Concerns about new ordinance reservation process

Discussions about using and improving the new FamilySearch online application.
scion-p40
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:56 pm

Postby scion-p40 » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:52 pm

Another twist: This system will continue to generate a growing backlog of "reserved" work by those who lack family members of the opposite gender to complete ordinances.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15111
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:59 am

scion wrote:Another twist: This system will continue to generate a growing backlog of "reserved" work by those who lack family members of the opposite gender to complete ordinances.


As my family has performed ordinances for our ancestors, we have sometimes been short a few people, especially to perform sealing ordinances. Rather than seeing this as a problem, we have found it to be an opportunity to reach out to members of our ward or other friends to join with us to help. I have always been able to find members who are willing and anxious to help, and we have had some great experiences with them.

So I don't think the new system necessarily will create a backlog -- we can perform the work for whole families at a time by extending invitations to help with ordinance work beyond our immediate family members.

scion-p40
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:56 pm

Postby scion-p40 » Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:36 am

Hearing some of the retorts to divorced and part member families would make your hair curl. Not every ward is accepting of all members.

User avatar
Mikerowaved
Community Moderators
Posts: 3696
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:56 am
Location: Layton, UT

Postby Mikerowaved » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:12 am

scion wrote:Hearing some of the retorts to divorced and part member families would make your hair curl. Not every ward is accepting of all members.

Unfortunately, this may still be the case in some areas, but this is probably not the best place to discuss these types of issues. Your local leaders are always there to help.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

scion-p40
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:56 pm

Postby scion-p40 » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:49 am

These are local leaders. Others follow their examples.

scion-p40
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:56 pm

Postby scion-p40 » Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:35 am

Not all wards operate like that.

User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Postby garysturn » Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:24 am

We also have the option to assign individuals to the Temple to do the work. In nFS family file names assigned to the Temple are given first priority and are done quit fast compared to the old method of assigning family names to the Temple. With the new system we can also assign just certain ordinances to the Temple and reserve others for ourself. So you could do the baptisms and assign the Endowments to the Temple.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

stclairm
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Utah Valley
Contact:

Producing cards for youth baptismal trips

Postby stclairm » Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:21 pm

Kathryn wrote:While clearing names for our upcoming Youth temple trip . . . .

1. When providing names for Youth baptisms, I like to give them cards cleared for only the baptism and confirmation. That way, if the cards are lost or misplaced, I can still print cards for the additional ordinances without being concerned about duplicates. However, the new approach makes that impossible.


It's actually not hard to do this. Assign the I, E, and SP to the "temple", then you can print the cards with just the B & C. No temple will grab those names as they will remain unavailable until the other ordinances are completed. Then if you want to do the rest of the ordinances yourself, change the assignment from the temple to yourself once you've created the FOR for the youth baptismal trip.

One caution. I've noticed that if the Seal to Spouse are assigned to the temple, they are immediately printed by some temple somewhere. I thought the intention was for us not to do that ordinance until both parties in the couple had their endowments completed. That is not how it is working under NFS.

scion-p40
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:56 pm

Postby scion-p40 » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:29 pm

I have also heard that there are additional problems with this reservation system. For example, somebody does research & prepares individual names to take to the temple. Perhaps they go to the temple the following day, or maybe a month or two later. When they hand the barcoded printout over to be scanned, the cards won't print and the patron is told there is an error. No message seems to explain what that error is, but it seems to relate to reservations. Meanwhile, if another person actually goes to nFS & merges someone on that barcoded sheet & makes a change that affects that list, it is not automatically corrected, nor does it offer an option to print all cards other than the affected individual. The whole batch is rejected. The person needs to leave the temple to figure out & resolve the problem, then print out the new barcoded request. This will particularly impact those who travel to attend the temple and those who are attending in behalf of another living individual, but don't know their friend's research data.

KathrynGZ
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:59 pm
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Another problem

Postby KathrynGZ » Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:41 am

Found a somewhat humorous error the other night resulting from this new process. An ancestor was married several times. I added one wife and printed their FOR.

Later, I added another wife and printed the FOR their sealing. It forced the already-printed sealing of the first wife to be added to the FOR. (I actually didn't notice this at the time.) When I took the FOR to the temple to be printed, a warning came up on the screen saying there was a duplicate.

It took us a while to figure out that the first sealing had been forced onto the second FOR, then designated (correctly) as a duplicate printing :)


Return to “FamilySearch Family Tree Application”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest