropped after a policy review. I can't point to any authoritative source for this account but it is supported by the fact that the temple mag-card readers were removed.

I can't point to anything authoritative either. I was a membership clerk at the time and that was what I was told by the clerk/bishopric at the time. Certainly that type of business re-engineering was popular back then. Looking at the history of the ward, I'd say it happened between 1982 and 1993. But most likely before 1990.

I've heard many stories about why the mag stripe readers were pulled out. I'm sure it was coming due for a technology refresh. From what I've read elsewhere, it wasn't a IBM PC as it pre-dates that. So it would have been quite a undertaking to update. It does seem like a lot of work just to check for a valid recommend at the front desk. But the system does make sense if one was logging the names.

Often the most reasonable answer is the right answer, or at least the one you go with until disproven, as seems to be the case in the physics world. I agree that would have been a lot of work, though I can see why with bar-code scanning technology readily available now, they would have adopted the same for recommend scanning. I can see how the issue would have been a perplexing one at the time of re-factoring all the policies. From my perspective/experience and discussions with a Church representative, the Church still had not made "Ordained By" a required field in MLS probably until at least 2000 or 2001, given observations of a few of my cohorts' and my records. How helpful to have someone who can shed some light on historical perspective!

For those still curious about the information of who performed the baptism not showing on the records, I received this reply to an inquiry from the MLS Support:

Dear Brother

The information of who performed the ordinances was not retained on the membership record until about 5-7 years ago. The date of the ordinance was all that was retained. It is now possible to add the information of who performed the ordinance. It is up to the member to provide the information. In other words it is ok that the information is not on the record. If the information is known and the ward would like to add it. Then it may be added.

Thank you for all you do.
Local Unit Support - csh
case3855444

___________________________________________________________________________

Hello,

As I was going through the creation of a baptismal record, I decided to make sure that mine was recorded correctly since I had a different person who performed the baptism than who performed the confirmation. However when I checked the records I was surprised to see that it isn't recorded as to who it was that performed my baptism or confirmation. I then decided to check to see if this was common, perhaps after a certain age this information of who performed the baptism gets nullified. I noticed that it was the majority of our records don't have information on who performed the baptism and confirmation.

Is this something that needs to be corrected by me? How did it happen that the information of who performed the baptism get errased? Is this something that can just be ignored?

Wondering what to do on this situation and whether it is a church wide thing, or if it is just our branch that is affected.

I am the Membership Clerk and today I received Baptism paperwork of a baptism performed nine months ago in different ward to be entered into the Church records. The member baptized is not a member of my ward and neither is the person who did the baptism and confirmation. I have validated the record number of the baptized child on the paperwork but I can't figure out how to enter in the information. Any help is appreciated. Thanks

michaeljoehershberger wrote:The member baptized is not a member of my ward

I think your going to have to forward the information to that member's ward.

Since everything involved too place in other wards, I don't see how it falls on you to record it.