Tech Forum

First, I have read the following threads (and a few others) relating to handling of ordination data:
http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1701
http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4378

I understand that this data is only kept locally and not preserved across a move from one unit to another, and I understand why. My primary issue is not with keeping the data across a move, but with keeping it in the unit, including local backups.

Issue #1
The "ordained by" data was lost for several records in my unit...and these records never moved. For some of them, I have a hardcopy from before the loss of the "ordained by" data. For most, the data is lost unless the individual knows the details. Why would MLS selectively delete this data from records?

Issue #2
This field is apparently not saved when a backup is done. I did an offline restoration of a backup file from before the data loss, but the "ordained by" field was not restored. Is there any reason this data is kept locally, but not backed up locally? Or better yet, added to the permanent record in SLC?

Thanks!

geeksmith wrote:I understand that this data is only kept locally and not preserved across a move from one unit to another, and I understand why.

What ordnance data are we talking about? In the case of ordination to a priesthood office, names and dates should stick and even transfer between wards.

RussellHltn wrote:What ordnance data are we talking about? In the case of ordination to a priesthood office, names and dates should stick and even transfer between wards.

The data that was lost is the record of who performed the ordination to a Priesthood office.

What version of MLS have you tried restoring the old data into?

RussellHltn wrote:What version of MLS have you tried restoring the old data into?

This was all using the latest version, 3.2.1. The backups were taken from an earlier version, whatever was available in August-December 2009.

I would suggest calling Local Unit Support and see what they have to say.

It sounds like it might be a fault in 3.2.1. I know 3.2.2. is in beta. I have no idea if it's going to fix that problem.