Endowment prior to 1-year of membership

Use this forum to discuss issues that are not found in any of the other clerk and stake technology specialist forums.
dalelisonbee
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:21 pm

Endowment prior to 1-year of membership

Postby dalelisonbee » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:24 pm

In a recent audit, an error was identified when a membership record indicated that the church member had been endowed prior to being a member of the church for 12 months. The handbook indicates only the First Presidency can authorize exceptions to this rule. If the ordinance has already occurred, is First Presidency ratification required? Is there any specific location where that procedure is specified?

lionelwalters
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:38 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Postby lionelwalters » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:59 pm

As you suggest, this is more than just a "tech" issue. In our part of the world (outside of the US), the stake president would seek direction from his Area leaders to clarify an exception like this, but the process may be different in the US. Hope this helps!

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20757
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:07 am

I think it would be worth carefully enquiring with the member. The only way I can see this happening is some type of clerical error. Either the data is incorrect, a rebaptism was incorrectly recorded, or the original baptism wasn't recorded and it had to be done over. The direction depends on what happened.

Just be warned you may be treading on sensitive ground.
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

kisaac
Community Moderators
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:04 am
Location: Utah, united states

Postby kisaac » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:20 am

lionelwalters wrote:In our part of the world (outside of the US), the stake president would seek direction from his Area leaders to clarify
I think that is the standard regardless of your location. But, I do think it is worth checking as suggested to make sure it wasn't an error in data entry first.

greggo
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Paw Paw, MI, USA

Postby greggo » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:49 am

At least they were a member on the date they were endowed.

There was a case in my previous stake where a member was endowed without ever having a confirmation date recorded on their record. I don't know how it was resolved, though.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20757
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:17 am

RussellHltn wrote:I think it would be worth carefully enquiring with the member. The only way I can see this happening is some type of clerical error. Either the data is incorrect, a rebaptism was incorrectly recorded, or the original baptism wasn't recorded and it had to be done over. The direction depends on what happened.

Just be warned you may be treading on sensitive ground.


Ummm, in re-reading, I think I misunderstood the original situation. My comments where based on the idea that the person was baptised after being endowed. Getting endowed after being a member for less then a year is a different situation. Although, I suppose there's still the possibility of the clerical errors I mentioned.
Have you searched the Wiki?

Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

waynecooke
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:05 am
Location: Kalama, Washington

Postby waynecooke » Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:07 am

We had a similar situation. The fine point is that it is 365 days after Confirmation, not baptism. A husband of a part member family was baptized and then confirmed the next day (Sunday). All was lined up for him to receive his endowment and be sealed to his wife. When he got to the temple, there was a problem. A call was made to SLC and got permission to proceed on that day. So, not really a clerical problem in this case, but just an oversight/misunderstanding. But all is well and he was ordained a High Priest last Sunday.


Return to “General Clerk Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest