I know I am four days late in reading.. and responding to this email thread.. Perhaps you might like my perspective on the reason WHY there will NEVER be a required public email address for nFS participants. The nFS system is designed for EVERYONE not just the members in the United States. In Europe, they have VERY STRICT laws on privacy, banks can not sell client email addresses nor send them information on other products, for example. Alan W. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:59 PM, <JCBrooks@aol.com> wrote: > It would be a legitimate request when individuals initially register for > NFS and submit names that they be REQUIRED to give either an email or snail > mail address. I remember when I first registered I chose not to give my > email address. I subsequently found it a good idea to do so. If privacy > is > a concern, then the person can ask for it to be "hidden" and visible only > to > NFS officials, but at least we could get in touch with one another! > > I think many of us have had legitimate reasons to contact others who have > submitted work or totally messed up pedigrees. > > In spite of the fact you can "have it you way" when it comes to how you see > your pedigree, my families have all sorts of disputes on them because > someone disputed a grandmother. Some people initially just disputed > instead of > combining. > > Further, there is one woman who messed up a well-researched (generally > non-member) line. She insisted her guy belonged in the family and was > actually the same person as our guy. Dozens of primary source documents > attest to > the fact that she is in error. Her source..."a book".... I cannot get > her to fix it...she refuses. It's a mess. > > So...NFS folks...please REQUIRE an email or snail mail in order to register > so we can get in touch with one another !! :-) >

So what is correct, Church policy or nFS? > Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:01:19 -0600 > From: dsam52@sampubco.com > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] References for un-named children AND un-named wives/mothers > > That is not the case with nFS. > > Follow the record and no assumptions. So I used sohn and tochter for > German records, making it clear it is small letter. > > And they got cleared. > > David Samuelsen > > amy griffin wrote: > > I reviewed the links below and was astonished at what I read in the first one. It states two different things. First it states that unnamed children should be referred to as "Son" or "Daughter". Then, in Implemented Rules #5 below that, it states that the new FamilySearch checks for valid names if it is a single name. "Son" and "Daughter" are not valid names. No. 6 states that it checks for a relationship description in the surname. Again, it states (again) that "Son" and "Daughter" are invalid. > > > > I also spoke to the recorder at the Mesa Temple where we work. He showed me what it states in "A Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work" page 10. It states there that if a wife's given and maiden names are not known to write "Mrs." plus the husband's name. When a child's name is not known, record the child's sex and the father's surname. Descriptions are NEVER used as part of a person's name. The recorder was shocked that some insist on using "Son" or "Daughter". He also stated that in these cases they should be referred to as "Miss" or "Mister". I also asked, to clarify, if this was Mesa Temple policy or Church policy. Since it is in the above referenced guide it is Church, worldwide, policy. > > > > Amy Griffin > > Paulden Ward > > Prescott Stake > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I reviewed the links below and was astonished at what I read in the first one. It states two different things. First it states that unnamed children should be referred to as "Son" or "Daughter". Then, in Implemented Rules #5 below that, it states that the new FamilySearch checks for valid names if it is a single name. "Son" and "Daughter" are not valid names. No. 6 states that it checks for a relationship description in the surname. Again, it states (again) that "Son" and "Daughter" are invalid. I also spoke to the recorder at the Mesa Temple where we work. He showed me what it states in "A Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work" page 10. It states there that if a wife's given and maiden names are not known to write "Mrs." plus the husband's name. When a child's name is not known, record the child's sex and the father's surname. Descriptions are NEVER used as part of a person's name. The recorder was shocked that some insist on using "Son" or "Daughter". He also stated that in these cases they should be referred to as "Miss" or "Mister". I also asked, to clarify, if this was Mesa Temple policy or Church policy. Since it is in the above referenced guide it is Church, worldwide, policy. Amy Griffin Paulden Ward Prescott Stake > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:59:48 -0600 > From: dsam52@sampubco.com > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LDS-WC] References for un-named children AND un-named wives/mothers > > https://help.familysearch.org/publishing/781/106565_f.SAL_Member.html > https://help.familysearch.org/publishing/170/100380_f.SAL_Member.html > > These are for those submissions with no names, or no given names. > > These were referred to by support in my case of several un-named infants > who died before they had Catholic rites of baptisms giving them the names. > > The references failed in my case because all of my entries exceeded the > requirements. > > The support called me this morning to give me good news, whatever was > blocking the submissions were cleared to allow the submissions for sealings. > > W. David Samuelsen > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

what the nfs guidelines say. nFS guidelines is much more tighter. David Samuelsen amy griffin wrote: > So what is correct, Church policy or nFS? > >> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:01:19 -0600 >> From: dsam52@sampubco.com >> To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] References for un-named children AND un-named wives/mothers >> >> That is not the case with nFS. >> >> Follow the record and no assumptions. So I used sohn and tochter for >> German records, making it clear it is small letter. >> >> And they got cleared. >> >> David Samuelsen >> >> amy griffin wrote: >>> I reviewed the links below and was astonished at what I read in the first one. It states two different things. First it states that unnamed children should be referred to as "Son" or "Daughter". Then, in Implemented Rules #5 below that, it states that the new FamilySearch checks for valid names if it is a single name. "Son" and "Daughter" are not valid names. No. 6 states that it checks for a relationship description in the surname. Again, it states (again) that "Son" and "Daughter" are invalid. >>> >>> I also spoke to the recorder at the Mesa Temple where we work. He showed me what it states in "A Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work" page 10. It states there that if a wife's given and maiden names are not known to write "Mrs." plus the husband's name. When a child's name is not known, record the child's sex and the father's surname. Descriptions are NEVER used as part of a person's name. The recorder was shocked that some insist on using "Son" or "Daughter". He also stated that in these cases they should be referred to as "Miss" or "Mister". I also asked, to clarify, if this was Mesa Temple policy or Church policy. Since it is in the above referenced guide it is Church, worldwide, policy. >>> >>> Amy Griffin >>> Paulden Ward >>> Prescott Stake >> Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com 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 LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

That is not the case with nFS. Follow the record and no assumptions. So I used sohn and tochter for German records, making it clear it is small letter. And they got cleared. David Samuelsen amy griffin wrote: > I reviewed the links below and was astonished at what I read in the first one. It states two different things. First it states that unnamed children should be referred to as "Son" or "Daughter". Then, in Implemented Rules #5 below that, it states that the new FamilySearch checks for valid names if it is a single name. "Son" and "Daughter" are not valid names. No. 6 states that it checks for a relationship description in the surname. Again, it states (again) that "Son" and "Daughter" are invalid. > > I also spoke to the recorder at the Mesa Temple where we work. He showed me what it states in "A Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work" page 10. It states there that if a wife's given and maiden names are not known to write "Mrs." plus the husband's name. When a child's name is not known, record the child's sex and the father's surname. Descriptions are NEVER used as part of a person's name. The recorder was shocked that some insist on using "Son" or "Daughter". He also stated that in these cases they should be referred to as "Miss" or "Mister". I also asked, to clarify, if this was Mesa Temple policy or Church policy. Since it is in the above referenced guide it is Church, worldwide, policy. > > Amy Griffin > Paulden Ward > Prescott Stake

Whether or not the small gedcom you download goes into your file or is made available for others to do depends on how you've set up your account. To check, go to the Home page and go to the Update My User Profile. Look at the top tabs and click on Preferences. Jerry Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:23:39 -0600 From: "Stephen J. Kelsey" <sjkelsey@msn.com> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Ordinances Done in Order Preferred To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <BLU133-DAV5013A3564669E4DE07F5CD13A0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" David, I have added many smaller gedcoms to nfs and never had them automatically Reserved in my file list---is this in nfs? It has never automatically Done it for me

NFS is WAY to easy to clear names though. When I first got on, I started working through my lists of people that I didn't have ordinances on yet, and suddenly realized I had 45 people cleared for my and hubby to do. It's not like the hundreds that some have, but I refuse to let my personal file stack that deep, because I don't think it's fair for them to have to wait that much longer for me to get to them. Only way I could get through as many as I've come up with in the last couple years would be to spend full time in a Temple that isn't open all day--just evenings except for Friday and Saturday...and I'd have folks with frowny faces standing at the foot of my bed wondering when I'm going to get around to THEM. Sometimes overflow has to go to Temple file, and they often get done now faster than the ones that I am keeping to do personally. Yes, it has glitches but over all, it's a good system and works quite well for what I'm trying to do with my convert lineage. Karen In a message dated 6/19/2009 5:23:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, hwhitcomb@gmail.com writes: What everyone here fails to understand that nFS or as I have seen "new nFS" is still a beta product. It has not been fully developed. It has several stages to go through yet. One of the goals is to be able to link images of corresponding records to individual records.. this and other goals for the project are known, if you go to the developer's website. IMHO a good analogy would be likening what we are starting to go through.. to the Saints leaving Kirtland. They knew the general direction and goal.. but did not know what stages and trials would come. We know the general direction.. and most know nothing more.. This work is so important.. that the Church needs to let us start working with it while it is in BETA (unfinished) form. I really find it cool when nFS finds my ggGrandfather's name (done through extraction) and adds it automatically. Also we are REDUCING duplication of Temple Work There will be a LINKING of nFS with FSIndexing and other resources.. Cousins will find distant relatives.. and collaborate (...yes there is already some feuding) Alan W Chased out of Pamplona, Spain by the bulls and an angry mother-in-law... Now serving the "Utah mormons".. in Utah.. in addition to all my friends and family in Spain Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************Dell Inspiron 15: Now starting at $349 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222435718x1201460505/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick. net%2Fclk%3B215748553%3B38126199%3Bs)

A sister in my Ward does it that way because they can take the family and do a bunch of baptisms and confirmations but knows that they will not be able to do the other work in a timely and so releases those to the temple to be done. Nancy -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of JCBrooks@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:46 PM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: [LDS-WC] Only Baptism and Confirmation on cards People create cards with only Baptism and Confirmation purposely. NFS allows you to clear only Baptism and Confirmation at one time...if you are needing a lot of those names...but does not require you to print total card to complete all the initiatories or endowments yourself at that time. This works nicely for people who have youth baptisms or you are not endowed. They can then later choose to do a batch of initiatories or one endowment at a time....of just release to "assign to others." Also, there is no fear of giving your cards to a bunch of people for a youth temple trip and never seeing them again (which has happened to me twice and is extremely painful!!). Michele In a message dated 6/19/2009 7:19:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, kathycat6@gmail.com writes: We were working in the Baptistry last night and and we had a lot of family file names. Many of the cards had x's in all the ordinance boxes except for baptism and confirmation. **************Dell Inspiron 15: Now starting at $349 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222435718x1201460505/aol?redir=htt p:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick. net%2Fclk%3B215748553%3B38126199%3Bs) Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Yes, I agree. The way I look at it is in NFS all of the data is in one huge folder and open all the time. It will not be possible to bring on the public and deal with the amount of duplications that exist within a reasonable amount of server time. FS Family Tree has each individual in their own folder so that data and bytes are only used when the folder is open. Someone who is more computer tech savvy than me may not agree with this but the above is how I think about it. Nancy Scott Cincinnati, Ohio -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sue Maxwell Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:33 AM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] NFS in Utah I am far from an expert, but maybe I can explain one of the major problems with the technology behind nFS vs. Family Tree as I understand it. nFS is sort of a resource hog. Both programs use the same database, but in order to get the data to your PC there are differences. Try this analogy of the technology: nFS is like trying to get 100,000 cars down a two lane road fast. FamilyTree is like sending 100 cars down the same two lane road. nFS uses a great deal more resources to get the info from the database to your PC than Family Tree does. Also, as was explained to me, one of the things they are trying to do is take certain parts of Family Tree that are working much better than in nFS, and integrate these parts into nFS. So over time they will be blended together with the best parts of each. All of these things are just a sign of the times...technology times. The one thing we have to do is have patience and understanding with them. I know the older I get I have a choice to make... either get frustrated or deal with it and take the changes as challenges I can master... or at least give it a good shot :) SueM Sahara346@aol.com wrote: > What was the point of developing NFS, then as people get comfortable with > it, switching again? Why not just fix the glitches in the first program. > I don't find FT nearly as easy to navigate around in, and so don't go to it > very often. > > Karen > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

What everyone here fails to understand that nFS or as I have seen "new nFS" is still a beta product. It has not been fully developed. It has several stages to go through yet. One of the goals is to be able to link images of corresponding records to individual records.. this and other goals for the project are known, if you go to the developer's website. IMHO a good analogy would be likening what we are starting to go through.. to the Saints leaving Kirtland. They knew the general direction and goal.. but did not know what stages and trials would come. We know the general direction.. and most know nothing more.. This work is so important.. that the Church needs to let us start working with it while it is in BETA (unfinished) form. I really find it cool when nFS finds my ggGrandfather's name (done through extraction) and adds it automatically. Also we are REDUCING duplication of Temple Work There will be a LINKING of nFS with FSIndexing and other resources.. Cousins will find distant relatives.. and collaborate (...yes there is already some feuding) Alan W Chased out of Pamplona, Spain by the bulls and an angry mother-in-law... Now serving the "Utah mormons".. in Utah.. in addition to all my friends and family in Spain

Stephen wrote: I have added many smaller gedcoms to nfs and never had them Automatically Reserved in my file list---is this in nfs? It has never automatically Done it for me. New FamilySearch has a toggle switch in your user profile that you can set to "automatically hold all of the ordinances for me" or "allow others to do the ordinances." Log in to new FamilySearch, click on "update my user profile," then click on the "preferences" tab. The second question is where you can change the setting. Jill Crandell

I am sure most of you probably know this but this was news to me... I discovered something that I thought might help others who are trying to find early ordinance dates or combine duplicate records in newFamilySearch. I had an ancestor who I knew had been baptized quite early (about 1840) but I could not find the record either in the old FamilySearch or in new FamilySearch. From a family history I found that I even had an exact baptism date and who had baptized her but still could not find the record in the IGI. I had tried using PAF Insight but still no luck. I finally tried changing my search on the IGI by using her married name instead of her maiden name even though she was single at the time she was baptized. There she was! I have since found that using a woman's married name instead of her maiden name has given me numerous records that I could not find before but knew had to exist. I hope this helps someone else. -Elaine Boise, ID (yes, we are thrilled to finally be in the rollout process for new FamilySearch!)

"One caution, the gedcom upload will automatically reserve all your available names in your family file" I am referring to the entries in the gedcom that have no ordinances. If 1 or 2 have the ordinances, it will not be automatically go to reserved file. David Samuelsen Stephen J. Kelsey wrote: > David, > I have added many smaller gedcoms to nfs and never had them > automatically > Reserved in my file list---is this in nfs? It has never automatically > Done it for me. > > Stephen Kelsey

Please send me offlist the person number of the one you have in 3 times and let me look at it a little bit. Stephen Kelsey sjkelsey@msn.com -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jill N. Crandell Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:43 PM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Merging people Stephen wrote: It depends on which one you choose and then merge the other with. Stephen, I appreciate your continued explanation, but it isn't working for me. Yesterday, I went to the one I added after the import, then searched for duplicates in nFS, and combined. Nothing happened to the sealing status, it continued to say "in progress." Today, I chose another person (since I have three of these), and copied the PID of the one already in the file. I created a one person GEDCOM, and imported it. Then, I went into the nFS search function, found the person previously in the file by using the PID, searched for the duplicate I just added, and combined them. It still didn't do anything differently. The sealing date still says "in progress." I appreciate your help, but I don't think anything will change an "in progress" status until the ordinance shows in the system from a temple source. Jill Crandell Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I am in the Bountiful temple district, and have been signed-in to NFS for three weeks. I can see all sorts of potential, but there is a lot to learn. Don Strack

People create cards with only Baptism and Confirmation purposely. NFS allows you to clear only Baptism and Confirmation at one time...if you are needing a lot of those names...but does not require you to print total card to complete all the initiatories or endowments yourself at that time. This works nicely for people who have youth baptisms or you are not endowed. They can then later choose to do a batch of initiatories or one endowment at a time....of just release to "assign to others." Also, there is no fear of giving your cards to a bunch of people for a youth temple trip and never seeing them again (which has happened to me twice and is extremely painful!!). Michele In a message dated 6/19/2009 7:19:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, kathycat6@gmail.com writes: We were working in the Baptistry last night and and we had a lot of family file names. Many of the cards had x's in all the ordinance boxes except for baptism and confirmation. **************Dell Inspiron 15: Now starting at $349 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222435718x1201460505/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick. net%2Fclk%3B215748553%3B38126199%3Bs)

Stephen wrote: It depends on which one you choose and then merge the other with. Stephen, I appreciate your continued explanation, but it isn't working for me. Yesterday, I went to the one I added after the import, then searched for duplicates in nFS, and combined. Nothing happened to the sealing status, it continued to say "in progress." Today, I chose another person (since I have three of these), and copied the PID of the one already in the file. I created a one person GEDCOM, and imported it. Then, I went into the nFS search function, found the person previously in the file by using the PID, searched for the duplicate I just added, and combined them. It still didn't do anything differently. The sealing date still says "in progress." I appreciate your help, but I don't think anything will change an "in progress" status until the ordinance shows in the system from a temple source. Jill Crandell

David, I have added many smaller gedcoms to nfs and never had them automatically Reserved in my file list---is this in nfs? It has never automatically Done it for me. Stephen Kelsey -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of W. David Samuelsen Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:37 AM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Ordinances Done in Order Preferred The fastest way is do a single family or 2 with at least one name already in the nFS. After it is uploaded, see the list and click the one that is known to be in the system. Do Duplicate search to locate the one already in system and merge. One caution, the gedcom upload will automatically reserve all your available names in your family file - INCLUDING the un-related parents of spouse of your relative. I have 2 sets of such parents and I am trying to figure out how to remove them from my family file. They have no dates, etc. - just the names. From that particular mistake I learned not to include these parents in the gedcoms and manually enter the parents direct in nFS instead, to prevent them from ending up in my reserved list, to let somebody else who is direct-related to those parents to take care of it. It is not my obligation to do Temple work for these parents per instructions from support. They are aware of this glitch. David Samuelsen Salt Lake Temple District Jill N. Crandell wrote: > Steve wrote: > It is critical HOW you merge them after you send the gedcom in-- > Depending on that determines what it says in the ordinance dates. > > OK. So, I imported the GEDCOM, went to the record, and then searched for > duplicates. When it pulled up the other record, I combined them. Is there > another way to do it that would say the ordinance was completed? > > Thanks, > Jill Crandell Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jill: It depends on which one you choose and then merge the other with. I believe if you choose the one already in nfs and then choose the Other one to merge with, it will give you the ordinance dates already in nfs. If you choose the one you added and choose the other one to merge with It will give you the "completed" if you had anything in the ordinance dates On the gedcom you added. This is all involved with which is the last one Merged, etc. It could be just the opposite of this, I am not sure--but when I have added A gedcom file, the one to choose is critical if you have anything on your Ordinance dates in the gedcom and want to maintain the dates in nfs without The "completed" getting in the way. Steve Kelsey Steve wrote: It is critical HOW you merge them after you send the gedcom in-- Depending on that determines what it says in the ordinance dates. OK. So, I imported the GEDCOM, went to the record, and then searched for duplicates. When it pulled up the other record, I combined them. Is there another way to do it that would say the ordinance was completed? Thanks, Jill Crandell Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Things do get inadvertently skipped (we being merely human, and subject making oop's now and again.) One of the things we're told as Temple workers is to check that all the boxes are dated as someone comes to the veil--that if somehow one slips by the name issue and the endowment is done, they simply take the slip and quickly do the initiatory so that it is all done the same day. We're told to check all of the previous boxes to make sure the appropriate things are there. However, it is sometimes possible to print sealing of spouses without the other ordinances being done. Sometimes when they hand the batch of slips to us, it's easy to have something get missed. I left a bunch of slips at the Temple for baptisms. Karen In a message dated 6/19/2009 10:31:38 A.M. Central Daylight Time, dsam52@sampubco.com writes: I have a lot of cards that shows baptisms and confirmations to be done. I know I won't have to worry about them because they're for the youths to do. When baptisms are done, the boxes will open up for next stages. It is not possible to do endownments without baptisms not done. nFS is set up to block that way until baptisms are done first. David Samuelsen Kathy Taylor wrote: > We were working in the Baptistry last night and and we had a lot of family > file names. Many of the cards had x's in all the ordinance boxes except for > baptism and confirmation. > > Another lady brought one in with dates in all the boxes except for baptism > and confirmation. She was questioning her card. I suggested to her that > there might be a duplicate and to check and combine any duplicates. She > took the card to family file and came back and said to do the baptism. > > Have others had cards with all the other work done but not baptism and > confirmation? I thought that was really strange for so many cards to have > no baptism and confirmation but have endowment and sealing's already > completed. > > Kathy > Portland, Oregon Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************Dell Inspiron 15: Now starting at $349 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222435718x1201460505/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick. net%2Fclk%3B215748553%3B38126199%3Bs)