scgallafent wrote:There is no concept of "flagging something so that it goes away on an audit."
I agree with all you have said. The objective is to have correct records that show properly completed ordinances. And so I have a question. And I ask it because for many leaders, "audit finding", whether financial, membership, or otherwise, equals "fix it and make it go away". I agree that it should not be that way, but in reality it is that way in the life of many clerks.
So if a sealing to spouse is performed one day short of the one year mark because the temple president was authorized by the First Presidency to make that exception, or if another ordinance is performed outside of the standard timing but with appropriate priesthood approval, then the ordinance was properly performed and is valid, but the membership audit program will flag it because it was not performed in accordance with current standard time constraints.
Can those ordinances be identified in such a way that they will not appear on the annual membership audit? Should they be? Or should we just keep local records and note after each audit that the ordinances were performed with proper approval and are valid?
This is different from an ordinance performed out of sequence, or a baptism before age 8, or many other situations that cause an ordinance not to be valid. Those ordinances need to be ratified by the First Presidency or accomplished again. And normally that request to the First Presidency originates with the stake president.
But if there is not a way to identify these other minor, but approved, exceptions, I can see where it would not be productive to send a request to Church headquarters annually simply so that they can be taken off of a list of potential membership problems.
So that's my question. Should the letter be sent for an ordinance that is valid simply to make that a matter of official Church record. Or will the membership audit program still keep calling it up each time?