Importance of accurate records

[aebrown]

Seems like a lot of unnecessary work on the side of the membership clerk having to attend all these ordinances just to ensure he has the paper work.

Actually, in an official letter dated 25 March 2003, we were told:

When ... priesthood ordinations are performed, the appropriate Church representative should attend and ensure that the ... ordination is recorded....

• Baptism and confirmation of member of record: Ward clerk or assistant
• Aaronic Priesthood ordination: Ward clerk or assistant
• Melchizedek Priesthood ordination: Stake clerk or designee

I've seen no communication that supersedes this instruction, so it is still in force. Thus it is policy, not "a lot of unnecessary work" that should inspire a clerk to attend.

[scgallafent]

Hummm... Perhaps you are right. Here is how it works for us:

On Friday or Saturday, I get an email from my executive secretary with the interviews I have Sunday or later in the week. The Ward Clerk also gets a copy of this email.

Here is my ward's approach to the process.

In the first part of the month, one of the clerks prints all of the ordinance record forms for ordinances that should happen the next month. For example, ordinance record forms that are expected to be needed in November are printed in early October. Those go to the executive secretary. He uses those as part of the process of scheduling interviews and gives them to the bishop before he conducts the interview.

The clerks don't see the form again until after the ordinance is completed. It took a little bit of training, but the bishopric member who presided at the ordinance delivers the form to one of the clerks.

We gave the bishop a small stack of blank child blessing forms that he could fill out with the parents since those are a little more difficult to print with all of the completed information.

[TinMan]

Thanks Aaron.

I guess I won't be talking to my clerks about not attending baptisms...

[TinMan]

We gave the bishop a small stack of blank child blessing forms that he could fill out with the parents since those are a little more difficult to print with all of the completed information.

Again. I don't fill these out. There is a stack pinned to the bulletin board in the clerks office. If someone says, "we want to bless our baby on Fast Sunday," I tell them to go to the clerks office and get a form and fill it out and get it back to the clerk before the sacrament meeting where the blessing takes place. He checks and if someone other than a ward member is blessing the baby, he alerts me and together we ask grandpa to see his temple recommend or letter authorizing him to perform the ordinance from his bishop. I only get the completed form so we can read the name prior to the blessing. My clerk comes to the pulpit after sacrament meeting and retrieves the form. If he doesn't, we stick it in his box with our conducting sheet that has the releases and sustainings on it.

As Gary said: I have great clerks (and counselors) who try to take away from me as much of the "administering" part of my calling as they can. It is something I appreciate and let them know as often as I can.

[scgallafent]

We gave the bishop a small stack of blank child blessing forms that he could fill out with the parents since those are a little more difficult to print with all of the completed information.

Again. I don't fill these out. There is a stack pinned to the bulletin board in the clerks office. If someone says, "we want to bless our baby on Fast Sunday," I tell them to go to the clerks office and get a form and fill it out and get it back to the clerk before the sacrament meeting where the blessing takes place.

That's not a bad approach. I don't know if it would work with the way our bishop handles things, but I like it.

[russellhltn]

Actually, in an official letter dated 25 March 2003, we were told:

When ... priesthood ordinations are performed, the appropriate Church representative should attend and ensure that the ... ordination is recorded....

Arguably the 2010 Handbook superseded it. The Online Communication Library doesn't seem to have anything prior to 2005, so I'd question if that's still in force.

Handbook 1: 16.1.3 indicates that the clerk merely obtains the information. I don't see any requirement to attend.

Handbook 2: 20.7.1 also provides some info as to who is the representative.

[aebrown]

Actually, in an official letter dated 25 March 2003, we were told:

When ... priesthood ordinations are performed, the appropriate Church representative should attend and ensure that the ... ordination is recorded....

Arguably the 2010 Handbook superseded it.

Actually, I did some further research and found that the 17 August 2006 official letter explicitly made the 25 March 2003 letter obsolete. So please ignore my statements about it being official policy. It's certainly an option for a ward clerk to attend all such ordinances and ordinations, but is not required by current policy.

[Gary_Miller]

Actually, I did some further research and found that the 17 August 2006 official letter explicitly made the 25 March 2003 letter obsolete.

And the 2010 Official Handbooks of Instruction made the 17 August 2006 letter obsolete.

The bottom line is keeping accurate records are of up most importance and a unit needs to do what works best for them.

[aebrown]

Actually, I did some further research and found that the 17 August 2006 official letter explicitly made the 25 March 2003 letter obsolete.

And the 2010 Official Handbooks of Instruction made the 17 August 2006 letter obsolete.

Actually, it didn't . Because the 17 August 2006 letter includes instructions as to exactly which letters were to be destroyed when the next Handbook 2 was published, and that did not occur until 2010. If that letter had become obsolete upon the publishing of the 2010 handbooks, we wouldn't have had a way to know which letters to destroy.

There's a common misconception that the publication of new handbooks makes every former official letter obsolete, which is clearly not the case -- if so, there would have been no reason for the 17 August 2006 letter to have been written, specifying exactly which letters needed to be destroyed.

[russellhltn]

Although, I can't find any 2006 letter in the communication library. But if it's sole purpose was to instruct what letters were be to destroyed, then perhaps by removing it from the on-line library, it's no longer needed.