So am I interpreting this correctly, that within a month or so, the icon would appear? And what happens to the ones who are reserved by someone who has reserved names they should not have reserved, but have not done any of the Temple work for? They are "reserved," not in progress. A relative of an uncle (by marriage only) of one of my mother's other sisters has reserved her for Temple work. She hasn't even met the 95-year rule yet, let alone the 110. He offered to release the name for me a couple of years ago, and I pointed out then that he needed permission of her living children first, before proceeding. I just checked, and he still has her reserved. I would hope that by the time he gets around to printing up the cards that a pop-up appears with this information. However, if it's like the current method, it can be over-ridden, I expect. Alice Allen Ward Family History Consultant Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott and Tammy Stevenson Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 Re: Clarification of the new 110 years rule as is applies to those "in progress." Just one more little bit of clarification on the 110 year rule for those persons who already are working on names in that time frame. I ask about those names I already have "in progress" who now fall within this new rule. I was told after the class, I think it was by Amanda, that I should keep those names which were close to the 110 years and do the ordinances once the 110 years had passed. On those persons with a birth date closer to the 95 years, she suggested that I "hold" them for about a month and then release (unreserve) the names back to the nfs system. The one month delay in releasing would assure the updates were made to the nfs system and those persons would then appear with the "needs permission" icon with their name. If those names are released now, they would appear "ready" and those not aware of the rule change could scoop them up and do the ordinances without complying with the new rules. Tamara Stevenson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I would try calling or sending feedback to familysearch. I have heard of cases where they could intercede when the person asking is closely related; and the person who reserved the name did not ask permission. Doris Bateman > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:16:31 -0800 > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > > So am I interpreting this correctly, that within a month or so, the icon > would appear? And what happens to the ones who are reserved by someone who > has reserved names they should not have reserved, but have not done any of > the Temple work for? They are "reserved," not in progress. > > A relative of an uncle (by marriage only) of one of my mother's other > sisters has reserved her for Temple work. She hasn't even met the 95-year > rule yet, let alone the 110. He offered to release the name for me a couple > of years ago, and I pointed out then that he needed permission of her living > children first, before proceeding. I just checked, and he still has her > reserved. I would hope that by the time he gets around to printing up the > cards that a pop-up appears with this information. However, if it's like > the current method, it can be over-ridden, I expect. > > Alice Allen > Ward Family History Consultant > Oakhurst Ward, Vancouver WA Stake > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott and > Tammy Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > > Re: Clarification of the new 110 years rule as is applies to those "in > progress." > > Just one more little bit of clarification on the 110 year rule for those > persons who already are working on names in that time frame. I ask about > those names I already have "in progress" who now fall within this new rule. > I was told after the class, I think it was by Amanda, that I should keep > those names which were close to the 110 years and do the ordinances once the > 110 years had passed. On those persons with a birth date closer to the 95 > years, she suggested that I "hold" them for about a month and then release > (unreserve) the names back to the nfs system. The one month delay in > releasing would assure the updates were made to the nfs system and those > persons would then appear with the "needs permission" icon with their name. > If those names are released now, they would appear "ready" and those not > aware of the rule change could scoop them up and do the ordinances without > complying with the new rules. > > Tamara Stevenson > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

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

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