Ordinances reserved by someone else

[garystroble]

What do I do if one of my coworkers who is Japanese, is the only member of the church in her family, gave me permission to do her Father's ordinances, but she doesn't know how to release his name to me, and when she bothers me at work every morning about it, and how she is relying on me to do it, which I am more than happy to, I just don't understand what to do in this situation. I had been coworkers with her for a long while, and I know the basics of speaking Japanese to talk with in, and she says that she hadn't had the time to check FamilySearch? I want to reserve the name, but none of us know how to get it released to me to do his ordinances, so that she can do the Sealing for him. What should I tell her, and especially if her and anyone else she knows besides me had no time to go to the Temple, and wants me to do it, since I am going to the Japanese Endowment Session, and she made it very clear to me that she can't find anyone else she trusts to do the work. What do you think I should do?

-Elder Hunsaker
(Service Missionary)
Provo MTC
01/03/2024

If your co-worker is the one who reserved the name, she can go to Family Search and print the card for her father's work and then hand you the card. She will need to choose which ordinances to appear on the card. If she needs help, she can ask one of her ward's Temple and Family History consultants to assist.

[signegardner]

My family have been members of the church for many generations. The temple work for my direct ancestors has all been done, as far back as we can confirm family members. The Church's policy states that we should not reserve names for anyone but our direct ancestors, aunts, uncles and cousins. But what about the in-laws and their family members? Do we just leave them hanging without anyone to do their work? Before we began doing our own family names and reservations, we were given a name of an unrelated and unknown person when we went to the temple. Even now, if you do not have the name of a related person, you are given the name of someone unknown to you. You also can share the names of in-laws and their families with the temple, to have their work be done by someone else. I enjoy finding names and putting families together, though they are not always related to me directly. As you research and find out about these people, you begin to love them and wish for their work to be done. When it is obvious that no one else is doing the temple work for these people, why is it bad for me to do their work for them? With the population of the world so much greater than the membership of the church, it seems to me that we need to do the work for all whose names we have. Is it better for me to get the name of an unknown person when I go to the temple than to do the work for someone I have felt inspired to research and have found?

[russellhltn]

When you go to submit a temple ordinance in FamilySearch, you're given guidelines you need to follow.

A few tips from my own research: Go back up your direct line, then start going down the other branches. Those are cousins. Maybe 10th cousins, but cousins none the less. I suspect you'll find people in there missing ordinances that's still with the 110 year rule.

Second, when you find yourself going into the in-laws, go up a step (to the parents) and click on "View Relationship". You might be pleasantly surprised to find you are related to them. I'm finding that as long as we're talking about the 48 states, there's a 50% chance I'm related to my cousin's in-laws (making them fair game).

Lastly, I'll note that all the guidance is about who you can do work for is about submitting names for temple work. I'm not seeing any restrictions on who you can do genealogy for. One of my pastimes is to add sources to distant relatives. I hunt down those blue "sources" icons. It's not uncommon for me to discover a missing child or branch of a family creating the need for more work. I also like to merge duplicate branches - which no doubt has resulting in some pending temple work to get canceled. I imagine it frustrates some, but duplicate work helps no one.

That said, I'd respect the prohibition on celebrities or famous people and stick to family - how ever distant they may be. But I do sometimes deviate from that if I have to straighten out another person or group who is "confusingly similar" to a member of my family. This is to prevent them from getting improperly merged.

[russellhltn]

I was able to get into FS and find the following:

You may also submit the names of the following individuals:

- Biological, adoptive, and foster family lines connected to your family.
- Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their families).
- Descendants of your ancestors.

Please note "and their families" when talking about cousins.

My personal rule is that as long as I get a relationship when clicking "View Relationship", then it's OK to submit their names. As pointed out above, the system may find a relationship you didn't know existed.

[BrianEdwards]

I'd also point you to GHB 25.1, which starts out with "Church members have the privilege and responsibility to help unite their families for eternity." Although like you, we all feel the desire to do this eternal work now, perhaps in the Lord's timeframe it's okay to leave those unrelated names you find, and trust that at some future point their family descendants will find that information, and then be able to perform the work in the temple and help unite their own families for eternity. It does seem the current policy permits a broader understanding of family relationships than perhaps in the past, so as @russellhltn suggested that might open up additional routes for you to focus on in your expanded family tree.

Another option for those with fairly complete FamilySearch trees, is to focus their efforts on supporting others to get to that point. If you can help somebody get that same excitement and feel that same connection for their own ancestors, and then they do the work for them, that's as incredible as feeling it yourself.