"Whitcomb" <hwhitcomb@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you using nFS? (new familysearch). I try and use the web interface > from > time to time, I was taught that we need to put the burial city, state, etc > in the burial place. The name of the cemetary should be in notes or the > system will reject it. I think nFS suggests a standard location (with standard spelling etc), but it also lets you enter a location the way you want, along with a standard location that is closest to correct.

I've been putting the cemetery name in along with city (if it isn't a rural county cemetery), the county & state. I realize that the system does not like that, BUT as someone who has helped read a lot of cemeteries with my genealogy society, not having a cemetery name can lead to a lengthy search if one is making a genealogy trip. There are five Catholic cemeteries IN Omaha, about as many Jewish cemeteries, and ten others where they aren't as picky about what religion a person was and so have a variety of faiths buried there. That isn't counting the ones that aren't being used as much any more (or at all) and are still in or on the fringes of Omaha (like Winter Quarters cemetery, to name just one). The system managers may not like that, but I feel it is important, and if I can find out what cemetery, I put the name in. The system will take it if you don't select one of their pre-arranged options, and I find that it does come up later for me as an option to use. Karen In a message dated 5/23/2009 3:07:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, hwhitcomb@gmail.com writes: Are you using nFS? (new familysearch). I try and use the web interface from time to time, I was taught that we need to put the burial city, state, etc in the burial place. The name of the cemetary should be in notes or the system will reject it. Or am I (as usual) wrong? Alan W. On 5/23/09, jcbrooks@aol.com <jcbrooks@aol.com> wrote: > > I agree with Gay that the cemetery checking is painful. Most of the > time these tiny obscure cemeteries don't show up as options. Ohana > might consider either adding all the cemeteries on the USGS or just not > checking the burial...which sometimes takes two steps. > Michele > > 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 **************A strong credit score is 700 or above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585033x1201462753/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&b cd=Maystrongfooter52309NO115)

wrong. See my reply to Sahara346 (Karen). You can force the system to accept the information to maintain accuracy. David Whitcomb wrote: > Are you using nFS? (new familysearch). I try and use the web interface from > time to time, I was taught that we need to put the burial city, state, etc > in the burial place. The name of the cemetary should be in notes or the > system will reject it. > > Or am I (as usual) wrong? > > Alan W. > > > On 5/23/09, jcbrooks@aol.com <jcbrooks@aol.com> wrote: >> I agree with Gay that the cemetery checking is painful. Most of the >> time these tiny obscure cemeteries don't show up as options. Ohana >> might consider either adding all the cemeteries on the USGS or just not >> checking the burial...which sometimes takes two steps. >> Michele >> >> > > 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 familiar with that annoying problem. The nFS recognize cemeteries within cities in UTAH only. Not out of state. Salt Lake City Cemetery, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah is recognized yet Falls View Cemetery, American Falls, Power, Idaho will not be recognized. Neither will Mount Hope Cemetery, Baker City, Baker, Oregon despite they are INSIDE the cities. The system don't even recognize Lee Mission Cemetery, Salem, Marion, Oregon despite the fact it is smacked in the middle of the big city with nearest city boundary being more than 10 miles away. I pointed it out to them and I am slowly working on databases of those cemeteries to send to the managers so they will become part of standard place names lists. You have to go into nFS to do the forcing of cemetery names and placements. That is what I do to ensure accuracy. Beside all this, this was discussed on the forum for this program 2 years ago and the system managers backed off on their insistence that name of cemeteries be in the notes. The users won by driving the point about big cities having more than 1 cemetery. Salt Lake City proper has 15 cemeteries within the city boundaries on top of onerous notes you have to hunt through to find them. How many cemeteries are there in the CITY of New York City? Mind boggling. The system managers never thought of that. David Samuelsen Sahara346@aol.com wrote: > I've been putting the cemetery name in along with city (if it isn't a rural > county cemetery), the county & state. I realize that the system does not > like that, BUT as someone who has helped read a lot of cemeteries with my > genealogy society, not having a cemetery name can lead to a lengthy search > if one is making a genealogy trip. There are five Catholic cemeteries IN > Omaha, about as many Jewish cemeteries, and ten others where they aren't as > picky about what religion a person was and so have a variety of faiths > buried there. That isn't counting the ones that aren't being used as much any > more (or at all) and are still in or on the fringes of Omaha (like Winter > Quarters cemetery, to name just one). > > The system managers may not like that, but I feel it is important, and if I > can find out what cemetery, I put the name in. The system will take it if > you don't select one of their pre-arranged options, and I find that it > does come up later for me as an option to use. > > Karen > > > In a message dated 5/23/2009 3:07:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > hwhitcomb@gmail.com writes: > > Are you using nFS? (new familysearch). I try and use the web interface > from > time to time, I was taught that we need to put the burial city, state, etc > in the burial place. The name of the cemetary should be in notes or the > system will reject it. > > Or am I (as usual) wrong? > > Alan W. > > > On 5/23/09, jcbrooks@aol.com <jcbrooks@aol.com> wrote: >> I agree with Gay that the cemetery checking is painful. Most of the >> time these tiny obscure cemeteries don't show up as options. Ohana >> might consider either adding all the cemeteries on the USGS or just not >> checking the burial...which sometimes takes two steps. >> Michele >> >> > > 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 > > > **************A strong credit score is 700 or above. See Yours in Just 2 > Easy Steps! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585033x1201462753/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&b > cd=Maystrongfooter52309NO115) > > 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 agree with Gay that the cemetery checking is painful. Most of the time these tiny obscure cemeteries don't show up as options. Ohana might consider either adding all the cemeteries on the USGS or just not checking the burial...which sometimes takes two steps. Michele

For some of the information on New FamilySearch, an extra line comes up for the description. I think that this would be ideal for burials in New FamilySearch. The extra line would be the name of the cemetery. This "extra line" is available for military records and occupations. PAF guidelines recommended that the name of the cemetery be in the notes and not in the place fields. I usually put the name in the comments section for the source of burial. Then I can add the particulars for the burial (ie., grave plot and section) or mention other facts such as who else is buried nearby. Karen is right, though, the name of the cemetery next to the city helps it all sort properly. It can be tricky to keep everything straight if the system doesn't approve of that format. Mary Scott Northville Ward Westland Michigan Stake Detroit Michigan Temple

Are you using nFS? (new familysearch). I try and use the web interface from time to time, I was taught that we need to put the burial city, state, etc in the burial place. The name of the cemetary should be in notes or the system will reject it. Or am I (as usual) wrong? Alan W. On 5/23/09, jcbrooks@aol.com <jcbrooks@aol.com> wrote: > > I agree with Gay that the cemetery checking is painful. Most of the > time these tiny obscure cemeteries don't show up as options. Ohana > might consider either adding all the cemeteries on the USGS or just not > checking the burial...which sometimes takes two steps. > Michele > >

John, My file seems to get checked each time I log on for places and most of the corrections are just adding "United States." Some are cemetery locations. It is a bit frustrating to have to go through the checking each time. Is there a way to streamline this? Is it just checking part of the file at a time? Gay Davis ----- Original Message ----- From: John Vilburn To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Family Insight Question Michele, This should only be an issue the first time that FamilyInsight looks at a particular section of your file. The next time that section of your file is seen, the place checking will be very fast because the place lookup responses from FamilySearch have been cached on your system. Aloha, John ----- Original Message ----- From: <JCBrooks@aol.com> To: <LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 6:54 AM Subject: [LDS-WC] Family Insight Question >I am using Family Insight to clean up records. > > Why does the "Checking Places" take so long? It keeps me from doing any > type of search, even if I open the record and there appears to be no need > to > update locations. > > Anyone solved this problem? > > Michele > **************Kick start your favorite grad’s career with mobile email for > under $50. > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol) > > 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

Gay, FamilyInsight only checks what is currently visible on your screen. And once it has done the lookup through FamilySearch, it remembers those lookup results for the next time. Aloha, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gay Davis" <grdavis@centurytel.net> To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Family Insight Question > John, My file seems to get checked each time I log on for places and most > of the corrections are just adding "United States." Some are cemetery > locations. It is a bit frustrating to have to go through the checking > each time. Is there a way to streamline this? Is it just checking part > of the file at a time? > > Gay Davis > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Vilburn > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:43 AM > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Family Insight Question > > > Michele, > > This should only be an issue the first time that FamilyInsight looks at a > particular section of your file. The next time that section of your file > is > seen, the place checking will be very fast because the place lookup > responses from FamilySearch have been cached on your system. > > Aloha, > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <JCBrooks@aol.com> > To: <LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 6:54 AM > Subject: [LDS-WC] Family Insight Question > > > >I am using Family Insight to clean up records. > > > > Why does the "Checking Places" take so long? It keeps me from doing > any > > type of search, even if I open the record and there appears to be no > need > > to > > update locations. > > > > Anyone solved this problem? > > > > Michele > > **************Kick start your favorite grad’s career with mobile email > for > > under $50. > > > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol) > > > > 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 > > 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

Hi, I have over 30,000 names in my tree in PAF 5. How can I create a Gedcom of just my blood relatives from this tree, which includes many relations linked through in - laws families etc . Which has grown like Topsy into an unmanageable monster. Would be grateful for some help. Thanks Dave Whittall

Thank you, John. Hopefully it will work that way :-) Michele In a message dated 5/22/2009 11:48:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, john@ohanasoftware.com writes: Michele, This should only be an issue the first time that FamilyInsight looks at a particular section of your file. The next time that section of your file is seen, the place checking will be very fast because the place lookup responses from FamilySearch have been cached on your system. Aloha, John ----- Original Message ----- From: <JCBrooks@aol.com> To: <LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 6:54 AM Subject: [LDS-WC] Family Insight Question >I am using Family Insight to clean up records. > > Why does the "Checking Places" take so long? It keeps me from doing any > type of search, even if I open the record and there appears to be no need > to > update locations. > > Anyone solved this problem? > > Michele > **************Kick start your favorite grad’s career with mobile email for > under $50. > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol) > > 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 **************Kick start your favorite grad’s career with mobile email for under $50. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol)

No, it irregularly goes through the list and some are ready to search and some checking places stay up a long time...like 20 minutes and then finally resolve...so I have to go back and forth a bunch of times to make sure I searched the whole bunch. And in the places it says it's "checking" there are no yellow highlighted or irregular looking locations. Michele In a message dated 5/22/2009 10:38:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dsam52@sampubco.com writes: you probably hit some places never heard of, such as spelling being wrong. David Samuelsen JCBrooks@aol.com wrote: > I am using Family Insight to clean up records. > > Why does the "Checking Places" take so long? It keeps me from doing any > type of search, even if I open the record and there appears to be no need to > update locations. > > Anyone solved this problem? > > Michele > **************Kick start your favorite grad’s career with mobile email for > under $50. > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol) > > 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 **************Kick start your favorite grad’s career with mobile email for under $50. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol)

I am using Family Insight to clean up records. Why does the "Checking Places" take so long? It keeps me from doing any type of search, even if I open the record and there appears to be no need to update locations. Anyone solved this problem? Michele **************Kick start your favorite grad’s career with mobile email for under $50. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol)

you probably hit some places never heard of, such as spelling being wrong. David Samuelsen JCBrooks@aol.com wrote: > I am using Family Insight to clean up records. > > Why does the "Checking Places" take so long? It keeps me from doing any > type of search, even if I open the record and there appears to be no need to > update locations. > > Anyone solved this problem? > > Michele > **************Kick start your favorite grad’s career with mobile email for > under $50. > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol) > > 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

Michele, This should only be an issue the first time that FamilyInsight looks at a particular section of your file. The next time that section of your file is seen, the place checking will be very fast because the place lookup responses from FamilySearch have been cached on your system. Aloha, John ----- Original Message ----- From: <JCBrooks@aol.com> To: <LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 6:54 AM Subject: [LDS-WC] Family Insight Question >I am using Family Insight to clean up records. > > Why does the "Checking Places" take so long? It keeps me from doing any > type of search, even if I open the record and there appears to be no need > to > update locations. > > Anyone solved this problem? > > Michele > **************Kick start your favorite grad’s career with mobile email for > under $50. > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol) > > 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

Hello, Dave. You can do it as follows: 1) Select yourself 2) Select all of your ancestors and their descendants like this: 2a) Search Individual List (CTRL+F) 2b) Click Advanced > 2c) In the relationship filter, choose ancestors in the drop-down list, click select and enter the number of generations of ancestors you want to include in your GEDCOM (to be sure, enter a large number, such as 50), then do the same for the generations of descendants (this will be descendants of your ancestors; for example, if you choose 3 and 3, this will include you, your parents, your grandparents, then three generations of your descendants, three generations from your parents, meaning you, your siblings, you children, and your nephews and nieces, and three from your grandparents, meaning your parents, uncles and nieces, yourself and siblings, and your cousins). You can decide whether you want to check spouses, too. (I would, no point in having hundreds of blood relatives without their "not-related-to-me" moms or dads) 2d) click OK. 2e) In the relationship filter, you can choose descendants in the drop-down list, just to be sure because you may have already included all possible descendants through step 2c above. You can decide whether you want to check spouses, too. (Again, I would, no point in including my grandchildren but not my son-ins-law and daughters-in-law) 2f) click OK. 3) Now you can go to File>Export and export a GEDCOM with this partial list of individuals. (I can give more details about this, but I guess you can move on by yourself from this point on.) -------------------------------------------------- From: "david whittall" <davidandmargaret@talktalk.net> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 6:48 AM To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LDS-WC] PAF5 Blood lines > Hi, > I have over 30,000 names in my tree in PAF 5. > How can I create a Gedcom of just my blood relatives from this tree, which > includes many relations linked through in - laws families etc . > Which has grown like Topsy into an unmanageable monster. > Would be grateful for some help. > Thanks > Dave Whittall > > 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 >

This afternoon I sent an email to FamilySearch support regarding the policy of rights of precedence and direct line ancestors. Perhaps this will help those of us on the list to have current information to use in our wards and teaching assignments. Here is my email to FamilySearch Support: Problem: Is rights of precedence required for direct line ancestors? As I interpret the rights of precedence, a person may be our direct line ancestor (parent, grandparent, etc.) but we still need to follow the guidelines and have permission from the (1) undivorced spouse; (2) adult children; (3) parents; and (4) brothers and sisters. Someone indicated to me that we don't need to have permission from the closest living relation if the person is our direct-line ancestor. Would someone at FamilySearch support please clarify the policies for direct-line ancestors and the rights of precedence? Thank you!! Here is the reply from FamilySearch Support to me: Dear Sister Scott, Thank you for contacting FamilySearch Support regarding temple work for your family and ancestors. You are correct in your interpretation of the rights of precedence. We have attached some documents to verify this. Click anywhere on the blue underlined titles of the documents to see them in full. The document, What are Church policies about temple ordinances, is a list of temple policies and the New FamilySearch. Look at # 7. The other two documents speak for themselves. If you need any other assistance, don't hesitate to contact us at any time. If you have not already used it, an additional resource is the Help Center in New FamilySearch. This an excellent resource you can access to find answers to your questions. The link to the Help Center is found at the bottom of any page. Clicking on this link will open a window with a search field where you can type in key words to find answers for many of your questions. We know this will be an excellent tool for your family history work in New Family Search. Sincerely, FamilySearch Support mam Document Links: Do I Need a Relative’s Permission to Do Ordinances? When Should I Obtain Permission before Doing Ordinances for the Deceased? What are Church policies about temple ordinances and the new FamilySearch? (067faq0443)   ***************** Finally, I am sorry if anyone thought I was criticizing someone in particular. I didn't mean to give that impression. I used the term "we" in my email because the challenge definitely spills over in wards and stakes all over the Church. Many members struggle with the concept of rights of precedence.   It's true that there used to be a guideline that explained that we could do our direct-line ancestors without anyone else's permission. That was changed many years ago and the rights of precedence took effect.   Over the years, I have had members indicate to me that they are the "exception" and that following the rights of precedence was not for them.   I have personally seen the heartache and disappointment that comes to families (even members of the Church) who had their ancestors' temple work done by others who should not have done it. (This is from the days when midwestern LDS families had to drive thousands of miles to attend a temple. Submissions back then took months and even years to clear from Salt Lake. I sure don't miss those days at all.)   The challenge with family history work is that the guidelines and policies change regularly -- almost like the weather here in Michigan. :>) New policies are introduced so often that it can be hard to keep up. I have had to learn to throw out the "old" manuals, etc. because it is easy to cling to what is no longer current. Our ward library asked me recently if we should keep training manuals that were over 30 years old. Yecks. Naturally I encouraged that the "old" stuff be thrown out.   By the way, I really like the Help Center at the New FamilySearch website. It is a great resource. It might be worth a lesson for family history classes all by itself.   Again, please accept my apology. I so enjoy reading your emails and learning from your experiences. Many a day shines a bit brighter because of your examples and testimonies. Thank you.   Mary Scott Northville Ward Westland Michigan Stake   Detroit Michigan Temple

I have a list posted on my website at http://milesmeyer.googlepages.com/lessonmanuals. It is a pdf file. It is broken down by state and country. I really need to update it though. Index to Genealogical Websites - listing of mostly free sites with digital records or indexes (IndextoGenealogicalWebSites.pdf) - (Sept. 6, 2007) Miles Meyer On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Harry Laughman <h85730@yahoo.com> wrote: > Question to all you knowledgeable  individuals out there. I have lost my list of free WEB  of sites to do research on. I was just at the store and had two non members and a member ask me for my list.  Will some one help me. Please > > Thanks > > Harry

There is a rule about when the DEATH DATE IS NOT KNOWN that states you cannot submit the ordinances as soon. Persons born at least 110 years ago or married at least 95 years ago are assumed to be dead, and the ordinances can be done. I did a paste from the NFS User Guide and sent it about 2 hours ago but apparently that is not acceptable because it never was published. I suggest that we check the User's Guide in NFS as both rules are listed there. There is also an Ensign article from President Holland that was taken from Wikipedia and I checked the Ensign to be sure the quote was accurate: Counsel of LDS leaders Church general authorities have asked members to concentrate on completing the work for their own ancestors. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve taught: Here, on this side of the veil, there are limitations of available time and temples. This means that choosing to identify and perform ordinances for our own kindred should receive our highest priority. The Spirit of Elijah will inspire individual members of the Church to link their generations, rather than submit lists of people or popular personalities to whom they are unrelated. Now, we are mindful of those not of our faith who are concerned about or even offended by the practice of temple ordinances for the dead. To them we say, our Heavenly Father directed the restoration of keys of priesthood authority and surely intended no offense to any of His children. Quite to the contrary. He intended to bless them. This doctrine and its ordinances are laden with love and are intended to perpetuate the sweetest of all relationships — in families forever. Nevertheless, the Church is sensitive to these concerns. The First Presidency has asked that, as far as possible, individual rights of privacy be protected. In 1972, they wrote, "Persons submitting names for other than direct ancestors [should] have obtained approval from the closest living relative of the deceased before submitting records of persons born within the last ninety-five years." In addition, reminders of rights of precedence and privacy appear each time our computer programs are used. Nancy Scott Cincinnati, Ohio -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Rebecca Christensen Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 04:59 PM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: [LDS-WC] Rights of Precedence was Re: Inappropriate entries found The "old?" policy can be found on the insert pages that came/come with a package of Family Group Record forms when ordered from Distribution.  I haven't ordered paper copies of the Family Group Record for a while, so do not know if the instruction sheet currently states the following: But here is what it said,  "Whose Names Do I Submit? Submit the names of your deceased relatives as follows: - Deceased persons born more than ninety-five years ago.  When you have identified these persons as fully as possible, submit the names of those for whom temple ordinances have not already been performed. - Deceased persons born within the past ninety-five years.  Rights of privacy and right of precedence give the immediate living family members (undivorced spouse, children, parents, and brothers and sisters) the right to submit such names or keep the from being submitted.  Unless you are a direct descendant, get permission from an immediate family member before submitting these names." Also, from "Instructions for Family History Leaders: Submitting Names for Temple Ordinances", 1987, pp. 2, 9. p. 2 "Unless you are a direct descendant of the person, you must have permission from the closest living relative before ordinances can be performed for an individual born during the past ninety-five years.  A person's closest living relative is (in the following order) an undivorced spouse, children, parents, brothers and sisters.  When you submit the name for ordinances, the Family History Department assumes you have obtained this permission." p. 9 "6. What are the rights of precedence? Rights of precedence are the rights of the living immediate family of a person born within the past 95 years to submit the person's name for temple ordinances and to serve as proxy, or to keep the ordinances from being done.   The rights of precedence belong to the closest living relative, in this order:  an undivorced spouse, a child, a father or mother, a brother or sister.  The rights of these persons precede the rights of all others. "A member may wish to submit the name of a deceased relative who was born within the past 95 years.  If the member is not a direct descendant or an immediate family member, he should obtain verbal approval from the person who has the first right of precedence before submitting the name. (Even if he is a direct descendant or immediate family member, it is strongly encouraged that he coordinate with other near relatives and ensure that his actions meet with the approval of the closest living relative.)" That was the "old??" policy.  If you were an immediate family member or direct descendant, it was not **required** to obtain permission, although it was recommended that the closest living relative's wishes be taken into account.   The rights of precedence applied "unless you are a direct descedant."     (I don't have access to the instructions that appeared in TempleReady, since it is no longer being used here.) So, when did the policy change? (And is there a document indicating the change of policy?)  I did note in my search of the Help documents on new FamilySearch this morning that the right of the immediate family or direct descendant to perform temple ordinances without asking for permission is not expressly stated in any of the documents I found. So for those who believe some of us are trying to bend the rules about immediate family and direct descendants, we are familiar with the previous published policies.     This really doesn't affect me personally - I'm an eighth generation member of the church.  All of my immediate family members and direct ancestors born during the past 95 years have done their own temple work.   (Although there are a couple of people who have submitted my living 102 year old grandmother for temple work in the 1990s.  Obviously, some rules were broken there by someone.) Rebecca Christensen --- On Wed, 5/20/09, Rebecca Christensen <rchristen@sbcglobal.net> wrote: From: Rebecca Christensen <rchristen@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Inappropriate entries found To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 12:29 PM I was not trying to "paint various shades of gray." I guess the policy has changed??   I have copies of past policy documents that indicate you did not have to ask permission to do the work of parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents - your direct-line ancestors.   I do not see that specifically spelled out in any of the knowledge documents on newFamilySearch, but that was the policy in the past.  The rights of precedence rules have also been around for many years.  They are spelled out in the same policy manual.  I have been **teaching** the Rights of Precedence for about 20 years now as I have been involved in Family History callings.  They are not new. As I was looking at the online Knowledge Documents this morning  (after sending my e-mail), I did not find the exception for direct line ancestors spelled out.  (Is it really a policy change, or did it get left out unintentially?  I have never heard before that you couldn't do temple work for your father or mother.)  But I did find Knowledge documents indicating we are "responsible to provide temple ordinances for immediate family members and direct line ancestors (parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. and their families.)" ("Policies for Preparing Names for Temple Work" - no knowledge document number attached.) There is also a Knowledge Document that addresses the issue addressed recently on the list about a parent's work being cleared by someone else who had not asked for permission.  The answer was to call Support. (Document ID: 106589)  Rebecca Christensen 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 pasting from the User's Guide for NFS. The first one is for asking permission if the individual was born in the last 95 years and the death date is known. The second rule is for doing ordinances for someone who's death date is unknown then they must be married at least 95 years ago or born at least 110 years ago. Guidelines for Reserving Ordinances As you reserve ordinances, be aware of a few guidelines. . Reserve ordinances only if you feel reasonably sure that you can get them done. It is recommended that you reserve only enough ordinances for a few trips to the temple. . Before you reserve ordinances for individuals who were born in the last 95 years, please get permission from the closest living relative. The closest living relatives are, in this order: spouse, then children, then parents, then siblings. When Can I Do Ordinances for Someone Whose Death Date Is Unknown? Persons born at least 110 years ago or married at least 95 years ago are assumed to be dead, and the ordinances can be done. I am teaching a FH SS class and 2 weeks ago we had a long discussion on this topic. I found an Ensign article by Elder Nelson that states, (note that this also states 95 years from the birth): Counsel of LDS leaders Church general authorities have asked members to concentrate on completing the work for their own ancestors. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve taught: Here, on this side of the veil, there are limitations of available time and temples. This means that choosing to identify and perform ordinances for our own kindred should receive our highest priority. The Spirit of Elijah will inspire individual members of the Church to link their generations, rather than submit lists of people or popular personalities to whom they are unrelated. Now, we are mindful of those not of our faith who are concerned about or even offended by the practice of temple ordinances for the dead. To them we say, our Heavenly Father directed the restoration of keys of priesthood authority and surely intended no offense to any of His children. Quite to the contrary. He intended to bless them. This doctrine and its ordinances are laden with love and are intended to perpetuate the sweetest of all relationships - in families forever. Nevertheless, the Church is sensitive to these concerns. The First Presidency has asked that, as far as possible, individual rights of privacy be protected. In 1972, they wrote, "Persons submitting names for other than direct ancestors [should] have obtained approval from the closest living relative of the deceased before submitting records of persons born within the last ninety-five years." In addition, reminders of rights of precedence and privacy appear each time our computer programs are used. Nancy Scott Cincinnati, Ohio