Is it just that Family Tree and the other features on FSLabs are going to be added into nFS - rather than FT replacing nFS? Tom On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jill N. Crandell<jncrandell@broadweave.net> wrote: > Karen 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. > > I can't answer the question of why other than to say that they are > continually improving the system. I think that a lot of the difficulty in > navigating is because it isn't fully programmed yet. Since we know that > things are moving in that direction, I would suggest using it and giving > quality feedback while it is still in a major programming phase. > > 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 >

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

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 > > >

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

the nFS was in development for years, at least 5 years or longer before the rapid evolution of the Internet to Web2. I don't care for FamilyTree because there are many parts not friendly, much less there are parts in nFS not in FT that I wanted so I use nFS more. I use FT to do separation of certain records that are too big for nFS. David Samuelsen 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 > > > In a message dated 6/18/2009 11:11:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > jncrandell@broadweave.net writes: > > Harry wrote: > Jill am I understanding that Family Tree will replace NFS? > > Yes, that is the direction it is moving. There are many features in nFS > that > are not yet functional in Family Tree, so the transition will wait until > the > programming is finished. They are already calling nFS the "classic" new > FamilySearch, and it hasn't even finished the roll-out! I've already gotten > attached to classic nFS, and I'm having trouble transitioning to Family > Tree, but I have to say that I absolutely love the way Family Tree handles > the ordinance list rather than the pages we get in nFS. However, I like the > ordinance selection process in nFS. I'm hoping that is a feature that will > be activated in Family Tree in future versions. We're all just going to > have > to hang on for the ride, and continue to give our feedback as we move > forward. > > 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 > > **************Dell Inspiron 15: Now starting at $349 > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222435718x1201460505/aol?redir=http:%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 > >

Kathy 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. My response: This is the way the cards print out when nFS clears the names for baptism and confirmation only. It does not mean those ordinances have been completed (as those x's would have meant in the past), but it means that they were not cleared on that submission. After the baptisms and confirmations are recorded, this process then allows the submitter to go back and send the same names to the temple file for the next ordinances. When I brought a batch of baptisms to the temple this week, I had to explain this to the temple workers. Since Provo is not yet on the new system, they had not seen this before. Kathy: 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. My response: Yes, I think this one was strange as well, but I can share a somewhat similar experience. In the earlier years of the Church, it was possible for baptism and confirmation to occur without it being recorded. Everyone "knew" the person was a member of the Church, and they went on and performed their remaining ordinances. As we look at the records now, we have blanks for the baptism and confirmation. I had a great uncle in this situation, and after extensive research in the ward records throughout his life, we had to conclude that his baptism was never recorded. The temple president told us to perform that baptism, since recording is considered part of the ordinance. In that case, we have a baptism after all of the ordinances (which has nothing to do with excommunication), but I have a note in his record stating why. Maybe your situation was similar? Jill Crandell

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

Karen 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. I can't answer the question of why other than to say that they are continually improving the system. I think that a lot of the difficulty in navigating is because it isn't fully programmed yet. Since we know that things are moving in that direction, I would suggest using it and giving quality feedback while it is still in a major programming phase. Jill Crandell

Brothers and sisters, I had a wonderful day yesterday hearing from so many of you sharing your experiences with me. I am writing back to the list to update and change one comment I made in an earlier email. I made the statement that after an excommunication, the rebaptism date is recorded on the family group sheets. I also stated that the original temple ordinance dates were used after a restoration of blessings. This would then show a later baptism date, but all of the ordinances are valid. I have had someone with personal experience let me know that after an excommunication and rebaptism, their membership record reflects the original baptism date. I think this is wonderful! Forgiveness has been given and received, and there is no need to draw attention to the past. I then wrote to FamilySearch Support to ask if there was an official policy about which baptism date to record on our family group sheets, and I received the following link in response. Restoration <https://help.familysearch.org/publishing/565/107225_f.SAL_Public.html> of blessings not showing This document states that the original ordinance dates will show in the files. Notice that there is no distinguishing between the baptism or other ordinances that have been restored. So, my comment and correction would be that if the Church is recording the original baptism date, then we should be doing the same on our family group sheets. I believe genealogists have just gone with recording the "valid" baptism date. If the blessings were restored, then they were restored. I think it's important not to draw attention to this event in a family member's life, and I'm happy to have "permission" to record the original baptism date. Thanks again for all of the personal and sometimes sensitive experiences that were shared with me yesterday. We all learn from each other! Jill Crandell

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 In a message dated 6/18/2009 11:11:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jncrandell@broadweave.net writes: Harry wrote: Jill am I understanding that Family Tree will replace NFS? Yes, that is the direction it is moving. There are many features in nFS that are not yet functional in Family Tree, so the transition will wait until the programming is finished. They are already calling nFS the "classic" new FamilySearch, and it hasn't even finished the roll-out! I've already gotten attached to classic nFS, and I'm having trouble transitioning to Family Tree, but I have to say that I absolutely love the way Family Tree handles the ordinance list rather than the pages we get in nFS. However, I like the ordinance selection process in nFS. I'm hoping that is a feature that will be activated in Family Tree in future versions. We're all just going to have to hang on for the ride, and continue to give our feedback as we move forward. 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 **************Dell Inspiron 15: Now starting at $349 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222435718x1201460505/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick. net%2Fclk%3B215748553%3B38126199%3Bs)

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

Jill, It is critical HOW you merge them after you send the gedcom in-- Depending on that determines what it says in the ordinance dates. Steve Kelsey -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jill N. Crandell Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:51 PM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Ordinances Done in Order Preferred David wrote: I think this is one of those cases where the use of a small GedCOM applies. I did not take the time to check the KDs; however, my recollection is that nFS will accept ordinance information via a GedCOM and show the work as complete. Patron submitted information is over-written by anything which comes from Temple Records. I'm always willing to try something new, and I hadn't thought about doing this. So, I created a one person GEDCOM showing the unrecorded sealing date, imported it, and merged it with the record in nFS. I then looked at the ordinance information and it still said "in progress." Next, I went to FamilyTree to see what was recorded there, and it still says "in progress." I really think that while it is in progress, there is nothing that will change it. If it said "ready," I could hand enter or use a GEDCOM, but once it's in progress, nothing touches it. In my case, even the temple recording has been confirmed, it just isn't showing in the nFS system. I'll just wait, because I know the work was done. In the meantime, it will look to others like I'm sitting on it and doing nothing. :-/ 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: What you point out is exactly what makes my point. Family Tree is on the Labs website. By its own statement on the site, the Labs website is a site for programs being developed that have not been fully released or implemented yet. The Labs own web site states.. "FamilySearch Labs showcases new family history technologies that aren't ready for prime time. Your feedback will help us refine new ideas and bring them to market sooner. Have fun playing with these innovations and send your feedback directly to our development teams." Yes, NFS and even the Famly Search Record Search are on the Labs site and they are being implemented and used right now. Technically, they have been "released" or "implemented" but what I meant by "introduction phase" might have been better termed "fully implemented." NFS and records search and Family Tree are stated by the Labs as still under development. You'll notice, though, that indexing of the records is listed as "released" while the others are still listed as "current projects" I take "current projects" to mean they are still tweaking (which they are NFS and Family Tree), while " released" means just that. So, while NFS and Family Tree are being widely used, they havent been fully "released" or "implemented." You are probably correct though that they have been "introduced." > From: jncrandell@broadweave.net > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:43:49 -0600 > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] NFS in Utah > > Ray wrote: > You are under the wrong impression. New NFS is being taught. Family Tree is > not in the introduction phase yet. > > Ray, maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. You are saying essentially what > I thought I said, so I'm not under the wrong impression. NFS is the main > program right now that we are currently using. Family Tree is where this is > going, but it is not fully programmed yet. I don't know how you can say it > isn't in the introduction phase yet when it has been on the Labs website for > a very long time. Most of the people I know are using both programs at this > point, trying to use whichever one has the better function for what they are > trying to do. Eventually, Family Tree will be fully programmed and the > official transition will begin. Steve commented that Family Tree is > difficult to use, and I agree. I'm hopeful that with feedback it will > continue to improve, and part of the problem is because it is not yet fully > functional. Right now, when I want to clear names, I go to Family Tree to > look at a VERY nice list of what I have reserved. If I want to do all of the > ordinances for a person, I clear it in Family Tree. If I only want to create > an FOR for a few ordinances of an individual, I clear it in NFS where I can > select specific ordinances. I am assuming that the selection feature will be > added to Family Tree as well. There are many things in Family Tree that are > not yet ready for full release, thus my statement that we will be teaching > two programs for awhile--nFS and Family Tree. > > 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

Not too many yrs. ago someone had the ordinances performed for my Aunt. She was even sealed to my Uncle and her parents. The information was all correct except for the death date. At the time she was very much alive. I called SL and they removed the ordiances from the IGI almost immediately. Joan ____________________________________________________________ Digital Photography - Click Now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmTpKOOroPwQbpDOvmNgaghswTBS3ZOdDjm3JtT1LzQajYTugc4/

no to that question. no mentions from several today at FHL. They are from those districts. David Samuelsen Jill N. Crandell wrote: > Ray wrote: > The Salt Lake Temple is not yet fully in preparation yet. Only certain > stakes are. > > OK, then I'll restate. It looks like at least a few stakes in all temple > districts are preparing except for Jordan River and Provo. I've just heard > that some in Idaho Falls were notified today. Anyone from the last two been > notified? > > 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 > >

Ray wrote: You are under the wrong impression. New NFS is being taught. Family Tree is not in the introduction phase yet. Ray, maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. You are saying essentially what I thought I said, so I'm not under the wrong impression. NFS is the main program right now that we are currently using. Family Tree is where this is going, but it is not fully programmed yet. I don't know how you can say it isn't in the introduction phase yet when it has been on the Labs website for a very long time. Most of the people I know are using both programs at this point, trying to use whichever one has the better function for what they are trying to do. Eventually, Family Tree will be fully programmed and the official transition will begin. Steve commented that Family Tree is difficult to use, and I agree. I'm hopeful that with feedback it will continue to improve, and part of the problem is because it is not yet fully functional. Right now, when I want to clear names, I go to Family Tree to look at a VERY nice list of what I have reserved. If I want to do all of the ordinances for a person, I clear it in Family Tree. If I only want to create an FOR for a few ordinances of an individual, I clear it in NFS where I can select specific ordinances. I am assuming that the selection feature will be added to Family Tree as well. There are many things in Family Tree that are not yet ready for full release, thus my statement that we will be teaching two programs for awhile--nFS and Family Tree. Jill Crandell

Ray wrote: The Salt Lake Temple is not yet fully in preparation yet. Only certain stakes are. OK, then I'll restate. It looks like at least a few stakes in all temple districts are preparing except for Jordan River and Provo. I've just heard that some in Idaho Falls were notified today. Anyone from the last two been notified? Jill Crandell

nope! It's nFS. FamilyTree is later. and like Jill Crandell said, it will be quite an adventure to catch the goofs and teach the users how to do it right. My friend is trying to contact her cousin down south Utah to remove a dispute and do the right way. David Samuelsen Denise Sorensen wrote: > I apologize for this question, (I'm sure it's been addressed), but if someone could clear up something. I was under the impression that Utah/Idaho was not going to learn NFS, but be directly introduced to FamilyTree. (several articles LDS and non-LDS have alluded to that). Is Utah/Idaho training in NFS? > > Thank you for your patience. > Denise

Thank heavens for that--I still find FamilyTree the worst piece of Work I have ever seen. The little window and then switching to Full screen and trying to add anything is awful. It certainly Does not compare with nfs in ease of use---I thought the idea was To make it simple. In simple, FamilyTree makes it much harder and is difficult to use. Stephen Kelsey -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of RAY FRIESS Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:21 PM To: lds-ward-consultant Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] NFS in Utah You are under the wrong impression. New NFS is being taught. Family Tree is not in the introduction phase yet. > From: jncrandell@broadweave.net > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:59:14 -0600 > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] NFS in Utah > > Denise wrote: > I apologize for this question, (I'm sure it's been addressed), but if > someone could clear up something. I was under the impression that Utah/Idaho > was not going to learn NFS, but be directly introduced to FamilyTree. > (several articles LDS and non-LDS have alluded to that). Is Utah/Idaho > training in NFS? > > Denise, > I live in Provo and teach at BYU. I asked that very question because the > changeover appears to be so close. I wanted to be able to teach my students > one program, not two. It's not going to happen. There is still too much time > to get FamilyTree fully functional, so those coming onto the system in the > next few months will learn NFS for the features that have to be used there, > and FamilyTree because that is where it is going. You folks were able to > learn one at a time, but the members here will need to learn two at once. > It's going to be a great adventure! > > 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 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

You are under the wrong impression. New NFS is being taught. Family Tree is not in the introduction phase yet. > From: jncrandell@broadweave.net > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:59:14 -0600 > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] NFS in Utah > > Denise wrote: > I apologize for this question, (I'm sure it's been addressed), but if > someone could clear up something. I was under the impression that Utah/Idaho > was not going to learn NFS, but be directly introduced to FamilyTree. > (several articles LDS and non-LDS have alluded to that). Is Utah/Idaho > training in NFS? > > Denise, > I live in Provo and teach at BYU. I asked that very question because the > changeover appears to be so close. I wanted to be able to teach my students > one program, not two. It's not going to happen. There is still too much time > to get FamilyTree fully functional, so those coming onto the system in the > next few months will learn NFS for the features that have to be used there, > and FamilyTree because that is where it is going. You folks were able to > learn one at a time, but the members here will need to learn two at once. > It's going to be a great adventure! > > 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