After marriage, who decides where records go?

[crislapi]

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).

I'll second that. We're have 40-70 marriages a year in our ward (student ward) and I can't think of a single exception to what scgallafent has observed.

It might also be worth pointing out that all the address and contact info for the bride is erased and replaced with the groom's (head of household) contact info.

[lajackson]

It might also be worth pointing out that all the address and contact info for the bride is erased and replaced with the groom's (head of household) contact info.

I would expect the default to be that the bride becomes a member of the groom's household, so the contact information would be appropriate. As for the location of the married couple, it would appear that this would require a second step, transfering the new household to a new unit, if that is where they will be living.

I will ask if the temple worries about this second step or just leaves it to the ward where the groom resided to figure it out. I suspect the latter but, as I said, I will ask.

[mkmurray]

I will ask if the temple worries about this second step or just leaves it to the ward where the groom resided to figure it out. I suspect the latter but, as I said, I will ask.

I will assert again that I doubt it's the latter (the temple leaving it up to the groom's unit). I think someone or some automated process moves the bride into the groom's household into the groom's unit automatically. I cannot tell if it's just the general assumed policy of temple recorders or if it is implemented by software.

The Membership Update report that I got just this last week had the sealing recorded and the moving of records to the groom's unit in the same update batch of given particular timestamp.

[russellhltn]

I will assert again that I doubt it's the latter (the temple leaving it up to the groom's unit). I think someone or some automated process moves the bride into the groom's household into the groom's unit automatically. I cannot tell if it's just the general assumed policy of temple recorders or if it is implemented by software.

Ummm, I think that's what Larry is saying - the bride is grouped with the groom and it then falls to the groom's unit to move them out. (Or the bride's unit to request it.)

[mkmurray]

Ummm, I think that's what Larry is saying - the bride is grouped with the groom and it then falls to the groom's unit to move them out. (Or the bride's unit to request it.)

I disagree on the interpretation of lajackson's comments. I will explain my reasoning below, but I suppose he could answer for himself at any time.

He suspects the temple does "the latter" option of the first sentence of his second paragraph (which is to leave it up to the unit to transfer the records). The first option would be if "the temple worries about this second step," which is the transferring of records to a unit mentioned at the end of his first paragraph.

Here are his comments again for reference to which paragraphs and sentences I am referring to:

I would expect the default to be that the bride becomes a member of the groom's household, so the contact information would be appropriate. As for the location of the married couple, it would appear that this would require a second step, transfering the new household to a new unit, if that is where they will be living.

I will ask if the temple worries about this second step or just leaves it to the ward where the groom resided to figure it out. I suspect the latter but, as I said, I will ask.

Actually, now that I read your comments, RussellHltn, I do think you are correctly summarizing what lajackson is saying, but perhaps you are misinterpreting what I am saying, because I am not in agreement with lajackson "suspects."

[russellhltn]

I would expect the default to be that the bride becomes a member of the groom's household, so the contact information would be appropriate.

I think someone or some automated process moves the bride into the groom's household into the groom's unit automatically. I cannot tell if it's just the general assumed policy of temple recorders or if it is implemented by software.

The Membership Update report that I got just this last week had the sealing recorded and the moving of records to the groom's unit in the same update batch of given particular timestamp.

I don't see much of disagreement. I think we're all in agreement that the bride becomes part of the groom's household. The movement of the bride's records would seem to be consistent with grouping them together. I thought the question centered around the second step:

As for the location of the married couple, it would appear that this would require a second step, transferring the new household to a new unit, if that is where they will be living.

I will ask if the temple worries about this second step or just leaves it to the ward where the groom resided to figure it out. I suspect the latter but, as I said, I will ask.

I'm wondering if in kd7mha's case the temple recorder was a member of one of the wards and was offering to forward the information to the ward clerk to get the transfer done. I'll guess we'll have to wait and see what tomorrow brings.

Hmmmm, I wonder if MLS supports the temple "emailing" the wards via MLS messaging?

[lajackson]

Well, I could answer for myself if I was not stuck in a parking lot version of the Interstate in the major city where I am visiting. [grin]

Ok, I wrote the post and confused everyone because I spoke of two steps. There are actually three perceived steps:

1. Couple gets married and bride is added to groom's household.
2. Bride's record gets moved to groom's unit. (I think this happens by default with 1.)
3. If couple does not live in groom's ward, new family is moved to new unit.

I was mentally combining 1 and 2 together as step 1, and making 3 2. There. All clear.

So, the temple combines the couple into one household, the groom's, and that causes both 1 and 2 to take place.

My question was, does the temple worry about where the couple is ultimately going to live and take care of 3 at the same time? Or does the temple just leave it up to the groom's ward to send the records where they belong?

With that added clarification, my assumptionn is that the temple does not worry about 3. But, as I said, I will ask.

(My hour of parking lot on the Interstate duty was completed a short while ago, and I have happily arrived at the home of my newest grandchild, where my wife has been visiting for the last two weeks. There is a temple in this city. Hence, tomorrow's activity and opportunity to inquire, followed by the long trip home. Being Saturdays, there will probably not be a parking lot on the Interstate. Just lots of accidents that will temporarily close it. [grin] )

[lajackson]

We just returned from the temple. I did have the chance to speak with the temple recorder, who shared this information.

The temple records ordinances on membership records. The temple does not combine records into households. The temple does not move membership records to different wards.

When a sealing to spouse is performed, the temple records the sealing on each membership record and, if the couple were not previously married, the temple updates the current spouse (marriage) information, as well.

Anything that happens after that happens either because:

1. The Membership Department has procedures, automatic or otherwise, that make changes.

2. A faithful ward clerk or assistant makes changes.

End of discussion with the temple recorder.

Here is what I think.

I think that when a current spouse (marriage) is added to a pair of records, CHQ combines them into one household, and moves the bride's record to the same unit as the groom's record. I think this is probably done automatically.

I think it is then up to the groom's clerk or assistant clerk to transfer the new couple (household) to the ward where they will reside, if not the groom's ward.

Bottom line. The temple records the sealing (and marriage, if needed) or other ordinances. The Membership Department (or its computers) and/or ward clerks do the rest.

[mkmurray]

Here is what I think.

I think that when a current spouse (marriage) is added to a pair of records, CHQ combines them into one household, and moves the bride's record to the same unit as the groom's record. I think this is probably done automatically.

I can get on board with that theory. Thanks for the update.

[jbh001]

I think that when a current spouse (marriage) is added to a pair of records, CHQ combines them into one household, and moves the bride's record to the same unit as the groom's record. I think this is probably done automatically.

Picking at nits here, but I disagree. I would say it this way:

I think that when a current spouse (marriage) is added to a pair of records by the temple, CHQ combines them into one household, and moves the bride's record to the same unit as the groom's record. I think this is probably done automatically.

I say that because I have noticed no such automatic combing of households and moving of records when civil marriages are recorded by the ward clerk via MLS.