Conflict: temple work for spouses of ancestors or cousins?

[mwgrover]

Ever since I started involving myself in temple and family history work about a year ago, I have identified a conflict that I can't figure out how to resolve.

Instruction 1: we are supposed to do all ordinances in the correct order. BCIE, then SP, then SS.

Instruction 2: we are not supposed to do temple work for the ancestors of our own ancestors' (or cousins') spouses with whom we have no direct relationship. The most recent reference to this instruction is on page 61 of the January 2018 Ensign, bottom right corner: "What about spouses of our direct-line ancestors? We should do temple work for the spouses of direct-line ancestors. Leave the temple work for the ancestors of those spouses to their direct-line descendants."

The conflict arises at the E-SP-SS step. How do we fulfill instruction #1 without breaking #2? I can't seal my cousin's spouse to my cousin (SS), without that spouse first being sealed to his/her parents (SP). However, I can't seal that spouse to his/her parents without first doing the parents' own individual ordinances. But if I have no direct relationship with that spouse's parents, I'm supposed to leave it "to their direct-line decendants."

Anyone else see the conflict? I can't believe I'm the only one who has been bothered by this. I just don't know the right thing to do and still follow the instructions that have been given.

I asked our stake temple and family history consultants (I am a ward TFH consultant) and they didn't know if there was an official answer. Their opinion was that we should go ahead and do the work for those unrelated individuals in order to properly get to the SS step for our own relative's spouse, but I would prefer to get a definitive answer rather than someone's opinion...

[jonesrk]

I think the problem is in the SP, then SS. A person doesn't have to be sealed to their parents before they can be sealed to their spouse. I believe the desire is to have the parents sealed before any of their children are sealed to them which is the other way around, and I'm not sure that is necessary, but I don't have access to the temple handbook to check on that).

[russellhltn]

Please see In What Sequence Should Ordinances Be Performed? from the FamilySearch Help Center.

I'm not seeing any requirement a sealing to parent prior to sealing to spouse.

[rmrichesjr]

The lack of requirement to seal person A to person A's parents before sealing person A to person A's spouse would seem to correspond to a similar lack of requirement for the living. My wife and I were married/sealed in 1981. Her father was baptized by proxy a few years ago, a year after his passing. Her mother is still alive. That would have been one _LONG_ engagement.

[mwgrover]

OK, thanks everyone. The analogy to the living makes sense. I guess it's just because that's the order that the ordinances are listed on someone's record, SP before SS. But that article that russellhltn linked to seems to confirm that a SS ordinance can take place before an individual is sealed to his/her own parents.

[donaldjamesliveley1978]

Can we do everything up to the endowment for first cousins who have died but are not members? Half siblings? step siblings?

[davesudweeks]

Can we do everything up to the endowment for first cousins who have died but are not members? Half siblings? step siblings?

This FamilySearch help article should answer your question (login to FamilySearch may be required to view): https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/he ... ordinances