I disagree completely with this. People completely identified and related to you should be submitted as soon as possible for temple ordinances to be completed provided of course, they meet the 110 year requirement. Putting in the data in the vain hope that someone else will do the work later is not the way things should be done. Steve Kelsey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shanna Jones" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > Let me give you a little different perspective. Say you do the research, > correct the records and clean up the things in new FamilySearch, but don't > submit every name you find "Ready" in NFS. Think of the other family > members who are just starting to use NFS, or youth who wants to do > baptisms > for the dead, or family members who have been challenged by their Bishops > to > find a name this year. What if you left those available for someone else > to > find and do themselves? > > Just last night I taught a class to a ward council, their counselors, the > bishopric, High Priest Group Leadership and family history consultants in > a > ward. As they were each at a computer in a high school computer lab, many > of them logged in for the very first time to NFS. You should have seen > the > excitement as the young Bishop found four family members in his direct > line > that needed to have some ordinances completed. He stood up celebrating > the > fact that this was the first time in his life he had done any family > history, the rest of the ward members clapped for him. I am sure that he > will share this experience with the rest of his ward members and lead by > example just as outlined in the new Leader's Guide. Several others found > names that someone else had researched and added to NFS and they were able > to feel the joy of reserving them for themselves and now they will have > the > opportunity to go to the temple and do ordinances for their own family > members for the very first time. > > I realize it is hard to let those green arrows go and not reserve every > name > we see, but I think it is important to share. We need not worry that they > will never get done if we don't do them right now, because there will be a > provision for that in the future. > > Shanna Jones > St George w/28 direct ancestors who were Utah pioneers > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve > Kelsey > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > > I am very wary of that because I have given cards in the past to the > temple > for them to do and they never got done and appear now in nfs as "ready" > Those of us who are retired and spend a great deal of time on nfs (at > least > 40 hours per week) do a lot of names and assign them to the temple. The > names I do are all usually born well before 1880, are all collateral > relatives and there should be no problem with conflicts. > When one has 19 direct ancestors who were Utah pioneers and you are > supposed > to do family history, that is about all I can do. > > Steve Kelsey > > > > 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 >

Official line, back off on those with less than 110 years, without written permission from closest relatives. speaker was very very very clear on this issue. David On 2/9/2012 4:24 PM, Steve Kelsey wrote: > I disagree completely with this. People completely identified and related > to you should be submitted as soon as possible for temple ordinances to be > completed provided of course, they meet the 110 year requirement. Putting > in the data in the vain hope that someone else will do the work later is not > the way things should be done. > Steve Kelsey

I agree with Steve. It is urgent for the people waiting for their work to be done. There are more than enough names that will be documented in the future to meet the needs of future members that want to join in the research. Tom On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Steve Kelsey <[email protected]> wrote: > I disagree completely with this.  People completely identified and related > to you should be submitted as soon as possible for temple ordinances to be > completed provided of course, they meet the 110 year requirement.  Putting > in the data in the vain hope that someone else will do the work later is not > the way things should be done. > Steve Kelsey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shanna Jones" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:52 PM > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances > > >> Let me give you a little different perspective.  Say you do the research, >> correct the records and clean up the things in new FamilySearch, but don't >> submit every name you find "Ready" in NFS.  Think of the other family >> members who are just starting to use NFS, or youth who wants to do >> baptisms >> for the dead, or family members who have been challenged by their Bishops >> to >> find a name this year.  What if you left those available for someone else >> to >> find and do themselves? >> >> Just last night I taught a class to a ward council, their counselors, the >> bishopric, High Priest Group Leadership and family history consultants in >> a >> ward.  As they were each at a computer in a high school computer lab, many >> of them logged in for the very first time to NFS.  You should have seen >> the >> excitement as the young Bishop found four family members in his direct >> line >> that needed to have some ordinances completed.  He stood up celebrating >> the >> fact that this was the first time in his life he had done any family >> history, the rest of the ward members clapped for him.  I am sure that he >> will share this experience with the rest of his ward members and lead by >> example just as outlined in the new Leader's Guide.  Several others found >> names that someone else had researched and added to NFS and they were able >> to feel the joy of reserving them for themselves and now they will have >> the >> opportunity to go to the temple and do ordinances for their own family >> members for the very first time. >> >> I realize it is hard to let those green arrows go and not reserve every >> name >> we see, but I think it is important to share.  We need not worry that they >> will never get done if we don't do them right now, because there will be a >> provision for that in the future. >> >> Shanna Jones >> St George w/28 direct ancestors who were Utah pioneers >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve >> Kelsey >> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:36 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] temple ordinances >> >> I am very wary of that because I have given cards in the past to the >> temple >> for them to do and they never got done and appear now in nfs as "ready" >> Those of us who are retired and spend a great deal of time on nfs (at >> least >> 40 hours per week) do a lot of names and assign them to the temple.  The >> names I do are all usually born well before 1880, are all collateral >> relatives and there should be no problem with conflicts. >> When one has 19 direct ancestors who were Utah pioneers and you are >> supposed >> to do family history, that is about all I can do. >> >> Steve Kelsey >> >> >> >> 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