Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1534Re: Failed to update Sub date

Expand Messages
  • ghfindlay
    Dec 11, 2013
      Let me provide an explanation for what you are seeing.

      After AQ finishes reserving the ordinances in FamilySearch, it then attempts to update your file with the new ordinance information.

      For individual ordinances such as Baptism and Endowment, there is never any question, so these are always updated.

      However, AQ will only update sealing ordinances when it is sure that it is updating the proper relationship.

      If you have first matched and linked the spouse or parents of a person to the corresponding records in Family Tree, and then you reserve a sealing ordinance between the person and his spouse or parents, then the sealing field in AQ will be updated as you expect, with "Sub DD MMM YYYY". However, if you reserve a sealing for a different spouse, or to different parents, AQ will not put erroneous sealing information into your file.

      Similarly, if you have not yet linked the spouse or parents, yet you reserve a sealing ordinance, AQ will not update your file, because it can't be sure of which relationship is being affected.

      Bottom line:

      If a sealing is reserved, and you have properly linked all parties to the relationship, then AQ will record the ordinance information in your file. If you have note properly linked all parties to the relationship, AQ will not record the ordinance information in your file.


      --- In AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com, Peter <peters_genealogy@...> wrote:
      > Hi,
      > just reserved several families for temple ordinances and noticed that all the Baptism and Endowment date fields are properly marked as "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
      > However all the reserved sealings have not been updated.  Right click on each reserved name and selecting the "Review with FamilySearch" option brings up the FT ordinances and all show "Reserved" as it supposed to do.
      > AQ however failed to update the sealing date fields with  "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
      > Anybody else see the same thing?
      >  Peter
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic