While I understand and share in the frustration expressed here about information at new.familysearch.org and familysearch.org there are a couple of things we might want to consider: 1) In some cases the material which can be seen is from a collection owned by someone other than the church which makes it impossible to change and 2) almost any page you are on has a feedback button or link and it is there in the hopes that you will submit your ideas of how to make it better. Just a thought... Beverly And I still want them to change... in their index. It doesn't look anything like ..., and I happen to know that his name was ...married to . (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. -- Mailto:[email protected] Families ARE Forever!

did you check combined records to see if it's mismerged record? David Samuelsen On 2/9/2012 6:05 PM, Karen Tippets wrote: > 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).

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!

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

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 >

It is difficult for me to leave names waiting - knowing that those individuals are indeed waiting. Let's get them submitted and on their way - knowing that an ever expanding pool of names is unfolding as we read this. This is an extraordinary time. You can feel it and know that everything is coming together to pour even more names/resources into nFS. I have been amazed that names are pouring out of the computer every time I work on nFS. Let's get the work pushed out to the general Temple files as fast as we can - leaving no one behind - so that there is a deeper pool of names for the Temples to draw from now and knowing that there will be still other names that will make themselves known as the need is there and more members start to dig. As they say: "Leave no child behind" .... do the work for every relative you can identify (post 110 years) now - there are millions more records that will be ready at the push of a button later as more members join in to the work. . On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Shanna Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > 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

That would be really nice...like just checking the box to the left and sending them all to the temple!!! The processing is so slow. I figure it takes about one minute per name just to send them to the temple file. Since they seem to prefer to have us send them to temple file now because many can't manage to actually promptly do as many names as they find, you think they'd make it easier!!! When are they going to cause folks to send names to the temple instead of holding them forever? I have so many ancestral names where people just sit on files...and I'm not just talking about the ones that are lost (having started in 1999)...I'm talking about the ones where people print cards to go for baptisms and never get around to the rest and they languish for years. What there any updates at Rootstech about a moratorium of 3-5 years on reserved names? Making a FOR and taking to the temple is still painful. Michele In a message dated 2/9/2012 10:15:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Is there any way in NFS to have the ordinances for any people you reserve to be automatically assigned to the temple or do you have to go in and change each ordinance individually to assign them to the temple as I currently have to do? thank you. 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 use Family Insights and I can pick and choose what I want to have the done by the temple and it is very easy to use. Everything is done at one time. You can choose all ordinances for a person or specific ones with just one click of the button. I have hundreds of names that I am working on at one time and Family Insights makes life so much simplier. Norm Nye > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:35:51 -0700 > 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 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Megan Smith" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:20 AM > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > > > > >From home, you have to manually change each ordinance. If you take your > > >FOR > > to the Temple and ask them to release the ordinances to the Temples > > without > > having the cards printed the office can do it from the FOR (Family > > Ordinance > > Request) - but it will change the entire batch and you can't pick and > > choose > > ordinances to save for yourself. > > > > Megan Smith > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve > > Kelsey > > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:15 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > > > > Is there any way in NFS to have the ordinances for any people you reserve > > to > > be automatically assigned to the temple or do you have to go in and change > > each ordinance individually to assign them to the temple as I currently > > have > > to do? thank you. > > > > 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 > > > > > 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

5 years policy is still in development. Contact support case by case as it is now. David S. On 2/9/2012 11:33 AM, [email protected] wrote: > What there any updates at Rootstech about a moratorium of 3-5 years on > reserved names?

Rosemary no, keep checking the changes being filtered in over 2 weeks. Amanda said the changes are being made to the policies and documents over the span. Once there, then you can inform safely. David S. On 2/9/2012 10:59 AM, Rosemary Hopkins wrote: > Should we be making some announcement to our center workers about the > 95/110 year rule--yet? Or should we wait for something official to come to > us? I would like anything written that explains this so I can present it to > staff when it is appropriate to do so. Thanks. Rosemary Hopkins > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM, > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> 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: LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 (Alice Allen) >> 2. Re: LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 (DORIS BATEMAN) >> 3. (no subject) (DORIS BATEMAN) >> 4. Re: Some Things I Learned at RootsTech 2012 (Sue Maxwell) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:16:31 -0800 >> From: "Alice Allen"<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 >> To:<[email protected]> >> Message-ID:<[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> So am I interpreting this correctly, that within a month or so, the icon >> would appear? And what happens to the ones who are reserved by someone who >> has reserved names they should not have reserved, but have not done any of >> the Temple work for? They are "reserved," not in progress. >> >> A relative of an uncle (by marriage only) of one of my mother's other >> sisters has reserved her for Temple work. She hasn't even met the 95-year >> rule yet, let alone the 110. He offered to release the name for me a >> couple >> of years ago, and I pointed out then that he needed permission of her >> living >> children first, before proceeding. I just checked, and he still has her >> reserved. I would hope that by the time he gets around to printing up the >> cards that a pop-up appears with this information. However, if it's like >> the current method, it can be over-ridden, I expect. >> >> Alice Allen >> Ward Family History Consultant >> Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott and >> Tammy Stevenson >> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:12 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 >> >> Re: Clarification of the new 110 years rule as is applies to those "in >> progress." >> >> Just one more little bit of clarification on the 110 year rule for those >> persons who already are working on names in that time frame. I ask about >> those names I already have "in progress" who now fall within this new rule. >> I was told after the class, I think it was by Amanda, that I should keep >> those names which were close to the 110 years and do the ordinances once >> the >> 110 years had passed. On those persons with a birth date closer to the 95 >> years, she suggested that I "hold" them for about a month and then release >> (unreserve) the names back to the nfs system. The one month delay in >> releasing would assure the updates were made to the nfs system and those >> persons would then appear with the "needs permission" icon with their name. >> If those names are released now, they would appear "ready" and those not >> aware of the rule change could scoop them up and do the ordinances without >> complying with the new rules. >> >> Tamara Stevenson >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> 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: 2 >> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:32:57 -0700 >> From: DORIS BATEMAN<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 >> To: lds-ward-consultant<[email protected]> >> Message-ID:<[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> >> I would try calling or sending feedback to familysearch. I have heard of >> cases where they could intercede when the person asking is closely related; >> and the person who reserved the name did not ask permission. >> Doris Bateman >> >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:16:31 -0800 >>> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 >>> >>> So am I interpreting this correctly, that within a month or so, the icon >>> would appear? And what happens to the ones who are reserved by someone >> who >>> has reserved names they should not have reserved, but have not done any >> of >>> the Temple work for? They are "reserved," not in progress. >>> >>> A relative of an uncle (by marriage only) of one of my mother's other >>> sisters has reserved her for Temple work. She hasn't even met the 95-year >>> rule yet, let alone the 110. He offered to release the name for me a >> couple >>> of years ago, and I pointed out then that he needed permission of her >> living >>> children first, before proceeding. I just checked, and he still has her >>> reserved. I would hope that by the time he gets around to printing up >> the >>> cards that a pop-up appears with this information. However, if it's like >>> the current method, it can be over-ridden, I expect. >>> >>> Alice Allen >>> Ward Family History Consultant >>> Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott and >>> Tammy Stevenson >>> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:12 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 >>> >>> Re: Clarification of the new 110 years rule as is applies to those "in >>> progress." >>> >>> Just one more little bit of clarification on the 110 year rule for those >>> persons who already are working on names in that time frame. I ask about >>> those names I already have "in progress" who now fall within this new >> rule. >>> I was told after the class, I think it was by Amanda, that I should keep >>> those names which were close to the 110 years and do the ordinances once >> the >>> 110 years had passed. On those persons with a birth date closer to the >> 95 >>> years, she suggested that I "hold" them for about a month and then >> release >>> (unreserve) the names back to the nfs system. The one month delay in >>> releasing would assure the updates were made to the nfs system and those >>> persons would then appear with the "needs permission" icon with their >> name. >>> If those names are released now, they would appear "ready" and those not >>> aware of the rule change could scoop them up and do the ordinances >> without >>> complying with the new rules. >>> >>> Tamara Stevenson >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> 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: 3 >> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:35:36 -0700 >> From: DORIS BATEMAN<[email protected]> >> Subject: [LDS-WC] (no subject) >> To: lds-ward-consultant<[email protected]> >> Message-ID:<[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> >> I would try calling or sending feedback to familysearch. I have heard of >> cases where they could intercede when the person asking is closely related; >> and the person who reserved the name did not ask permission. >> Doris Bateman >> >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:16:31 -0800 >>> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 >>> >>> So am I interpreting this correctly, that within a month or so, the icon >>> would appear? And what happens to the ones who are reserved by someone >> who >>> has reserved names they should not have reserved, but have not done any >> of >>> the Temple work for? They are "reserved," not in progress. >>> >>> A relative of an uncle (by marriage only) of one of my mother's other >>> sisters has reserved her for Temple work. She hasn't even met the 95-year >>> rule yet, let alone the 110. He offered to release the name for me a >> couple >>> of years ago, and I pointed out then that he needed permission of her >> living >>> children first, before proceeding. I just checked, and he still has her >>> reserved. I would hope that by the time he gets around to printing up >> the >>> cards that a pop-up appears with this information. However, if it's like >>> the current method, it can be over-ridden, I expect. >>> >>> Alice Allen >>> Ward Family History Consultant >>> Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott and >>> Tammy Stevenson >>> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:12 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 >>> >>> Re: Clarification of the new 110 years rule as is applies to those "in >>> progress." >>> >>> Just one more little bit of clarification on the 110 year rule for those >>> persons who already are working on names in that time frame. I ask about >>> those names I already have "in progress" who now fall within this new >> rule. >>> I was told after the class, I think it was by Amanda, that I should keep >>> those names which were close to the 110 years and do the ordinances once >> the >>> 110 years had passed. On those persons with a birth date closer to the >> 95 >>> years, she suggested that I "hold" them for about a month and then >> release >>> (unreserve) the names back to the nfs system. The one month delay in >>> releasing would assure the updates were made to the nfs system and those >>> persons would then appear with the "needs permission" icon with their >> name. >>> If those names are released now, they would appear "ready" and those not >>> aware of the rule change could scoop them up and do the ordinances >> without >>> complying with the new rules. >>> >>> Tamara Stevenson >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> 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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:07:40 -0700 >> From: Sue Maxwell<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Some Things I Learned at RootsTech 2012 >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID:<[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> I haven't jumped into the discussion because there were so many >> conflicting comments going around at Rootstech about the 95/110 rule >> change. However, I was in a meeting at the very end of Rootstech with >> (Elder) Dennis Brimhall, the new CEO of FamilySearch, and a couple >> others. They purposefully have not notified consultants of the change >> because the system isn't ready, and the change has not made it through >> all levels of approval yet. However, we did talk a bit about it. >> >> There already is a 110-year-rule where, if the person has no death date >> entered, then nFS assumes the person is still living if the birth date >> is less than 110 years ago. (This protects someone from trying to do >> work for my 103-year-old mother-in-law who IS still living. It does >> nothing if someone makes up a death date, however.) >> >> The current 95-year-rule says you need permission from next of kin even >> if you have a death date for a person and the birth date is less than 95 >> years ago. The new 110-year-rule will make both rules the same at 110 >> years. However, permission will only be required from ONE of the closest >> living relatives (current wife, children, parents, siblings - in that >> order). This rule change protects those family members who may be the >> closest living relative and have chosen not to do the work YET. >> >> And, now we don't have to stop and think about which rule fits; both >> will be 110 years. Bottom line, if you are not the closest living >> relative, WAIT or GET PERMISSION. If you are the closest living >> relative, the go get the work done. >> >> Sue >> >> >> On 2/8/2012 10:33 PM, W David Samuelsen wrote: >>> 1. long-standing 110 year rule for no death dates, still in effect for >>> long time. >>> >>> 2. Abolished 95/100 year rule for doing family ordinances without >>> permission and replaced with stricer 110 year rule. Written permission >>> is required before death. I asked this question specifically to clarify >>> the new rule. >>> >>> I can send to anyone who want to see what was presented, in PDF format >>> (needs Adobe Reader), contact me direct. Details are laid out. Please >>> note the 95 year in pdf had been superseded by decision barely 2 weeks >> ago. >>> >>> W. David Samuelsen >>> >>> On 2/8/2012 10:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> What do you mean 95 year rule is abolished? >>>> >>>> If less than 110 but more than 95 AND you have a death date, can yo udo >> the >>>> work? >>>> >>>> Or, 110 years period with or without death date? Your comment below >> was a >>>> little confusing. >>>> >>>> Michele >>>> >>>> >>>> In a message dated 2/8/2012 6:26:38 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, >>>> [email protected] writes: >>>> >>>> they're online already, go to youtube.com >>>> >>>> You must have missed those two FamilySearch sessions, no mention of new >>>> and stricter 110 year rule for doing ordinances for near relatives >>>> without *written* permission. I was there and asked Amanda Terry to >>>> clarify of this 110 year rule. That is what she meant and in turn I >>>> learned from other consultants who said they had problems with those >>>> patrons flouting the rule of permissions. >>>> >>>> Also 95 year rule is abolished and replaced by long-standing rule - 110 >>>> year rule without death death, no matter what. >>>> >>>> Amanda Terry listed 10 points. I will have to ask her for copy if it is >>>> not in the syllabus. >>>> >>>> David S. >> >> -- >> Sue Maxwell >> http://granitegenealogy.blogspot.com/ >> Vice President - Utah Genealogical Association >> Sandy Utah Granite South Tri-Stake FHC >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> 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 19 >> ************************************************** >> > > 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 >

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

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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Megan Smith" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > >From home, you have to manually change each ordinance. If you take your > >FOR > to the Temple and ask them to release the ordinances to the Temples > without > having the cards printed the office can do it from the FOR (Family > Ordinance > Request) - but it will change the entire batch and you can't pick and > choose > ordinances to save for yourself. > > Megan Smith > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve > Kelsey > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:15 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > > Is there any way in NFS to have the ordinances for any people you reserve > to > be automatically assigned to the temple or do you have to go in and change > each ordinance individually to assign them to the temple as I currently > have > to do? thank you. > > 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 >

Is there any way in NFS to have the ordinances for any people you reserve to be automatically assigned to the temple or do you have to go in and change each ordinance individually to assign them to the temple as I currently have to do? thank you. Steve Kelsey

About the idea of "scooping up" without knowing the rule. I find that some/many? just ignore the rule anyway even when it is 95 years. I was helping a member reserve and release an ancestor that was past the 95 years rule, born in 1915, just last Sunday. One of the ordinances said that it needed permission so I was going to suggest we look at why since it was not in the 95 year time frame and before I could, she just checked, "I am the closest living relative" and said that the other person she had reserved had said the same thing. She did not give it a second thought about just going on. I have had to go on myself when "needs permission" comes up with a sealing to parents just because you to not have birth or death dates for the parents and they show as "living" because of that even though they are well beyond 110 years for date of birth in reality. It is certainly not a user friendly system. My husband feels that if it is done correctly rather than having a check box, you have the person scan the written permission document and force the submitter to "prove" they are correctly following the rule. I agree with his thinking. Just changing the 95 years to 110 will not stop most of the users from just going ahead, whether that is right or wrong. They can convince themselves that the "system" is just messing up. The change to 110 was announced 2 weeks ago before the Roots Tech? Was it a formal announcement by the First Presidency? Thanks, Nancy Scott -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott and Tammy Stevenson Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 09:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 Re: Clarification of the new 110 years rule as is applies to those "in progress." Just one more little bit of clarification on the 110 year rule for those persons who already are working on names in that time frame. I ask about those names I already have "in progress" who now fall within this new rule. I was told after the class, I think it was by Amanda, that I should keep those names which were close to the 110 years and do the ordinances once the 110 years had passed. On those persons with a birth date closer to the 95 years, she suggested that I "hold" them for about a month and then release (unreserve) the names back to the nfs system. The one month delay in releasing would assure the updates were made to the nfs system and those persons would then appear with the "needs permission" icon with their name. If those names are released now, they would appear "ready" and those not aware of the rule change could scoop them up and do the ordinances without complying with the new rules. Tamara Stevenson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

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

Should we be making some announcement to our center workers about the 95/110 year rule--yet? Or should we wait for something official to come to us? I would like anything written that explains this so I can present it to staff when it is appropriate to do so. Thanks. Rosemary Hopkins On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM, <[email protected]>wrote: > > > 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: LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 (Alice Allen) > 2. Re: LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 (DORIS BATEMAN) > 3. (no subject) (DORIS BATEMAN) > 4. Re: Some Things I Learned at RootsTech 2012 (Sue Maxwell) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:16:31 -0800 > From: "Alice Allen" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > So am I interpreting this correctly, that within a month or so, the icon > would appear? And what happens to the ones who are reserved by someone who > has reserved names they should not have reserved, but have not done any of > the Temple work for? They are "reserved," not in progress. > > A relative of an uncle (by marriage only) of one of my mother's other > sisters has reserved her for Temple work. She hasn't even met the 95-year > rule yet, let alone the 110. He offered to release the name for me a > couple > of years ago, and I pointed out then that he needed permission of her > living > children first, before proceeding. I just checked, and he still has her > reserved. I would hope that by the time he gets around to printing up the > cards that a pop-up appears with this information. However, if it's like > the current method, it can be over-ridden, I expect. > > Alice Allen > Ward Family History Consultant > Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott and > Tammy Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > > Re: Clarification of the new 110 years rule as is applies to those "in > progress." > > Just one more little bit of clarification on the 110 year rule for those > persons who already are working on names in that time frame. I ask about > those names I already have "in progress" who now fall within this new rule. > I was told after the class, I think it was by Amanda, that I should keep > those names which were close to the 110 years and do the ordinances once > the > 110 years had passed. On those persons with a birth date closer to the 95 > years, she suggested that I "hold" them for about a month and then release > (unreserve) the names back to the nfs system. The one month delay in > releasing would assure the updates were made to the nfs system and those > persons would then appear with the "needs permission" icon with their name. > If those names are released now, they would appear "ready" and those not > aware of the rule change could scoop them up and do the ordinances without > complying with the new rules. > > Tamara Stevenson > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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: 2 > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:32:57 -0700 > From: DORIS BATEMAN <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > To: lds-ward-consultant <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > I would try calling or sending feedback to familysearch. I have heard of > cases where they could intercede when the person asking is closely related; > and the person who reserved the name did not ask permission. > Doris Bateman > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:16:31 -0800 > > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > > > > So am I interpreting this correctly, that within a month or so, the icon > > would appear? And what happens to the ones who are reserved by someone > who > > has reserved names they should not have reserved, but have not done any > of > > the Temple work for? They are "reserved," not in progress. > > > > A relative of an uncle (by marriage only) of one of my mother's other > > sisters has reserved her for Temple work. She hasn't even met the 95-year > > rule yet, let alone the 110. He offered to release the name for me a > couple > > of years ago, and I pointed out then that he needed permission of her > living > > children first, before proceeding. I just checked, and he still has her > > reserved. I would hope that by the time he gets around to printing up > the > > cards that a pop-up appears with this information. However, if it's like > > the current method, it can be over-ridden, I expect. > > > > Alice Allen > > Ward Family History Consultant > > Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott and > > Tammy Stevenson > > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:12 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > > > > Re: Clarification of the new 110 years rule as is applies to those "in > > progress." > > > > Just one more little bit of clarification on the 110 year rule for those > > persons who already are working on names in that time frame. I ask about > > those names I already have "in progress" who now fall within this new > rule. > > I was told after the class, I think it was by Amanda, that I should keep > > those names which were close to the 110 years and do the ordinances once > the > > 110 years had passed. On those persons with a birth date closer to the > 95 > > years, she suggested that I "hold" them for about a month and then > release > > (unreserve) the names back to the nfs system. The one month delay in > > releasing would assure the updates were made to the nfs system and those > > persons would then appear with the "needs permission" icon with their > name. > > If those names are released now, they would appear "ready" and those not > > aware of the rule change could scoop them up and do the ordinances > without > > complying with the new rules. > > > > Tamara Stevenson > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > 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: 3 > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:35:36 -0700 > From: DORIS BATEMAN <[email protected]> > Subject: [LDS-WC] (no subject) > To: lds-ward-consultant <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > I would try calling or sending feedback to familysearch. I have heard of > cases where they could intercede when the person asking is closely related; > and the person who reserved the name did not ask permission. > Doris Bateman > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:16:31 -0800 > > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > > > > So am I interpreting this correctly, that within a month or so, the icon > > would appear? And what happens to the ones who are reserved by someone > who > > has reserved names they should not have reserved, but have not done any > of > > the Temple work for? They are "reserved," not in progress. > > > > A relative of an uncle (by marriage only) of one of my mother's other > > sisters has reserved her for Temple work. She hasn't even met the 95-year > > rule yet, let alone the 110. He offered to release the name for me a > couple > > of years ago, and I pointed out then that he needed permission of her > living > > children first, before proceeding. I just checked, and he still has her > > reserved. I would hope that by the time he gets around to printing up > the > > cards that a pop-up appears with this information. However, if it's like > > the current method, it can be over-ridden, I expect. > > > > Alice Allen > > Ward Family History Consultant > > Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott and > > Tammy Stevenson > > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:12 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > > > > Re: Clarification of the new 110 years rule as is applies to those "in > > progress." > > > > Just one more little bit of clarification on the 110 year rule for those > > persons who already are working on names in that time frame. I ask about > > those names I already have "in progress" who now fall within this new > rule. > > I was told after the class, I think it was by Amanda, that I should keep > > those names which were close to the 110 years and do the ordinances once > the > > 110 years had passed. On those persons with a birth date closer to the > 95 > > years, she suggested that I "hold" them for about a month and then > release > > (unreserve) the names back to the nfs system. The one month delay in > > releasing would assure the updates were made to the nfs system and those > > persons would then appear with the "needs permission" icon with their > name. > > If those names are released now, they would appear "ready" and those not > > aware of the rule change could scoop them up and do the ordinances > without > > complying with the new rules. > > > > Tamara Stevenson > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > 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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:07:40 -0700 > From: Sue Maxwell <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Some Things I Learned at RootsTech 2012 > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I haven't jumped into the discussion because there were so many > conflicting comments going around at Rootstech about the 95/110 rule > change. However, I was in a meeting at the very end of Rootstech with > (Elder) Dennis Brimhall, the new CEO of FamilySearch, and a couple > others. They purposefully have not notified consultants of the change > because the system isn't ready, and the change has not made it through > all levels of approval yet. However, we did talk a bit about it. > > There already is a 110-year-rule where, if the person has no death date > entered, then nFS assumes the person is still living if the birth date > is less than 110 years ago. (This protects someone from trying to do > work for my 103-year-old mother-in-law who IS still living. It does > nothing if someone makes up a death date, however.) > > The current 95-year-rule says you need permission from next of kin even > if you have a death date for a person and the birth date is less than 95 > years ago. The new 110-year-rule will make both rules the same at 110 > years. However, permission will only be required from ONE of the closest > living relatives (current wife, children, parents, siblings - in that > order). This rule change protects those family members who may be the > closest living relative and have chosen not to do the work YET. > > And, now we don't have to stop and think about which rule fits; both > will be 110 years. Bottom line, if you are not the closest living > relative, WAIT or GET PERMISSION. If you are the closest living > relative, the go get the work done. > > Sue > > > On 2/8/2012 10:33 PM, W David Samuelsen wrote: > > 1. long-standing 110 year rule for no death dates, still in effect for > > long time. > > > > 2. Abolished 95/100 year rule for doing family ordinances without > > permission and replaced with stricer 110 year rule. Written permission > > is required before death. I asked this question specifically to clarify > > the new rule. > > > > I can send to anyone who want to see what was presented, in PDF format > > (needs Adobe Reader), contact me direct. Details are laid out. Please > > note the 95 year in pdf had been superseded by decision barely 2 weeks > ago. > > > > W. David Samuelsen > > > > On 2/8/2012 10:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> What do you mean 95 year rule is abolished? > >> > >> If less than 110 but more than 95 AND you have a death date, can yo udo > the > >> work? > >> > >> Or, 110 years period with or without death date? Your comment below > was a > >> little confusing. > >> > >> Michele > >> > >> > >> In a message dated 2/8/2012 6:26:38 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > >> [email protected] writes: > >> > >> they're online already, go to youtube.com > >> > >> You must have missed those two FamilySearch sessions, no mention of new > >> and stricter 110 year rule for doing ordinances for near relatives > >> without *written* permission. I was there and asked Amanda Terry to > >> clarify of this 110 year rule. That is what she meant and in turn I > >> learned from other consultants who said they had problems with those > >> patrons flouting the rule of permissions. > >> > >> Also 95 year rule is abolished and replaced by long-standing rule - 110 > >> year rule without death death, no matter what. > >> > >> Amanda Terry listed 10 points. I will have to ask her for copy if it is > >> not in the syllabus. > >> > >> David S. > > -- > Sue Maxwell > http://granitegenealogy.blogspot.com/ > Vice President - Utah Genealogical Association > Sandy Utah Granite South Tri-Stake FHC > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 19 > ************************************************** >

I neglected to mention what the answer was. I was told I did right thing to protect my close relatives. David On 2/9/2012 10:48 AM, W David Samuelsen wrote: > I asked Amanda Terry about this scenario because I have 3 relatives > reserved and protected in my reservation list not to be done until > permissions are obtained or until the closest relatives do themselves to > ensure not one of any further relatives try to do it. It happened to me > with my grandmother. Someone who was NOT even related except by > marriage, did it. > > David Samuelsen > > On 2/9/2012 9:16 AM, Alice Allen wrote: >> So am I interpreting this correctly, that within a month or so, the icon >> would appear? And what happens to the ones who are reserved by someone >> who >> has reserved names they should not have reserved, but have not done >> any of >> the Temple work for? They are "reserved," not in progress. >> >> A relative of an uncle (by marriage only) of one of my mother's other >> sisters has reserved her for Temple work. She hasn't even met the 95-year >> rule yet, let alone the 110. He offered to release the name for me a >> couple >> of years ago, and I pointed out then that he needed permission of her >> living >> children first, before proceeding. I just checked, and he still has her >> reserved. I would hope that by the time he gets around to printing up the >> cards that a pop-up appears with this information. However, if it's like >> the current method, it can be over-ridden, I expect. >> >> Alice Allen >> Ward Family History Consultant >> Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake

I asked Amanda Terry about this scenario because I have 3 relatives reserved and protected in my reservation list not to be done until permissions are obtained or until the closest relatives do themselves to ensure not one of any further relatives try to do it. It happened to me with my grandmother. Someone who was NOT even related except by marriage, did it. David Samuelsen On 2/9/2012 9:16 AM, Alice Allen wrote: > So am I interpreting this correctly, that within a month or so, the icon > would appear? And what happens to the ones who are reserved by someone who > has reserved names they should not have reserved, but have not done any of > the Temple work for? They are "reserved," not in progress. > > A relative of an uncle (by marriage only) of one of my mother's other > sisters has reserved her for Temple work. She hasn't even met the 95-year > rule yet, let alone the 110. He offered to release the name for me a couple > of years ago, and I pointed out then that he needed permission of her living > children first, before proceeding. I just checked, and he still has her > reserved. I would hope that by the time he gets around to printing up the > cards that a pop-up appears with this information. However, if it's like > the current method, it can be over-ridden, I expect. > > Alice Allen > Ward Family History Consultant > Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake

Sue, thank you! I asked the presenter for clarification to be sure no one misunderstand. Clarification was made to 95 year rule on permissions, bringing it into the line with 110 so no one can misunderstand. The pdf of syllabus still has 95 year rule because it was submitted last November, long before the rule was changed - which was made 2 weeks before Rootstech. This rule is being changed online now. Amanda Terry said it will take up to 2 weeks to get all documents changed to reflect 110 year rule change. David Samuelsen On 2/9/2012 10:07 AM, Sue Maxwell wrote: > There already is a 110-year-rule where, if the person has no death date > entered, then nFS assumes the person is still living if the birth date > is less than 110 years ago. (This protects someone from trying to do > work for my 103-year-old mother-in-law who IS still living. It does > nothing if someone makes up a death date, however.) > > The current 95-year-rule says you need permission from next of kin even > if you have a death date for a person and the birth date is less than 95 > years ago. The new 110-year-rule will make both rules the same at 110 > years. However, permission will only be required from ONE of the closest > living relatives (current wife, children, parents, siblings - in that > order). This rule change protects those family members who may be the > closest living relative and have chosen not to do the work YET.

>From home, you have to manually change each ordinance. If you take your FOR to the Temple and ask them to release the ordinances to the Temples without having the cards printed the office can do it from the FOR (Family Ordinance Request) - but it will change the entire batch and you can't pick and choose ordinances to save for yourself. Megan Smith -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Kelsey Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances Is there any way in NFS to have the ordinances for any people you reserve to be automatically assigned to the temple or do you have to go in and change each ordinance individually to assign them to the temple as I currently have to do? thank you. 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