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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

About the idea of "scooping up" without knowing the rule. I find that some/many? just ignore the rule anyway even when it is 95 years. I was helping a member reserve and release an ancestor that was past the 95 years rule, born in 1915, just last Sunday. One of the ordinances said that it needed permission so I was going to suggest we look at why since it was not in the 95 year time frame and before I could, she just checked, "I am the closest living relative" and said that the other person she had reserved had said the same thing. She did not give it a second thought about just going on. I have had to go on myself when "needs permission" comes up with a sealing to parents just because you to not have birth or death dates for the parents and they show as "living" because of that even though they are well beyond 110 years for date of birth in reality. It is certainly not a user friendly system. My husband feels that if it is done correctly rather than having a check box, you have the person scan the written permission document and force the submitter to "prove" they are correctly following the rule. I agree with his thinking. Just changing the 95 years to 110 will not stop most of the users from just going ahead, whether that is right or wrong. They can convince themselves that the "system" is just messing up. The change to 110 was announced 2 weeks ago before the Roots Tech? Was it a formal announcement by the First Presidency? Thanks, Nancy Scott -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott and Tammy Stevenson Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 09:12 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