Page 1 of 4

After marriage, who decides where records go?

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:13 pm
by waltbristow
We recently had a sister in our ward who was sealed in the temple. The temple recorded the sealing. And then her records were moved out of our ward to her husband's ward -- apparently automatically. Or at least we didn't send her record.

The problem was that instead of her moving into his ward, he is moving into our ward. That necessitated our requesting her record back, getting his birthdate and membership number from her record, requesting his record and then adding her to his household.

My question is this. Was the transfer of her record to his ward, in fact, something that is automatically done? If so, anyone know what the thinking is behind that? Wouldn't it be better to just let the ward clerks either send or request the records as appropriate? My wife reminded me that we had the same situation -- I moved into her apartment when we got married.

Walt Bristow
Lynchburg (Virginia) 2nd Ward Clerk

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:52 pm
by kd7mha
When I got married I moved into my wifes house and had no problems.
If I remember correctly the Temple recorder asked where we wanted our records to be after we got married.

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:28 pm
by crislapi
Once they are married, she is added to his household. All you would have needed to do, therefore, was request his (household) record and hers would have automatically followed.

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:58 am
by russellhltn
crislapi wrote:All you would have needed to do, therefore, was request his (household) record and hers would have automatically followed.


True. But in order to do that, you'd need to get his information. I'm guessing it was faster to get her record back and get that from the marriage info then to ask them directly. Perhaps they were on their honeymoon.

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:07 am
by crislapi
Ah, good point.

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:59 pm
by mkmurray
This incident just happened in our ward today. I'm now requesting the records back from his ward into ours, which was the bride's ward before the sealing. From the MLS Update printouts, it is apparent that the sealing was recorded and her records were moved to his ward in one update.

Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:40 am
by scgallafent
wbristow wrote:We recently had a sister in our ward who was sealed in the temple. The temple recorded the sealing. And then her records were moved out of our ward to her husband's ward -- apparently automatically. Or at least we didn't send her record.

The record is moved automatically when the new family is created. I don't know if the temple has any control over where the household record ends up.

We saw this fairly consistently when I served in a single student ward bishopric. If one of the young men in the ward got married, his wife's records showed up in our ward and we suddenly had a married couple in our records. If one of the young women got married, her records transferred out on the next transmission after the sealing.

Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:53 am
by mkmurray
scgallafent wrote:The record is moved automatically when the new family is created. I don't know if the temple has any control over where the household record ends up.

We saw this fairly consistently when I served in a single student ward bishopric. If one of the young men in the ward got married, his wife's records showed up in our ward and we suddenly had a married couple in our records. If one of the young women got married, her records transferred out on the next transmission after the sealing.

I think you are right that someone's record moves when a sealing happens, and 9 times out 10 it's likely the bride's that moves to the husband's unit. However, I'm not so sure I agree with the temple having no control over it. I think it's a standard practice they have implemented (either logistically or in software) as in most cases, the assumption is correct.

We have one case in this thread (the 2nd post, from kd7mha) where a temple recorder thought to ask where the records should go, and they went to the appropriate unit accordingly (in opposition of the standard practice that is usually assumed to be true).

Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:14 pm
by scgallafent
mkmurray wrote:We have one case in this thread (the 2nd post, from kd7mha) where a temple recorder thought to ask where the records should go, and they went to the appropriate unit accordingly (in opposition of the standard practice that is usually assumed to be true).

That's the thing that made me change that to an "I don't know" if the temple has control.

In our experience, every temple marriage ended with the bride's record coming into our ward (when we already had the groom) or the bride's record leaving our ward (when the groom was in a different ward). The fact that the temple recorder asked gave me reason to pause. Not being in a situation any more where I can pick the temple recorder's brain easily, I'll defer to someone who may be able to find out the correct answer.

Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:43 pm
by lajackson
scgallafent wrote:I'll defer to someone who may be able to find out the correct answer.


I'll ask Saturday, unless someone else finds out first. [grin]