New FamilySearch

[ClarkeGJ]

Your comments are greatly appreciation. We are looking at better mechanisms for transfering owndership from one contributor to another in the case of death. Then the new owner could handle the names. Also the issue of expiring reservations is still being considered but no decision has been made yet.

[RonaldF-p40]

A time limit on reservations has more advantages or benefits than no time limit. As more and more individuals join the church and start doing family history work, “closer” relatives than the one who reserved the name may want to do the work. I have seen many patrons disappointed to find that their grandfather or great grandmother name is “cleared” but no work has been done in several years. They can not complete the work because the person submitting the name lost interest, lost and forgot about the name, or is no longer worthy to do the work. I personally would like to see a 3 or 6 month limitation on reservations, but I would accept a one year limitation. The User’s Guide suggests that a person should only reserve enough names that can be done in a few trips to the temple. Time limited reservations would be harmonious with that suggestion. The time limit could automatically be reset each time a reserved ordinance is completed. This may also encourage more frequent visits to the temple.

Another feature I would like to see is the ability to reserve names for a unit. Any recommend holder in that unit could access “unit reserved” names to do work. This would enable unit members to assist other unit members in completing their work. A young men president could print all a unit’s “B” and “C” ordinances for a youth baptism trip. Those cards could be printed when the youth arrives at the temple. They would have a greater spiritual experience knowing that the did work for another unit member.

[JamesAnderson]

That is one of the best ideas yet.

Many times I see index card boxes at the Provo temple, have even stopped and done one for another ward while there. I've wondered if cards ever get lost, and with the new system printing one card for each ordinance, your idea could be taken a step forward, and any member in that unit could come in and do 'unit reserved' names.

Might save alot of other headaches too. Some units right now have a consultant or leader designated by volunteer or assignment to handle cards for members in that unit. Just giving your unit number, and since that is not always known by the member, tying the unit number to the activated recommend (that could be updated when the member moves out of a unit by the new unit he/she moves into), that could save everyone a whole other set of headaches as well.

[greenwoodkl]

That is one of the best ideas yet...tying the unit number to the activated recommend (that could be updated when the member moves out of a unit by the new unit he/she moves into), that could save everyone a whole other set of headaches as well.

I could see the benefit from the barcoded recommends being used to access unit or other designated "reserved" names by scanning the barcode at a "kiosk" or at the family file desk.

[MarianJohnson]

Perhaps the thinking should be changed to allow patrons to have a one year expiration, after which they may renew their control of the cards, if they wish. That way, if someone dies, the control reverts back to the temple file at the end of the year. If the patron is actively working on ordinances, but has not been able to complete all of his cards in that time frame, he can renew his control of the cards and continue doing ordinances. The New FamilySearch could provide a reminder when the patron logs in as to how long he has left before the year expires, and a link to a renewal screen if necessary.

[RonaldF-p40]

Perhaps the thinking should be changed to allow patrons to have a one year expiration, after which they may renew their control of the cards, if they wish. That way, if someone dies, the control reverts back to the temple file at the end of the year. If the patron is actively working on ordinances, but has not been able to complete all of his cards in that time frame, he can renew his control of the cards and continue doing ordinances. The New FamilySearch could provide a reminder when the patron logs in as to how long he has left before the year expires, and a link to a renewal screen if necessary.

That is why I suggested that the time limit be reset whenever an ordinance is completed. As long as they were actively working on the names there would be no problem. They would have 3, 6, or 12 months to complete the next ordinance, depending upon the time limit..

Again, patrons must only reserve those names that they personally want to do, and that they can do in a few trips to the temple.

For years, the only way to get the ordinance completed for a relative was to submit the name. That could be on a Family Name Card or on a Temple list. We must change the way we think about the process. With the new FamilySearch the names are in a public "bank" that anyone can draw from. They will no longer be hidden in private safe deposits (home computers or family group sheets).

[thedqs]

You mentioned that only one ordinance would be allowed per card. Does that mean I wouldn't be able to say, print out my great-grandfather and great-grandmother and get all their ordinances done on one card, but would have to print out 4+1 cards each (Bap, Init, End, Seal Par, Seal Spouse only one per couple)?

[RonaldF-p40]

You mentioned that only one ordinance would be allowed per card. Does that mean I wouldn't be able to say, print out my great-grandfather and great-grandmother and get all their ordinances done on one card, but would have to print out 4+1 cards each (Bap, Init, End, Seal Par, Seal Spouse only one per couple)?

The new FamilySearch allows you to choose which ordinances that you want to do for an individual. The ordinances for an individual will be printed on a single name card just as they are under the current system.

From the Users Guide:
“A Family Ordinance Request is a printout from FamilySearch that lists the ordinances
that you have selected to do and the individuals for whom you will do them. You take
this request to the temple, where temple workers will print the family ordinance cards
that you will use while you do the ordinances.”.

If you want to have the youth in your unit do the Baptisms and Confirmations, then you select the individuals and reserve B and C for those individuals. You print the Ordinance Request and give it to the youth leader. The youth leader can take it to the temple when the youth go and have the cards printed. The youth uses those cards to do the work. It is a fantastic system.

If you reserve all the ordinances for an individual, all the ordinances will appear on the Family Name Card for that person. Examples of the Family Name Cards are not shown in the user's guide, but I assume they will be the same as they are now.

[MarianJohnson]

There has been much said about temple cards and expiration dates. There seems to be an attitude that some people are abusing the system and printing out endless cards, for which they never do the ordinances. I posted the following last year on the Google Group - New Family Search, but I think it bears repeating:

Please consider the following scenarios.

1. I submitted over 400 German names to the Temple File in Dallas in 1995 because I lived too far away to do that many myself. After waiting 5 years for the temple dates, I contacted the temple recorder. He told me that when the church changed their system to the new ordinance cards, Salt Lake requested that all the temple file names at the temple be turned in to Salt Lake. Finally, after waiting 10 years, the temple work has been done within the last year. So not all CLEARED notations are the fault of irresponsible patrons. Many of them are Temple File names over which the submitter has no control.

1A. Because the baptisms had been done in 1995 on the above-mentioned names, and later the extraction program picked up many of the same German names, the endowments and sealings were cleared by the extraction program, causing a duplication of listings. This was because the endowments and sealing were still at the Dallas Temple at the time and not included in the IGI. So now, all of those names will be done again when the extraction program gets around to doing them. When I wrote to Salt Lake about them, they just said they couldn't remove the extracted names from the system so they would just have to be done twice. If patrons weren't doing so many duplicate entries, the temple file names and extracted names could be done more efficiently.

2. When my daughter was in Young Women, I consistently prepared batches of names for her and her friends to do at their baptism temple trips. This created a backlog of names for which I have been doing endowments nearly every week. It will take me another year to clear out the backlog. My daughter is now at college, so I don't submit baptisms as often any more. We work with our own personal situations. Why do others feel they have to judge our motives?


3. Last November another daughter submitted to the Houston Temple a batch of German names from my research for her singles ward to perform. In February someone else submitted over 50 of the same names and did the temple work. The names had been in the online IGI since November - that other person did not check the online IGI before submitting names. This is one of the main reasons for duplication in the IGI.

4. My husband and I worked in the baptistry at the Winter Quarters temple, We were sometimes told by the people in the office that they only had a limited quantity of names for the youth to perform baptisms for, so we had to limit the number they could do in order to give everyone a chance to do some. Some of these youth had travelled over 100 miles to do this. One man who works at the temple has been extracting names of his relatives from a book in order to provide the patrons at the temple with more names. One day when my husband and I went there to do some sealings, the sealer told us that it was a good things we had brought our own names, because the temple did not have ANY names to do sealings from. We shared what we had brought with the other patrons in the sealing session.

5. I have found many names listed in the online IGI for my ancestors which were derived from the extraction program. Some have been listed as CLEARED for several years. I will wait for the extraction program to complete the ordinances in order to avoid duplication.


6. My husband's job recently transferred us to a city which is a 2-hour drive from the closest temple. It is not practical for us to go to the temple weekly as we had been doing. That means it is going to take us longer to work through our temple ordinance cards. Unforeseen circumstances change what people are able to accomplish. Will the new FamilySearch deny us the ability to do the temple work on names we already have on temple ordinance cards?


The bottom line here is that there are many issues involved in the submission of names. Ideally it would be nice if people could bring in their own names and do the temple work in 3 months, but practically, there are many many reasons why this just is not possible. The biggest problem is that baptisms and sealings can be done in a few moments, while an endowment takes two hours. There will always be a backlog of names waiting for endowments to be done. The best things we can do are to go to the temple as often as possible and help to clear out the backlog of endowments, especially for male names, which are always further behind, and always check the IGI before submitting names. DO NOT EVER EVER EVER ENCOURAGE PATRONS TO RESUBMIT NAMES LISTED AS CLEARED IN THE IGI!!!!!

I am tired of hearing about people who have a attache case or shoebox full of cards being badmouthed and judged for doing the temple work on their own ancestors. They are probably the most active temple attenders in the church!

[russellhltn]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think what people are asking for is to only reserve names for a year at a time. I don't think anyone is talking about non-renewal of the "hold". Only that it would be released if the submitter was inactive and failed to renew.