Thanks Tom, for your insight. The presenters at the conference were the two who straighten out the really knotty problems for folks. They gave the "Top Ten Mistakes..." session from which my notes originate. Whether names for myself or names for the temple, if I submit them, they all go into my one temple file to process and wait. I was told that male endowments given to the temple are taking about 2 years to complete. (They used to take longer, by the way. This is an improvement.) The "reasonable period of time" may be different for me if I move to the Antarctic compared to the Intermountain West. But when a questioner asked, they suggested a couple of months. I usually try for a six month supply to get me from one ward youth baptism to the next. I do not leave them on my list all that time, but re-select them as I need them. That's how I noticed that others have been completing them. What a blessing! Last year I worked with another submitter to take some of the names she had on her submission list. She was reducing it per the request of NFS due to problems she was experiencing with the program. She couldn't get a printout, one of the concerns the presenters mentioned. Her goal was to reduce from 4,000 to 200. Jerry -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 12:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 29 Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] If you prefer the digest version, use a D instead of the L in the request address. Please remember to restrict the size of your post. Today's Topics: 1. Re: temple ordinances (Jerry Cowley) 2. Re: temple ordinances (Tom Kemp) 3. Re: temple ordinances ([email protected]) 4. Re: temple ordinances (W David Samuelsen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:54:34 -0700 From: "Jerry Cowley" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Interesting how this conversation has morphed. I know people who work and struggle for years to get any names for temple work. Others have names "pour out of the computer" so to speak. Our circumstances are not always alike. Two Rootsweb conference speakers reminded attendees that we should submit no more names than we can do in a "reasonable amount of time, probably a few months." If a researcher has dozens of temple-going family members or a supportive ward, they can probably get more names done than one who doesn't have that, but they cautioned us about having more than 200 names in the temple file at a time because of the difficulty it gives the program. For example, names may not print properly on an FOR. They urged us not to feel guilty about not being able to do all the work we find all at once. I have experimented by putting a few family names into the program without tapping them for temple work--or more than just baptism, etc.-- right away. Nearly half have already been picked up and completed. Conversely, I have also found names that were begun by others or through extraction that I've been able to complete. I would rather have the names waiting in the program than in my computer. It's one step closer for them. It's also an excellent way of making contact with other researchers. And if the names wait until the Millennium, the data is in place to support the effort when the time comes. I have also assisted people whose health is precarious, who have no immediate LDS family, with putting all their data into the program, rather than leave it in their own computer files should they die. They are attending the temple as often as their circumstances permit. We should not begin unauthorized extractions of lists of persons such as Holocaust victims. That is actively discouraged. Jerry __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6876 (20120211) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:09:45 -0500 From: Tom Kemp <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]om> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 OK. I have rechecked the current two publications on Family History - the "A Member's Guide..." and "To Turn the Hearts" Both speak of doing "all" work for our "ancestors" and our "kindred dead" Yes, we are talking about submitting only relatives - no self created extraction projects. There is no mention of limiting the flow of names. I have heard of not "reserving" more names than we can reasonably do ourselves through personal Temple attendance - but have never seen any instructions about not "submitting" names to the general Temple file (not reserved - simply entered in to nFS and submitted for Temple work for all Temples to pull from. It is my experience that female names are completed within six months (with the baptisms etc. being completed within 2 weeks) and that male names will take ten months. Most names are completed sooner than that. So, the need is there. Given the painfully low number of names waiting for female baptisms - it would seem like a real assist to the Church to document and submit as many names - particularly female names, as possible. That way the Temples will have more than enough names in reserve to meet the needs of a world-wide Church. ?Once we have received them for ourselves [Ordinances] and for our families, we are obligated to provide these ordinances vicariously for our kindred dead, indeed for the whole human family? (Boyd K. Packer, in Conference Report, Apr. 1987, p. 27; or Ensign, May 1987, p. 24). On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jerry Cowley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting how this conversation has morphed. ?I know people who work and > struggle for years to get any names for temple work. Others have names "pour > out of the computer" so to speak. Our circumstances are not always alike. > Two Rootsweb conference speakers reminded attendees that we should submit no > more names than we can do in a "reasonable amount of time, probably a few > months." If a researcher has dozens of temple-going family members or a > supportive ward, they can probably get more names done than one who doesn't > have that, but they cautioned us about having more than 200 names in the > temple file at a time because of the difficulty it gives the program. For > example, names may not print properly on an FOR. They urged us not to feel > guilty about not being able to do all the work we find all at once. > > I have experimented by putting a few family names into the program without > tapping them for temple work--or more than just baptism, etc.-- right away. > Nearly half have already been picked up and completed. Conversely, I have > also found names that were begun by others or through extraction that I've > been able to complete. I would rather have the names waiting in the program > than in my computer. It's one step closer for them. ?It's also an excellent > way of making contact with other researchers. And if the names wait until > the Millennium, the data is in place to support the effort when the time > comes. > > I have also assisted people whose health is precarious, who have no > immediate LDS family, with putting all their data into the program, rather > than leave it in their own computer files should they die. ?They are > attending the temple as often as their circumstances permit. > > We should not begin unauthorized extractions of lists of persons such as > Holocaust victims. That is actively discouraged. > > Jerry > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6876 (20120211) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:47:32 -0500 (EST) From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" It is now taking 18+ months to get male names through. Endowments are the worst..they wait up to a year between initiatory and endowment and then sometimes nearly that long for sealings. I believe we should do all the "legal" (meaning far enough back and not self-extraction projects) names we can. I do all the descendants of my direct ancestors as far down as I can do them. I submit them immediately to the temple file because we don't have enough temple goers to try to coordinate that. Better than waiting until the millenium when there will really be a backlog!!! I wish all those folks who reserve names would just do them or send them to the temple file..I have so many many names in my ancestry....even newer ones who get the baptisms done and then just sit some since 1999, some since 2009 and all years in between...hundreds of souls waiting for completion of their ordinances. I think we have a responsibility to proactively tell our patrons if they can't get the names done quickly, to submit them to the NFS temple file to be completed. Even if they have printed cards, we should assist them to send them on to the temple. I think a lot of people hold on to the cards feeling guilty that they aren't getting them done...and do nothing because they do not know what to do. Michele In a message dated 2/11/2012 10:11:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: OK. I have rechecked the current two publications on Family History - the "A Member's Guide..." and "To Turn the Hearts" Both speak of doing "all" work for our "ancestors" and our "kindred dead" Yes, we are talking about submitting only relatives - no self created extraction projects. There is no mention of limiting the flow of names. I have heard of not "reserving" more names than we can reasonably do ourselves through personal Temple attendance - but have never seen any instructions about not "submitting" names to the general Temple file (not reserved - simply entered in to nFS and submitted for Temple work for all Temples to pull from. It is my experience that female names are completed within six months (with the baptisms etc. being completed within 2 weeks) and that male names will take ten months. Most names are completed sooner than that. So, the need is there. Given the painfully low number of names waiting for female baptisms - it would seem like a real assist to the Church to document and submit as many names - particularly female names, as possible. That way the Temples will have more than enough names in reserve to meet the needs of a world-wide Church. ?Once we have received them for ourselves [Ordinances] and for our families, we are obligated to provide these ordinances vicariously for our kindred dead, indeed for the whole human family? (Boyd K. Packer, in Conference Report, Apr. 1987, p. 27; or Ensign, May 1987, p. 24). On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jerry Cowley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting how this conversation has morphed. I know people who work and > struggle for years to get any names for temple work. Others have names "pour > out of the computer" so to speak. Our circumstances are not always alike. > Two Rootsweb conference speakers reminded attendees that we should submit no > more names than we can do in a "reasonable amount of time, probably a few > months." If a researcher has dozens of temple-going family members or a > supportive ward, they can probably get more names done than one who doesn't > have that, but they cautioned us about having more than 200 names in the > temple file at a time because of the difficulty it gives the program. For > example, names may not print properly on an FOR. They urged us not to feel > guilty about not being able to do all the work we find all at once. > > I have experimented by putting a few family names into the program without > tapping them for temple work--or more than just baptism, etc.-- right away. > Nearly half have already been picked up and completed. Conversely, I have > also found names that were begun by others or through extraction that I've > been able to complete. I would rather have the names waiting in the program > than in my computer. It's one step closer for them. It's also an excellent > way of making contact with other researchers. And if the names wait until > the Millennium, the data is in place to support the effort when the time > comes. > > I have also assisted people whose health is precarious, who have no > immediate LDS family, with putting all their data into the program, rather > than leave it in their own computer files should they die. They are > attending the temple as often as their circumstances permit. > > We should not begin unauthorized extractions of lists of persons such as > Holocaust victims. That is actively discouraged. > > Jerry > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6876 (20120211) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:28:30 -0700 From: W David Samuelsen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed From ONE village in Germany, I count on less than 2 hands LDS descendants. Image me doing more than 100,000 descendants of that village (I have in my possession the entire database sent to me from a distant cousin in Germany) Can you fathom the size of it without any help from my ward or friends. David S. On 2/10/2012 11:20 AM, Alice Allen wrote: > I'm guilty of having put names in the system in hopes someone more closely > related than I am would find them and do their work. I should have realized > that since I seem to be the only one researching these people, there's > probably not a line-up of people waiting to do their Temple work, either. > > Guess what I'll be dong later today. > > Alice Allen > Ward Family History Consultant > Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake ------------------------------ To contact the LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT list administrator, send an email to [email protected] To post a message to the LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT mailing list, send an email to [email protected] __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 29 ************************************************** __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6877 (20120211) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6877 (20120211) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

There was a RootsTech livesteam session that was all about the future of new FamilySearch that will be released in the coming months.  It will take care of the problem of the anonymous submitters and the unclaimed legacy submitters.  FamilySearch is well aware of the problem and has been working on a solution.  The RootsTech streams haven't yet been divided up into the hour long sessions, but the daily streams can still be watched on RootsTech.org Rebecca Christensen --- On Sat, 2/11/12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, February 11, 2012, 4:25 PM What I'd like to know is...Do the NFS computer folks have any way of  determining how long names have been waiting for ordinances completion?  We  can all see that info on individuals.....when the last ordinances was performed  and who reserved it...and the ESPECIALLY ANNOYING Legacy submitters ( who are  either dead, inactive, or lost their cards in the last 15 years). I am hopeful that they will announce and then begin to enforce within 6  months (to give folks a chance to have stake temple days or family temple days to finish things up)..and then just pull the plug on all the Legacy submissions  and send them to "ready" and ditto anything that has been more than 3-5 years  waiting for the next ordinances in sequence to be done. The engineers could do a lot to help us fulfill our responsibilities.    Every month, I go through my "cleared and submitted list" from PAF and run  Family Insight.  I pick up newly completely ordinances but there are  thousands of names that are not getting done and I believe may never be  completed until Salt Lake takes action. Michele

Knowledge Base Document # 1008361 clearly states: .There is no limit on the amount of time that ordinances can be on your Temple Ordinances list. Reserve only the amount that you can do in a timely manner. Other relatives may also want to perform ordinances for shared ancestors. Note: The more ordinances you reserve, the longer it takes for your Temple Ordinances List to load. Note the words "timely manner" and check your large temple lists, are there ordinances waiting there that could have been picked up by other family members? Note the phrase: "Other relatives may also want to perform ordinances for shared ancestors." My point is that of moderation in all things and that hoarding is probably not a good thing? The programmers designed the list to function properly with up to 2,000 names so if we have 2 or 3 times that many, we may need to rethink our priorities. Shanna Jones -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Kemp Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances OK. I have rechecked the current two publications on Family History - the "A Member's Guide..." and "To Turn the Hearts" Both speak of doing "all" work for our "ancestors" and our "kindred dead" Yes, we are talking about submitting only relatives - no self created extraction projects. There is no mention of limiting the flow of names. I have heard of not "reserving" more names than we can reasonably do ourselves through personal Temple attendance - but have never seen any instructions about not "submitting" names to the general Temple file (not reserved - simply entered in to nFS and submitted for Temple work for all Temples to pull from. It is my experience that female names are completed within six months (with the baptisms etc. being completed within 2 weeks) and that male names will take ten months. Most names are completed sooner than that. So, the need is there. Given the painfully low number of names waiting for female baptisms - it would seem like a real assist to the Church to document and submit as many names - particularly female names, as possible. That way the Temples will have more than enough names in reserve to meet the needs of a world-wide Church. "Once we have received them for ourselves [Ordinances] and for our families, we are obligated to provide these ordinances vicariously for our kindred dead, indeed for the whole human family" (Boyd K. Packer, in Conference Report, Apr. 1987, p. 27; or Ensign, May 1987, p. 24).

It is now taking 18+ months to get male names through. Endowments are the worst..they wait up to a year between initiatory and endowment and then sometimes nearly that long for sealings. I believe we should do all the "legal" (meaning far enough back and not self-extraction projects) names we can. I do all the descendants of my direct ancestors as far down as I can do them. I submit them immediately to the temple file because we don't have enough temple goers to try to coordinate that. Better than waiting until the millenium when there will really be a backlog!!! I wish all those folks who reserve names would just do them or send them to the temple file..I have so many many names in my ancestry....even newer ones who get the baptisms done and then just sit some since 1999, some since 2009 and all years in between...hundreds of souls waiting for completion of their ordinances. I think we have a responsibility to proactively tell our patrons if they can't get the names done quickly, to submit them to the NFS temple file to be completed. Even if they have printed cards, we should assist them to send them on to the temple. I think a lot of people hold on to the cards feeling guilty that they aren't getting them done...and do nothing because they do not know what to do. Michele In a message dated 2/11/2012 10:11:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: OK. I have rechecked the current two publications on Family History - the "A Member's Guide..." and "To Turn the Hearts" Both speak of doing "all" work for our "ancestors" and our "kindred dead" Yes, we are talking about submitting only relatives - no self created extraction projects. There is no mention of limiting the flow of names. I have heard of not "reserving" more names than we can reasonably do ourselves through personal Temple attendance - but have never seen any instructions about not "submitting" names to the general Temple file (not reserved - simply entered in to nFS and submitted for Temple work for all Temples to pull from. It is my experience that female names are completed within six months (with the baptisms etc. being completed within 2 weeks) and that male names will take ten months. Most names are completed sooner than that. So, the need is there. Given the painfully low number of names waiting for female baptisms - it would seem like a real assist to the Church to document and submit as many names - particularly female names, as possible. That way the Temples will have more than enough names in reserve to meet the needs of a world-wide Church. “Once we have received them for ourselves [Ordinances] and for our families, we are obligated to provide these ordinances vicariously for our kindred dead, indeed for the whole human family” (Boyd K. Packer, in Conference Report, Apr. 1987, p. 27; or Ensign, May 1987, p. 24). On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jerry Cowley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting how this conversation has morphed. I know people who work and > struggle for years to get any names for temple work. Others have names "pour > out of the computer" so to speak. Our circumstances are not always alike. > Two Rootsweb conference speakers reminded attendees that we should submit no > more names than we can do in a "reasonable amount of time, probably a few > months." If a researcher has dozens of temple-going family members or a > supportive ward, they can probably get more names done than one who doesn't > have that, but they cautioned us about having more than 200 names in the > temple file at a time because of the difficulty it gives the program. For > example, names may not print properly on an FOR. They urged us not to feel > guilty about not being able to do all the work we find all at once. > > I have experimented by putting a few family names into the program without > tapping them for temple work--or more than just baptism, etc.-- right away. > Nearly half have already been picked up and completed. Conversely, I have > also found names that were begun by others or through extraction that I've > been able to complete. I would rather have the names waiting in the program > than in my computer. It's one step closer for them. It's also an excellent > way of making contact with other researchers. And if the names wait until > the Millennium, the data is in place to support the effort when the time > comes. > > I have also assisted people whose health is precarious, who have no > immediate LDS family, with putting all their data into the program, rather > than leave it in their own computer files should they die. They are > attending the temple as often as their circumstances permit. > > We should not begin unauthorized extractions of lists of persons such as > Holocaust victims. That is actively discouraged. > > Jerry > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6876 (20120211) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

OK. I have rechecked the current two publications on Family History - the "A Member's Guide..." and "To Turn the Hearts" Both speak of doing "all" work for our "ancestors" and our "kindred dead" Yes, we are talking about submitting only relatives - no self created extraction projects. There is no mention of limiting the flow of names. I have heard of not "reserving" more names than we can reasonably do ourselves through personal Temple attendance - but have never seen any instructions about not "submitting" names to the general Temple file (not reserved - simply entered in to nFS and submitted for Temple work for all Temples to pull from. It is my experience that female names are completed within six months (with the baptisms etc. being completed within 2 weeks) and that male names will take ten months. Most names are completed sooner than that. So, the need is there. Given the painfully low number of names waiting for female baptisms - it would seem like a real assist to the Church to document and submit as many names - particularly female names, as possible. That way the Temples will have more than enough names in reserve to meet the needs of a world-wide Church. “Once we have received them for ourselves [Ordinances] and for our families, we are obligated to provide these ordinances vicariously for our kindred dead, indeed for the whole human family” (Boyd K. Packer, in Conference Report, Apr. 1987, p. 27; or Ensign, May 1987, p. 24). On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jerry Cowley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting how this conversation has morphed.  I know people who work and > struggle for years to get any names for temple work. Others have names "pour > out of the computer" so to speak. Our circumstances are not always alike. > Two Rootsweb conference speakers reminded attendees that we should submit no > more names than we can do in a "reasonable amount of time, probably a few > months." If a researcher has dozens of temple-going family members or a > supportive ward, they can probably get more names done than one who doesn't > have that, but they cautioned us about having more than 200 names in the > temple file at a time because of the difficulty it gives the program. For > example, names may not print properly on an FOR. They urged us not to feel > guilty about not being able to do all the work we find all at once. > > I have experimented by putting a few family names into the program without > tapping them for temple work--or more than just baptism, etc.-- right away. > Nearly half have already been picked up and completed. Conversely, I have > also found names that were begun by others or through extraction that I've > been able to complete. I would rather have the names waiting in the program > than in my computer. It's one step closer for them.  It's also an excellent > way of making contact with other researchers. And if the names wait until > the Millennium, the data is in place to support the effort when the time > comes. > > I have also assisted people whose health is precarious, who have no > immediate LDS family, with putting all their data into the program, rather > than leave it in their own computer files should they die.  They are > attending the temple as often as their circumstances permit. > > We should not begin unauthorized extractions of lists of persons such as > Holocaust victims. That is actively discouraged. > > Jerry > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6876 (20120211) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

About twenty years ago the extraction program completed the vast majority of female ordinances for my little ancestral village in Germany.   When I was able to work on my ancestors from this village (after our family discovered our connection), all the females had their temple work completed and I just had to do the male names.   This indicates to me that the Church has been working on solutions to having enough female names for temple file for many, many years.   Mary Scott

Like many others on this list, I have also waited months and even years for the male endowments to be completed.   If the male endowments are not done, then the sealing to spouse and sealing to parents ordinances cannot be completed.   It is not even a matter of temple patrons trying to complete their own submissions because we depend on others to help. For instance, if we are sisters, we need help completing ordinances for our male ancestors. It works the other way around too.   We can submit our own ancestral families to the temple files but who is going to complete the ordinances?   It is truly a matter of the temples not being frequented by patrons as they should be.   This is not a criticism at all but it is the reality of the situation.   I am not pointing fingers at anyone because we all struggle with attending the temple as often as we want but I know that each member of the Church would make a difference if he/she attended the temple even one or two more times per year.   The changes in doing temple file names create a challenge to some of us who used to receive assistance in our local temples. Now we are supposed to have assistance from our families, wards, stakes, but not directly from the temples.   Some of us do not have huge wards/stakes with monthly temple trips or stake temple days.   Some of us are fortunate to have family members who are members of the Church.   Some of us simply struggle to complete even our own four-generation names.   So itreally does matter if we attend the temple as often as we can.   It is wonderful when we catch the eternal perspective of temple work and see how we make a difference to individuals and families one person at a time.   While our own family's temple ordinances might be under control, there are members of our extended families, as well as for members of our wards and stakes, who need us to help them complete the ordinances for their own families.   Like the story of the man tossing the starfish back into the sea, our meager efforts can make a real difference to our own ancestors and the ancestors of others as we attend the temples and complete the sacred ordinances, especially the endowments which take so much longer to do than any other ordinance.   Each time we complete a temple session we are making a difference to one individual (endowment) or many individuals (other ordinances).   Mary Scott  

From ONE village in Germany, I count on less than 2 hands LDS descendants. Image me doing more than 100,000 descendants of that village (I have in my possession the entire database sent to me from a distant cousin in Germany) Can you fathom the size of it without any help from my ward or friends. David S. On 2/10/2012 11:20 AM, Alice Allen wrote: > I'm guilty of having put names in the system in hopes someone more closely > related than I am would find them and do their work. I should have realized > that since I seem to be the only one researching these people, there's > probably not a line-up of people waiting to do their Temple work, either. > > Guess what I'll be dong later today. > > Alice Allen > Ward Family History Consultant > Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake

Interesting how this conversation has morphed. I know people who work and struggle for years to get any names for temple work. Others have names "pour out of the computer" so to speak. Our circumstances are not always alike. Two Rootsweb conference speakers reminded attendees that we should submit no more names than we can do in a "reasonable amount of time, probably a few months." If a researcher has dozens of temple-going family members or a supportive ward, they can probably get more names done than one who doesn't have that, but they cautioned us about having more than 200 names in the temple file at a time because of the difficulty it gives the program. For example, names may not print properly on an FOR. They urged us not to feel guilty about not being able to do all the work we find all at once. I have experimented by putting a few family names into the program without tapping them for temple work--or more than just baptism, etc.-- right away. Nearly half have already been picked up and completed. Conversely, I have also found names that were begun by others or through extraction that I've been able to complete. I would rather have the names waiting in the program than in my computer. It's one step closer for them. It's also an excellent way of making contact with other researchers. And if the names wait until the Millennium, the data is in place to support the effort when the time comes. I have also assisted people whose health is precarious, who have no immediate LDS family, with putting all their data into the program, rather than leave it in their own computer files should they die. They are attending the temple as often as their circumstances permit. We should not begin unauthorized extractions of lists of persons such as Holocaust victims. That is actively discouraged. Jerry __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6876 (20120211) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

It may be so. However, I have been contacted twice by new converts about their family history. "Jorge, I see you got temple work done for my great-grandfather. What else do you have on my family?" And my answer was, "well, his wife was a cousin to my great-grandfather, but I don't have anything else on your family." That was years ago right after I joined the church and today I don't think I would do collateral work like that. (By the way, my great-grandfather was born in 1864 and her cousins and their spouses were all born around the same time so they totally meet the 110-year rule -- almost the 150-year rule if there was one.) So, even if you are 'the only one' researching those people, that doesn't mean nobody else will, eventually. Tough choice. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Alice Allen" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 4:20 PM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > I'm guilty of having put names in the system in hopes someone more closely > related than I am would find them and do their work. I should have > realized > that since I seem to be the only one researching these people, there's > probably not a line-up of people waiting to do their Temple work, either. > > Guess what I'll be dong later today. > > Alice Allen > Ward Family History Consultant > Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Kemp > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:00 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > > We are in strong agreement with you and the Brethren on the 110 year rule > David. > > I thought this thread was about preparing names of relatives but > simply leaving them in the "ready" category in nFS as nuggets for > future relatives to discover and do the work. > > Over the years I have heard a number of people make that suggestion - > mine is to do all of the work for my relatives (110 years and back) > not leaving any behind. They are urgently waiting and we've been given > the tools and resources to get them documented. So on to the victory > and see the work through. > > I have the feeling that if I was retired and did nothing but submit > the names of my relatives for the next 10 years - I would never run > out of names - they are pouring out of the computer. > > There will be ample names for any and all of our members to work on. > But - meanwhile I don't want to keep them waiting. > > Leave no child behind. > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

It's all good. Now - I wonder if my 2nd great-grandfather - having had his work done by distant cousins - empowered him to work there on my behalf and was the reason that only a few years after his work was done I came in contact with the Church ... and the rest is history. How it all so closely works together for good. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Jorge Todeschini <[email protected]> wrote: > It may be so. > > However, I have been contacted twice by new converts about their family > history. "Jorge, I see you got temple work done for my great-grandfather. > What else do you have on my family?" And my answer was, "well, his wife was > a cousin to my great-grandfather, but I don't have anything else on your > family." That was years ago right after I joined the church and today I > don't think I would do collateral work like that. (By the way, my > great-grandfather was born in 1864 and her cousins and their spouses were > all born around the same time so they totally meet the 110-year rule -- > almost the 150-year rule if there was one.) > > So, even if you are 'the only one' researching those people, that doesn't > mean nobody else will, eventually. Tough choice. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Alice Allen" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 4:20 PM > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > >> I'm guilty of having put names in the system in hopes someone more closely >> related than I am would find them and do their work.  I should have >> realized >> that since I seem to be the only one researching these people, there's >> probably not a line-up of people waiting to do their Temple work, either. >> >> Guess what I'll be dong later today. >> >> Alice Allen >> Ward Family History Consultant >> Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Kemp >> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:00 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances >> >> We are in strong agreement with you and the Brethren on the 110 year rule >> David. >> >> I thought this thread was about preparing names of relatives but >> simply leaving them in the "ready" category in nFS  as nuggets for >> future relatives to discover and do the work. >> >> Over the years I have heard a number of people make that suggestion - >> mine is to do all of the work for my relatives (110 years and back) >> not leaving any behind. They are urgently waiting and we've been given >> the tools and resources to get them documented. So on to the victory >> and see the work through. >> >> I have the feeling that if I was retired and did nothing but submit >> the names of my relatives for the next 10 years - I would never run >> out of names - they are pouring out of the computer. >> >> There will be ample names for any and all of our members to work on. >> But - meanwhile I don't want to keep them waiting. >> >> Leave no child behind. >> >> >> >> Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to >> [email protected] >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jerry, Thanks for sharing. ~Pam On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jerry Cowley <[email protected]> wrote: > Just thought I'd add a few notes from other sessions to this useful list > from Dr. Snow: > > 19. For one-step conversion programs for alphabets, calendars, > mathematics, enumeration districts, ZIP codes, and much, much more, see > www.stevemorse.org If you ever get a chance to see Steve present, take it. > > 20. Kory Meyerink discussed the various types of Internet searches: > phonetic, wildcard, truncation, Phrase search, Boolean, field searching, > limiting, proximity, string, controlled vocabulary, and nesting or > grouping. > Tips: usually less is more; look for Help; use Advance Search options; > think > of alternative search terms (what else could this be called?). > > 21. Ian Testor from Findmypast at BrightSolid talked about the > importance of story in research, particularly in motivation. He urged us > to > explore ethnic myths, legends, and ethnography of the culture being > searched. He explained why the use of a celebrity in "Who Do You Think You > Are?" motivates so many people. Tip: use alternative records, such as > newspapers, dog license databases, and court documents. > > 22. Dan Lynch, www.danlynch.net taught a couple of hands-on sessions > on > Google searching. If your FHC has his book, I'd recommend a look through > it. Consider searching a particular site type with site:com or > site:gov, > added to the terms. Find file types with added terms like filetype:ged or > filetype:doc. Watched for cached records (usually affiliated with "site not > found) by means of those faint arrows). Use a ? after a word to cut off > stemming; jump?, not jumped, jumping, etc. Use Google translate. The ~ is > replacing the + in searches. > > 23. The Barefoot Genealogist and Ancestry Ann gave us considerably more > than the advertised 5 new things at Ancestry.com. Some tips: look at the > "What's happening?" to keep up with changes. To find the card catalog > hover > the curser over the word Search and follow the bottom option. They have > maps. > > 24. James Tanner, an attorney from Arizona, explained copyright law > extremely well in his under-attended presentation. It's a slippery thing, > but protects the researcher as well as the author. Item: The Supreme Court > recently ruled that the United States must protect foreign copyright. If a > book were first copyrighted in Europe, for example, and that copyright has > expired in the US, but NOT in its home country, we must consider that it is > still copyrighted. Google the Berne Convention of 1886 for more treaty > information. The USA signed on two years ago. China never did. > > 25. Ron Tanner presented FamilyTree in NFS. Here is the information on > Open Edit we've been hearing about. Download his notes for more > understanding. The goal is nothing less than to document the genealogy of > mankind and preserve it for generations to come. > > 26. Ideas for FHCs include: training and classes as a priority, using > off-site training locations, collaborating with local libraries and > genealogical associations, and inviting the Spirit of Elijah, among many > other things. > > 27. Top Ten issues in NFS presented by Amanda Terry and Merisa Robbins > included invented ancestors, missing data, unchecked GEDCOM submissions, > body snatchers, proper name submission, not adding notes, symbols, or > numbers in the name field, incorrect combinations, long lists of reserved > names, incorrect gender, etc. Do regard a name as sacred. > > Several instructors mentioned extending the 95 year rule (not submitting > persons born in the last xxx years without permission of the closest family > member) to a 110 year rule. It will be functioning on the website shortly > with a full explanation. We are living longer. As a staff worker once > advised me: "Never do the work of someone that someone living may remember, > without getting permission." She was referring to collateral line work, not > direct line. Getting it in writing is a good thing. File the letter. > > Do visit the Rootstech website and download the syllabi. If I can do it, > just about anyone can. > > If you plan to go next year (in March), wear sensible shoes and don't carry > more than you must. You're on cement for three days. The food vendors are > excellent. The workers at the Salt Palace are great. The FamilyHistory > staff > is dedicated above and beyond. They were all wonderful. > > Jerry Cowley > Boise, Idaho > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > SOME THINGS I LEARNED AT ROOTSTECH 2012 > 2-4 Feb 2012, Salt Palace, Salt Lake City, Utah > ?2012 by Donald R. Snow > > These are not in any particular order and are only a few of the things I > learned and, undoubtedly, other people learned many other things. This > is posted at http://uvtagg.org/classes/dons/dons-classes.html and may > be used for any non-profit purpose, newsletter, etc., but please let me > know if you do use it. Thanks. [email protected] . > > 1. The entire RootsTech 2012 syllabus and program schedule is online > at http://www.rootstech.org for anyone to look and/or download > regardless of whether they attended the meeting or not. Those were > posted 2 or 3 weeks before the meeting so attendees could look at and > print off what they wanted, but it has also been available to everyone. > I think it's a very helpful thing for family history everywhere. > > 2. The keynote presentations and classes that were in the main > lecture room all day long each day, Thursday through Saturday, were > streamed live on the website and were recorded. They are now posted > there for anyone to watch. Jay Verkler's keynote address on the first > day about what's in the future for family history and technology was > really spectacular. > > 3. RootsTech 2013 will be 21-23 Mar 2013, so it will be 6 weeks later > in the year than this year's meeting. > > 4. Ancestry has several new things on their website, including some > new search techniques. On their census images they now have a way to > put a colored background behind the entire family you want and a > different color on the particular line of that family. With that it is > much easier to follow the entire census form across the page. They have > lots of other new stuff too. See their notes. > > 5. Dallan Quass of http://www.werelate.org has posted on his > website a table of name variants, 200,000 for sunames and 70,000 for > given names. These help greatly in genealogy searching. He has already > put it into operation on WeRelate and is asking people to fine-tune the > list as they do searches, if they see names that shouldn't be in the > list or know of others that should be. Anyone can download the table to > use themselves. I think Dallan also has a place variant list, but I > didn't attend that talk. > > 6. Someone mentioned that all the talks were being recorded and would > be posted along with the PowerPoint slides synchronized, but I didn't > hear that officially. > > 7. The class on Evernote discussed how it can be used for personal > and family history uses and that it has some really helpful stuff. > Also, there are add-ons for browsers that are helpful for Evernote and > many things, e.g. "Clarify" is an add-on that makes text from websites > show up with better formatting so it is easier to read and copy and > paste. Do Google searches for Clarify for the browser you use. > > 8. Barbara Renick's 19 pages of notes for her SnagIt workshop are > posted and have lots of helpful information. SnagIt is a very useful, > but commercial, screen and video capture program. > > 9. Fold3 http://www.fold3.com says they have the largest collection > of U.S. military records on the web. Much of it can be searched and > used for free. They had a half-price deal on their subscriptions for > RootsTech attendees, but also said that since Ancestry now owns them, > that anyone with an Ancestry subscription can get the half-price > subscription to Fold3 at anytime. On Fold3 there are Memorial pages set > up already for millions of people, e.g. already for everyone in the > Social Security Death Index, and you can set up others for free. You > can then add data, images, stories, etc., and link to the memorial page > from anywhere else, including from (new) FamilySearch. Eventually, > FamilySearch will allow us to upload images, etc., but not yet, so this > makes a good way to post images and data now and put the link into nFS. > > 10. There is a beta test of (new) FamilySearch going on right now to > add sources and active links into nFS, but you have to be invited. > > 11. Many of you are aware of the free 9-generation pedigree fan > chart that Matt Misbach's TreeSeek company is providing with your > FamilySearch data - go to http://www.createfan.com and log in with > your LDS account to generate it. You can view it and save off the pdf > or have it printed in various ways. Matt told me that you can do free > 9-generation fan charts starting with other PID's by going to his > http://www.treesee.com , using your LDS account, and entering the > starting PID in the box. > > 12. Darrin Lythgoe has just released version 9 of "The Next > Generation" software - http://www.tngsitebuilding.com . It is a > commercial program that makes web pages with your genealogy data for > posting online, but the web pages can also just be run on your own > computer to show your data in various ways. It requires the free PHP > which can be installed on your computer using a free download from > http://www.wampserver.com/en/ . > > 13. The Family History Library has a project of scanning FH books > that you bring in. See details on http://books.familysearch.org/ and > there are already over 40,000 FH books scanned and online there from the > FHL, BYU Harold B. Lee Library, Allen County Public Library, Houston > Public Library, and others. To have a book scanned you must hold the > copyright and give them permission or else it must be out of copyright > so it can be posted online. You take the book to the basement of the > FHL and they will have it scanned for you in a couple of hours. This is > a major resource of FH data. > > 14. MarkLogic http://www.marklogic.com has a program that organizes > and searches large databases that are not in uniform format. It allows > many different types of searches and updates the searches as new data is > added to the database. It is mainly for very large databases that > companies want to be able to search. The software is free and the > program is free to use, if the database is smaller than 40 gigs. I > haven't tried it yet, but it may be just what I need for the text file > database I have made of the personal letter collection of Erastus Snow > and his family. We have about 300 family letters and that many more > official and Church letters. The transcribed personal letter collection > alone is several hundred single-spaced typed pages with combined file > size of several gigs. I am anxious to learn how to use the program to > see if it is a good search tool for such a database. It has proximity > and other types of searches. > > 15. The website http://www.geni.com/ claims to be the world's > largest family tree with 61 million profiles (names). They have a basic > plan that is free and two higher commercial levels which have more > features. Some of their information is free and they have projects that > people are posting such as about the Mormon Battalion, the Nauvoo > Legion, Early Mormon Pioneers, early Mormon leaders, and many others. > You can upload GEDCOM's, photos, and documents, and they have a facial > recognition program that when you identify an ancestor in a photo it > searches the rest of your photos to see if it can find other photos with > that person. There is a way that libraries and organizations can sign > up so their members can use the Geni Public Access program free - see > http://www.geni.com/corp/geni-public-access-program/ - but I don't know > what that includes. > > 16. Family history consultants could attend certain classes for free > and those were all recorded and will be posted online at the Consultants > Training website. The schedule of FH Consultant talks is at > http://rootstech.org/trainingschedule and I think the Consultant website > where the notes and videos will be posted is > https://www.familysearch.org/consultant/ . > > 17. There was lots of information at the conference on mobile apps > for FH with entire classes on apps for iPads, etc. > > 18. FamilySearch is looking for lots of volunteers to index the 1940 > U.S. Census as soon as it is released on 2 Apr 2012. They estimate that > it will take several months to do the indexing and are encouraging > people to sign up at https://familysearch.org/1940Census . There are > already sites that help you find the 1940 Enumeration District, if you > know the address, so you can find your people before the index is > complete. One of the talks was by Steve Morse who has written about 200 > "One-Step" programs to search various websites or do various genealogy > tasks, one of which is how to find the 1940 Census Enumeration Districts > - see http://stevemorse.org/ . > > I learned lots more than this, but this is a start. It was a good > conference with something for everyone and we appreciate FamilySearch, > BYU, and all the other sponsors spending their time, money, and efforts > for us. > > Don Snow > > -- > Dr. Donald R. Snow, Retired Professor of Mathematics, Brigham Young > University, Provo, Utah - [email protected] > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 6871 (20120209) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQ[email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I'm guilty of having put names in the system in hopes someone more closely related than I am would find them and do their work. I should have realized that since I seem to be the only one researching these people, there's probably not a line-up of people waiting to do their Temple work, either. Guess what I'll be dong later today. Alice Allen Ward Family History Consultant Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Kemp Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances We are in strong agreement with you and the Brethren on the 110 year rule David. I thought this thread was about preparing names of relatives but simply leaving them in the "ready" category in nFS as nuggets for future relatives to discover and do the work. Over the years I have heard a number of people make that suggestion - mine is to do all of the work for my relatives (110 years and back) not leaving any behind. They are urgently waiting and we've been given the tools and resources to get them documented. So on to the victory and see the work through. I have the feeling that if I was retired and did nothing but submit the names of my relatives for the next 10 years - I would never run out of names - they are pouring out of the computer. There will be ample names for any and all of our members to work on. But - meanwhile I don't want to keep them waiting. Leave no child behind.

Because I do a lot of indexing for our local genealogy society in historic newspapers, and current ones for that matter of obits, anniversaries, etc., I have taken to having a side collection of people whose obit says they have "no known survivors." For those people, IF I can get more identifying information out of census, out of the obit itself, or other things easily available, I put them in new.familysearch.org. I don't reserve them to do the Temple work, they're not my family, and I rarely spend more than five or ten minutes on them because they aren't my family, I just feel for their situation. But they ARE somebody's family, and if their friends in Omaha do not know of family here, there may be somebody somewhere looking for them who will eventually find them in *new.familysearch* and get them for the Temple. Or maybe they'll pull them for Temple work in Salt Lake. The ones who say they are survived by nieces or nephews, or cousins, I don't bother with. They've got family out there, at least when I'm working on them. But I feel sorry for the ones that list no known survivors. And when I put the source info in, I make a note that the obit stated, "no known survivors." I know that Omaha isn't the only place that folks die with nobody knowing about family. So maybe if everybody made some kind of note of these folks when they show up, some of those who have no hope from descendants would have some home sometime in the relatively near future of getting their work done as well, ideally by a distant family member, since they had nobody close, certainly that knew where they went. The really sad ones are the unidentified children, and even the unidentified adults that are found dead. Karen -- Finding ancestors is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one!

Very True, there are valid reasons for what our leaders counsel us to do, and we should not question the rules. We are also only to reserve the names that we can reasonbly do in a short amount of time, because many have been reserved for years and the person reserving may have died and not done the work.  If it is reserved and not completed then it is very difficult to get it released.  My great-grandfather was held like this by a none relative, who passed away leaving me with a difficult situation trying to get his work completed while reserved under her name. I have learned a lot by your posts today, Thanks, Betty Jo ----- Original Message ----- From: "W David Samuelsen" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:51:11 PM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances Official line, back off on those with less than 110 years, without written permission from closest relatives. speaker was very very very clear on this issue. David On 2/9/2012 4:24 PM, Steve Kelsey wrote: > I disagree completely with this.  People completely identified and related > to you should be submitted as soon as possible for temple ordinances to be > completed provided of course, they meet the 110 year requirement.  Putting > in the data in the vain hope that someone else will do the work later is not > the way things should be done. > Steve Kelsey Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I think you can put your correction in as well, and it will show your input , if the other record doesn't match yours just separate it out from your record.  I have done that several times and it gets rid of the unwanted information.  I may not understand your problem completely, but as I have made changes and it shows everything in order of changes with names of submitters listed at the side. Good Luck, BettyJo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karen Tippets" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:05:42 PM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] record access One thing that is driving me over the hill about the new site is: even when I put in places that I know they were, I keep getting dozens of other places--like New England, California, Canada, various places in Europe, which I know very well that they WEREN'T.  When we put in the places we know about, why can't that serve as a limiter of the information instead of giving me all that extraneous stuff to wade through. And I still want them to change Raymond Booker to Benjamin Booker in their index.  It doesn't look anything like Raymond, and I happen to know that his name was Benjamin (Franklin) Booker, married to Sarah (Ann Sharp). (Stuff in parenthesis not in the census, of course.)  When I emailed them they said it couldn't be changed.  Well since it's wrong, and since somebody put it up, somebody can certainly figure out how to change it.  That stuff is not cast in granite.  I thought we were supposed to be making a record fit for the eternities...and they put that kind of stuff out.  Almost like the old saying: "close enough for government work." Karen On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Steve Kelsey <[email protected]> wrote: > The church has many records available at the FHL which are not available > online.  Does anyone have any idea when > for instance > 1) Great Britain Principal Probate Registry Indexes > 2) Registered wills of Herefordshire Consistory Court > 3) English parish registers(not indexed stuff but the > actual records themselves) > any of these will be online.  I am not so interested in indexing but > interested in online access to the records. > > I am also very disappointed with the current revised familysearch site > which for census records clearly bases things on an individual basis rather > than families and yet the family data is there and available.  For instance, > searching the 1880 census on the new site and you might get the people in > the residence  listed but you do not get the data for each family member > without clicking on each individual in the family to get their birthplace > and relationships.  The old site was FAR SUPERIOR to the new one in this > regard. > > Steve Kelsey > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Finding ancestors is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one! Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Just because you see a name is "reserved" does not necessarily mean that the person is "sitting on it doing nothing." It says reserved whether the person is doing it or the temple is doing it. If the temple is doing it, it can take sometimes a couple of years, especially for male endowments. You cannot tell from nfs which it is--person or temple unless you are the person who submitted the data. My understanding is, if the submitter dies and the ordinances are assigned to the temple---they will still get done by the temple whether the submitter is alive or not. Is that the case? I would think that those assigned for the submitter to do might be a problem but ones assigned to the temple should continue on until the temple has completed them all whether the submitter is alive or not. Of course, the waiting time can be improved by having more men go to the temple and do endowments. Steve Kelsey

Make me three. We attended the temple today and I thought about how many years ago when we didn't live near a temple I had proxy work done in the Salt Lake Temple for my grandparents. I was just glad it was done. It is a NICE TO DO it yourself, but not a MUST do it yourself. Why hold back the dead (any more that the problems in NFS create) haha Michele In a message dated 2/9/2012 3:25:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I disagree completely with this. People completely identified and related to you should be submitted as soon as possible for temple ordinances to be completed provided of course, they meet the 110 year requirement. Putting in the data in the vain hope that someone else will do the work later is not the way things should be done. Steve Kelsey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shanna Jones" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > Let me give you a little different perspective. Say you do the research, > correct the records and clean up the things in new FamilySearch, but don't > submit every name you find "Ready" in NFS. Think of the other family > members who are just starting to use NFS, or youth who wants to do > baptisms > for the dead, or family members who have been challenged by their Bishops > to > find a name this year. What if you left those available for someone else > to > find and do themselves? > > Just last night I taught a class to a ward council, their counselors, the > bishopric, High Priest Group Leadership and family history consultants in > a > ward. As they were each at a computer in a high school computer lab, many > of them logged in for the very first time to NFS. You should have seen > the > excitement as the young Bishop found four family members in his direct > line > that needed to have some ordinances completed. He stood up celebrating > the > fact that this was the first time in his life he had done any family > history, the rest of the ward members clapped for him. I am sure that he > will share this experience with the rest of his ward members and lead by > example just as outlined in the new Leader's Guide. Several others found > names that someone else had researched and added to NFS and they were able > to feel the joy of reserving them for themselves and now they will have > the > opportunity to go to the temple and do ordinances for their own family > members for the very first time. > > I realize it is hard to let those green arrows go and not reserve every > name > we see, but I think it is important to share. We need not worry that they > will never get done if we don't do them right now, because there will be a > provision for that in the future. > > Shanna Jones > St George w/28 direct ancestors who were Utah pioneers > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve > Kelsey > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > > I am very wary of that because I have given cards in the past to the > temple > for them to do and they never got done and appear now in nfs as "ready" > Those of us who are retired and spend a great deal of time on nfs (at > least > 40 hours per week) do a lot of names and assign them to the temple. The > names I do are all usually born well before 1880, are all collateral > relatives and there should be no problem with conflicts. > When one has 19 direct ancestors who were Utah pioneers and you are > supposed > to do family history, that is about all I can do. > > Steve Kelsey > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

We are in strong agreement with you and the Brethren on the 110 year rule David. I thought this thread was about preparing names of relatives but simply leaving them in the "ready" category in nFS as nuggets for future relatives to discover and do the work. Over the years I have heard a number of people make that suggestion - mine is to do all of the work for my relatives (110 years and back) not leaving any behind. They are urgently waiting and we've been given the tools and resources to get them documented. So on to the victory and see the work through. I have the feeling that if I was retired and did nothing but submit the names of my relatives for the next 10 years - I would never run out of names - they are pouring out of the computer. There will be ample names for any and all of our members to work on. But - meanwhile I don't want to keep them waiting. Leave no child behind. On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM, W David Samuelsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Official line, back off on those with less than 110 years, without > written permission from closest relatives. > > speaker was very very very clear on this issue. > > David > > On 2/9/2012 4:24 PM, Steve Kelsey wrote: >> I disagree completely with this.  People completely identified and related >> to you should be submitted as soon as possible for temple ordinances to be >> completed provided of course, they meet the 110 year requirement.  Putting >> in the data in the vain hope that someone else will do the work later is not >> the way things should be done. >> Steve Kelsey > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I agree with Steve. It is urgent for the people waiting for their work to be done. There are more than enough names that will be documented in the future to meet the needs of future members that want to join in the research. Tom On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Steve Kelsey <[email protected]> wrote: > I disagree completely with this.  People completely identified and related > to you should be submitted as soon as possible for temple ordinances to be > completed provided of course, they meet the 110 year requirement.  Putting > in the data in the vain hope that someone else will do the work later is not > the way things should be done. > Steve Kelsey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shanna Jones" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:52 PM > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > > >> Let me give you a little different perspective.  Say you do the research, >> correct the records and clean up the things in new FamilySearch, but don't >> submit every name you find "Ready" in NFS.  Think of the other family >> members who are just starting to use NFS, or youth who wants to do >> baptisms >> for the dead, or family members who have been challenged by their Bishops >> to >> find a name this year.  What if you left those available for someone else >> to >> find and do themselves? >> >> Just last night I taught a class to a ward council, their counselors, the >> bishopric, High Priest Group Leadership and family history consultants in >> a >> ward.  As they were each at a computer in a high school computer lab, many >> of them logged in for the very first time to NFS.  You should have seen >> the >> excitement as the young Bishop found four family members in his direct >> line >> that needed to have some ordinances completed.  He stood up celebrating >> the >> fact that this was the first time in his life he had done any family >> history, the rest of the ward members clapped for him.  I am sure that he >> will share this experience with the rest of his ward members and lead by >> example just as outlined in the new Leader's Guide.  Several others found >> names that someone else had researched and added to NFS and they were able >> to feel the joy of reserving them for themselves and now they will have >> the >> opportunity to go to the temple and do ordinances for their own family >> members for the very first time. >> >> I realize it is hard to let those green arrows go and not reserve every >> name >> we see, but I think it is important to share.  We need not worry that they >> will never get done if we don't do them right now, because there will be a >> provision for that in the future. >> >> Shanna Jones >> St George w/28 direct ancestors who were Utah pioneers >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve >> Kelsey >> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:36 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances >> >> I am very wary of that because I have given cards in the past to the >> temple >> for them to do and they never got done and appear now in nfs as "ready" >> Those of us who are retired and spend a great deal of time on nfs (at >> least >> 40 hours per week) do a lot of names and assign them to the temple.  The >> names I do are all usually born well before 1880, are all collateral >> relatives and there should be no problem with conflicts. >> When one has 19 direct ancestors who were Utah pioneers and you are >> supposed >> to do family history, that is about all I can do. >> >> Steve Kelsey >> >> >> >> Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to >> [email protected] >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message