Temple work

[russellhltn]

I think there were too many technical issues.

I think the underlying issue is that back then the church recorded the "by whom" for all work, including temple work. The mag stripe system was a way to automate that. Once that requirement was eliminated, the need for the equipment disappeared. That happened the same time the "by whom" was dropped from the membership records.

I also suspect that the mag stripe was coming due for a technology refresh. This was still pre-IBM PC days, so the stuff was expensive.

[swieland]

Does anyone know where it suggests that an individual's temple file should be kept at a reasonable number - rather than amassing hundreds of names in your file?
Thanks,
Sherrie

[davesudweeks]

Some reasons are listed in a FamilySearch article here (login with your FamilySearch account may be required to view): https://www.familysearch.org/help/sales ... 65&lang=en

On thing it mentions is a technical limitation in the FamilySearch software if your temple file becomes too large.

[russellhltn]

I'm not sure as size matters as much as getting it done in a timely manner. They will lose names if they're in there too long.

[davesudweeks]

I'm not sure as size matters as much as getting it done in a timely manner. They will lose names if they're in there too long.

The FS article indicates the application fails with 800 names in the temple file list. I cannot imagine how anyone will have that many, but...

[drepouille]

I did a quick check a few months ago, and the highest number of reserved family file names I could find in my ward was 287.