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