Should we be making some announcement to our center workers about the 95/110 year rule--yet? Or should we wait for something official to come to us? I would like anything written that explains this so I can present it to staff when it is appropriate to do so. Thanks. Rosemary Hopkins On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM, <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] If you prefer the digest > version, use a D instead of the L in the request address. Please remember > to restrict the size of your post. > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 (Alice Allen) > 2. Re: LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 (DORIS BATEMAN) > 3. (no subject) (DORIS BATEMAN) > 4. Re: Some Things I Learned at RootsTech 2012 (Sue Maxwell) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:16:31 -0800 > From: "Alice Allen" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:32:57 -0700 > From: DORIS BATEMAN <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 > To: lds-ward-consultant <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:35:36 -0700 > From: DORIS BATEMAN <[email protected]> > Subject: [LDS-WC] (no subject) > To: lds-ward-consultant <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:07:40 -0700 > From: Sue Maxwell <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Some Things I Learned at RootsTech 2012 > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I haven't jumped into the discussion because there were so many > conflicting comments going around at Rootstech about the 95/110 rule > change. However, I was in a meeting at the very end of Rootstech with > (Elder) Dennis Brimhall, the new CEO of FamilySearch, and a couple > others. They purposefully have not notified consultants of the change > because the system isn't ready, and the change has not made it through > all levels of approval yet. However, we did talk a bit about it. > > There already is a 110-year-rule where, if the person has no death date > entered, then nFS assumes the person is still living if the birth date > is less than 110 years ago. (This protects someone from trying to do > work for my 103-year-old mother-in-law who IS still living. It does > nothing if someone makes up a death date, however.) > > The current 95-year-rule says you need permission from next of kin even > if you have a death date for a person and the birth date is less than 95 > years ago. The new 110-year-rule will make both rules the same at 110 > years. However, permission will only be required from ONE of the closest > living relatives (current wife, children, parents, siblings - in that > order). This rule change protects those family members who may be the > closest living relative and have chosen not to do the work YET. > > And, now we don't have to stop and think about which rule fits; both > will be 110 years. Bottom line, if you are not the closest living > relative, WAIT or GET PERMISSION. If you are the closest living > relative, the go get the work done. > > Sue > > > On 2/8/2012 10:33 PM, W David Samuelsen wrote: > > 1. long-standing 110 year rule for no death dates, still in effect for > > long time. > > > > 2. Abolished 95/100 year rule for doing family ordinances without > > permission and replaced with stricer 110 year rule. Written permission > > is required before death. I asked this question specifically to clarify > > the new rule. > > > > I can send to anyone who want to see what was presented, in PDF format > > (needs Adobe Reader), contact me direct. Details are laid out. Please > > note the 95 year in pdf had been superseded by decision barely 2 weeks > ago. > > > > W. David Samuelsen > > > > On 2/8/2012 10:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> What do you mean 95 year rule is abolished? > >> > >> If less than 110 but more than 95 AND you have a death date, can yo udo > the > >> work? > >> > >> Or, 110 years period with or without death date? Your comment below > was a > >> little confusing. > >> > >> Michele > >> > >> > >> In a message dated 2/8/2012 6:26:38 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > >> [email protected] writes: > >> > >> they're online already, go to youtube.com > >> > >> You must have missed those two FamilySearch sessions, no mention of new > >> and stricter 110 year rule for doing ordinances for near relatives > >> without *written* permission. I was there and asked Amanda Terry to > >> clarify of this 110 year rule. That is what she meant and in turn I > >> learned from other consultants who said they had problems with those > >> patrons flouting the rule of permissions. > >> > >> Also 95 year rule is abolished and replaced by long-standing rule - 110 > >> year rule without death death, no matter what. > >> > >> Amanda Terry listed 10 points. I will have to ask her for copy if it is > >> not in the syllabus. > >> > >> David S. > > -- > Sue Maxwell > http://granitegenealogy.blogspot.com/ > Vice President - Utah Genealogical Association > Sandy Utah Granite South Tri-Stake FHC > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT mailing list, send an email > 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 > email with no additional text. > > > End of LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 19 > ************************************************** >

Rosemary no, keep checking the changes being filtered in over 2 weeks. Amanda said the changes are being made to the policies and documents over the span. Once there, then you can inform safely. David S. On 2/9/2012 10:59 AM, Rosemary Hopkins wrote: > Should we be making some announcement to our center workers about the > 95/110 year rule--yet? Or should we wait for something official to come to > us? I would like anything written that explains this so I can present it to > staff when it is appropriate to do so. Thanks. Rosemary Hopkins > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM, > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to >> [email protected] If you prefer the digest >> version, use a D instead of the L in the request address. Please remember >> to restrict the size of your post. >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 (Alice Allen) >> 2. Re: LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 (DORIS BATEMAN) >> 3. (no subject) (DORIS BATEMAN) >> 4. Re: Some Things I Learned at RootsTech 2012 (Sue Maxwell) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:16:31 -0800 >> From: "Alice Allen"<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 >> To:<[email protected]> >> Message-ID:<[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:32:57 -0700 >> From: DORIS BATEMAN<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 17 >> To: lds-ward-consultant<[email protected]> >> Message-ID:<[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:35:36 -0700 >> From: DORIS BATEMAN<[email protected]> >> Subject: [LDS-WC] (no subject) >> To: lds-ward-consultant<[email protected]> >> Message-ID:<[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:07:40 -0700 >> From: Sue Maxwell<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Some Things I Learned at RootsTech 2012 >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID:<[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> I haven't jumped into the discussion because there were so many >> conflicting comments going around at Rootstech about the 95/110 rule >> change. However, I was in a meeting at the very end of Rootstech with >> (Elder) Dennis Brimhall, the new CEO of FamilySearch, and a couple >> others. They purposefully have not notified consultants of the change >> because the system isn't ready, and the change has not made it through >> all levels of approval yet. However, we did talk a bit about it. >> >> There already is a 110-year-rule where, if the person has no death date >> entered, then nFS assumes the person is still living if the birth date >> is less than 110 years ago. (This protects someone from trying to do >> work for my 103-year-old mother-in-law who IS still living. It does >> nothing if someone makes up a death date, however.) >> >> The current 95-year-rule says you need permission from next of kin even >> if you have a death date for a person and the birth date is less than 95 >> years ago. The new 110-year-rule will make both rules the same at 110 >> years. However, permission will only be required from ONE of the closest >> living relatives (current wife, children, parents, siblings - in that >> order). This rule change protects those family members who may be the >> closest living relative and have chosen not to do the work YET. >> >> And, now we don't have to stop and think about which rule fits; both >> will be 110 years. Bottom line, if you are not the closest living >> relative, WAIT or GET PERMISSION. If you are the closest living >> relative, the go get the work done. >> >> Sue >> >> >> On 2/8/2012 10:33 PM, W David Samuelsen wrote: >>> 1. long-standing 110 year rule for no death dates, still in effect for >>> long time. >>> >>> 2. Abolished 95/100 year rule for doing family ordinances without >>> permission and replaced with stricer 110 year rule. Written permission >>> is required before death. I asked this question specifically to clarify >>> the new rule. >>> >>> I can send to anyone who want to see what was presented, in PDF format >>> (needs Adobe Reader), contact me direct. Details are laid out. Please >>> note the 95 year in pdf had been superseded by decision barely 2 weeks >> ago. >>> >>> W. David Samuelsen >>> >>> On 2/8/2012 10:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> What do you mean 95 year rule is abolished? >>>> >>>> If less than 110 but more than 95 AND you have a death date, can yo udo >> the >>>> work? >>>> >>>> Or, 110 years period with or without death date? Your comment below >> was a >>>> little confusing. >>>> >>>> Michele >>>> >>>> >>>> In a message dated 2/8/2012 6:26:38 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, >>>> [email protected] writes: >>>> >>>> they're online already, go to youtube.com >>>> >>>> You must have missed those two FamilySearch sessions, no mention of new >>>> and stricter 110 year rule for doing ordinances for near relatives >>>> without *written* permission. I was there and asked Amanda Terry to >>>> clarify of this 110 year rule. That is what she meant and in turn I >>>> learned from other consultants who said they had problems with those >>>> patrons flouting the rule of permissions. >>>> >>>> Also 95 year rule is abolished and replaced by long-standing rule - 110 >>>> year rule without death death, no matter what. >>>> >>>> Amanda Terry listed 10 points. I will have to ask her for copy if it is >>>> not in the syllabus. >>>> >>>> David S. >> >> -- >> Sue Maxwell >> http://granitegenealogy.blogspot.com/ >> Vice President - Utah Genealogical Association >> Sandy Utah Granite South Tri-Stake FHC >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To contact the LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT list administrator, send an email to >> [email protected] >> >> To post a message to the LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT mailing list, send an email >> 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 >> email with no additional text. >> >> >> End of LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT Digest, Vol 7, Issue 19 >> ************************************************** >> > > 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 >