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

? on Reserving Ordinances

Expand Messages
  • PCDirector
    Thank you Gaylon for referring me to this group. Very new user to AQ. Created a bulletpoint checklist for uploading and syncing data from AQ to FT, but my
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you Gaylon for referring me to this group.

      Very new user to AQ. Created a bulletpoint checklist for uploading and
      syncing data from AQ to FT, but my Reserving Ordinances function seems to
      have frozen.

      Worked just fine the first batch of 50 people, but now when I go to reserve
      ordinances, all it brings up is the original 50, not the rest of the people
      in my database.

      Any ideas?

      TIA
      kathy


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Margaret Thompson
      A batch can only be 50 people. If you have more than 50 selected it will not print all of them. Once you print an FOR they will be removed from your reserve
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 29, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        A batch can only be 50 people. If you have more than 50 selected it will not
        print all of them. Once you print an FOR they will be removed from your
        reserve ordinances list and you can access them through manage batches.

        Margaret

        -----Original Message-----
        From: PCDirector
        Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 2:39 PM
        To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [AQ_NFS] ? on Reserving Ordinances

        Thank you Gaylon for referring me to this group.

        Very new user to AQ. Created a bulletpoint checklist for uploading and
        syncing data from AQ to FT, but my Reserving Ordinances function seems to
        have frozen.

        Worked just fine the first batch of 50 people, but now when I go to reserve
        ordinances, all it brings up is the original 50, not the rest of the people
        in my database.

        Any ideas?

        TIA
        kathy


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • PCDirector
        I understand what you are saying. My question was, why is it not showing me more than the original batch of 38 who were processed? Shouldn t it be showing me
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 29, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I understand what you are saying.

          My question was, why is it not showing me more than the original batch of
          38 who were processed? Shouldn't it be showing me all those who are
          qualified for work like it did with the first 38?

          kathy


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Margaret Thompson
          I have never seen the ORTS bring in names on its own. Advanced Focus/Filter will show you the qualified names for ordinances but you have to send them to
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 30, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            I have never seen the ORTS bring in names on its own. Advanced Focus/Filter
            will show you the qualified names for ordinances but you have to send them
            to ordinance reservation yourself. Sorry I don't know anything about it
            happening automatically.

            Margaret

            -----Original Message-----
            From: PCDirector
            Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:40 PM
            To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] ? on Reserving Ordinances

            I understand what you are saying.

            My question was, why is it not showing me more than the original batch of
            38 who were processed? Shouldn't it be showing me all those who are
            qualified for work like it did with the first 38?

            kathy


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • thomas_nevin_huber
            In addition, it is up to each member to make sure that the ordinance work hasn t been already performed because there are two or more instances of the same
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 30, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              In addition, it is up to each member to make sure that the ordinance
              work hasn't been already performed because there are two or more
              instances of the same name, marriage, and so on.

              In looking through the thread of this discussion, it appears that
              Kathy is expecting the names for which temple work has not been done
              to magically appear in the list. That won't happen, mainly because the
              member must request the work be performed, after making sure
              everything is correct.

              Many years ago, shortly after the Ancestral file was released, I heard
              a member of our Stake Presidency get up and talk about how wonderful
              it was that he could go through Ancestral File records and find those
              members of his family who could have work done for them.

              Unfortunately, he didn't bother checking to see if the work had
              already been done. He was depending upon the family files that were
              submitted to create the ancestral file as his _only_ source. He
              presumed that everything was ready.

              That's a huge mistake and one that no responsible member should ever
              make. Even if you trust the material in Family Tree, the fact remains
              that Family Tree records are _not_ primary or even secondary sources.
              At best, they can be used as guides to locating validating records,
              but they should never be trusted as a valid source of information
              until they have been fully and completely documented.

              We had a saying at the mission: Family History without documentation
              is fiction. The new Family Tree makes it easy to search for existing
              information in the Indexed records of FamilySearch and attach them to
              individual records, thus validating the information that is available.

              The first and foremost responsibility is to prove the record is
              correct and to document what you did to prove it. LDS have a
              reputation among the professional genealogical community of being very
              sloppy and that the records are not trustworthy unless they are
              properly documented.

              Tom

              On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:36:00 -0600, you wrote:

              >I have never seen the ORTS bring in names on its own. Advanced Focus/Filter
              >will show you the qualified names for ordinances but you have to send them
              >to ordinance reservation yourself. Sorry I don't know anything about it
              >happening automatically.
              >
              >Margaret
              >
              >-----Original Message-----
              >From: PCDirector
              >Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:40 PM
              >To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
              >Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] ? on Reserving Ordinances
              >
              >I understand what you are saying.
              >
              >My question was, why is it not showing me more than the original batch of
              >38 who were processed? Shouldn't it be showing me all those who are
              >qualified for work like it did with the first 38?
              >
              >kathy
              >
              >
              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >------------------------------------
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
            • PCDirector
              No. My situation was: When I went to reserve the initial group of people, AQ found 38 people who were qualified to have their work done. I reserved their
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 30, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                No. My situation was:

                When I went to reserve the initial group of people, AQ found 38 people who
                were "qualified" to have their work done. I reserved their work, printed
                out the FOR and sent it on its way.

                NOW, no matter what I try and do in ORTS, ALL it shows me are those
                original 38. I can't remove them, and I can't add to them.

                My question is: WHY was it that ORTS will not move past/delete/add to the
                list of the original 38?

                To add a new wrinkle to it, as of this morning, that batch of 38 is GONE
                from the Manage Batch system, and my Reserve Ordinance List (which by the
                way, has an auto-populate "qualified" feature, FYI) is COMPLETELY CLEAR.

                I haven't touched the ORTS since last week, and have done nothing different.

                This morning is a week to the day since I printed out the FOR.

                So my additional question now is: WHAT CHANGED? Or is there some kind of
                time-lock in AQ?

                Just saying. It's pretty odd.

                Kathy


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • thomas_nevin_huber
                Okay, now we have some more information that may be behind the problem. First, ORTS, in the batch mode should show the original batch, particularly if you kept
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 30, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Okay, now we have some more information that may be behind the
                  problem.

                  First, ORTS, in the batch mode should show the original batch,
                  particularly if you kept a copy of the FOR on your hard drive. Update
                  ordinances should check all linked AQ to FT records to see if any
                  ordinances have been performed. In addition, if you chose the options
                  to include Confirmation and Initiatory, Update Submitted to In
                  Progress and Create a list of updates, you should be able to generate
                  a list of changes made to your AQ file from actions in FT. Note,
                  however, that certain entries (Not needed is one of them, and
                  different dates for the ordinances) will not generate any entries in
                  the list. According to Gaylon, this is done to keep the Update
                  Ordinances running as fast as possible.

                  And, until all the ordinances are complete, the names will continue to
                  appear in the ORTS Manage Batches listing.

                  Keep in mind that ORTS does _not_ find names to be reserved.

                  It provides a list of names that you have already reserved in AQ.

                  The Reserve Ordinance displays the list of the names that you have
                  currently reserved, but not produced a FOR for. All reservations must
                  be made from the Family and Pedigree views in AQ, but _only_ if you
                  have selected "Show temple icons" from the ORTS menu.

                  The temple icons tells you if there are ordinances that can and need
                  to be done (an arrow), if all work to be done is in process (an
                  exclamation symbol), or if all work has been completed (a check mark).
                  The priority of the arrow, ! symbol, and check mark lets you know what
                  is happening with the individual and the ordinances.

                  I think that when AQ found the 38 people, it wasn't finding the people
                  who were "qualified," but those who you had reserved either through
                  new FamilySearch or Family Tree. If you haven't reserved any other
                  people through nFS (now no longer functioning) or FT, then AQ will not
                  "discover" the names.

                  As far as the Manage Batches function, I always run a reconciliation
                  to make sure the list is complete. Otherwise, a glitch in your data
                  can cause a batch to disappear.

                  Also, I would suggest that you run a Check/Repair on your data, just
                  to make sure that some action (closing out AQ with a power failure (or
                  crash), for instance during any kind of update operation) has not
                  corrupted your local file. It happens (unfortunately) and the results
                  can be unpredictable. If the corruption is bad enough, you can also
                  have AQ rebuild your database.

                  Finally, make sure that you are always runnig with the latest build in
                  AQ. Build 12 had problems that were resolved in build 13.

                  Thanks again for clarifying what you were doing.

                  Tom

                  On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:46:50 -0700, you wrote:

                  >No. My situation was:
                  >
                  >When I went to reserve the initial group of people, AQ found 38 people who
                  >were "qualified" to have their work done. I reserved their work, printed
                  >out the FOR and sent it on its way.
                  >
                  >NOW, no matter what I try and do in ORTS, ALL it shows me are those
                  >original 38. I can't remove them, and I can't add to them.
                  >
                  >My question is: WHY was it that ORTS will not move past/delete/add to the
                  >list of the original 38?
                  >
                  >To add a new wrinkle to it, as of this morning, that batch of 38 is GONE
                  >from the Manage Batch system, and my Reserve Ordinance List (which by the
                  >way, has an auto-populate "qualified" feature, FYI) is COMPLETELY CLEAR.
                  >
                  >I haven't touched the ORTS since last week, and have done nothing different.
                  >
                  >This morning is a week to the day since I printed out the FOR.
                  >
                  >So my additional question now is: WHAT CHANGED? Or is there some kind of
                  >time-lock in AQ?
                  >
                  >Just saying. It's pretty odd.
                  >
                  >Kathy
                  >
                  >
                  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • thomas_nevin_huber
                  I have never used the auto populate feature, mostly because I want to make sure that my records are as complete as I can make them before I do any temple work.
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 31, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I have never used the auto populate feature, mostly because I want to
                    make sure that my records are as complete as I can make them before I
                    do any temple work. Because I compare my AQ record against that of FT,
                    I can make sure that FT is also accurate and that the record in FT
                    matches that in my AQ file.

                    Now that I've played around with the find qualified names, my thoughts
                    are that until you make changes in AQ to records that do not have
                    enough information to match with a FT record, you will not see any
                    more "qualified" ordinances.

                    Personally, I would just as soon see that autofind feature go away,
                    since it many LDS do not understand the importance of validated and
                    accurate (and complete) records. The Lord's instructions in verse 24
                    of section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants emphasizes the importance
                    of making your record the best it can be: "Let us, therefore, as a
                    church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an
                    offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when
                    it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall
                    be worthy of all acceptation."


                    On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:46:50 -0700, you wrote:

                    >To add a new wrinkle to it, as of this morning, that batch of 38 is GONE
                    >from the Manage Batch system, and my Reserve Ordinance List (which by the
                    >way, has an auto-populate "qualified" feature, FYI) is COMPLETELY CLEAR.
                  • thomas_nevin_huber
                    Another thought just struck me. We have been instructed _not_ to do any work for people who we have no ancestral relationship. The Church has been very adamant
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 31, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Another thought just struck me. We have been instructed _not_ to do
                      any work for people who we have no ancestral relationship. The Church
                      has been very adamant about this and has gone so far as to warn
                      members that if they perform work for those people with whom they have
                      no relationship, they can have their abilities severely curtailed.

                      My wife and I served in the Family and Church History mission. I was
                      in the training zone and all new missionaries were instructed to bring
                      in a copy of their family history data file (GEDCOM, .paf, or any of
                      those programs that support personal files). We found _without_
                      exception that every person coming into the mission, including those
                      who were professionals and even published books on the subject, had
                      problems in their data file.

                      These problems including unrelated pedigrees/names, as well as
                      duplicates and circular connections (a son was his own grandfather,
                      for instance).

                      It is very important for each person to make their own AQ file as
                      clean as possible. Fortunately, there are several reports, as well as
                      the Name List, that can assist in identifying and fixing the problems.

                      By using the autofind feature in ORTS, a person runs the risk of
                      submitting names for which they are _not_ authorized by the Church to
                      perform temple work. It is very important that every person that
                      anyone submits with a FOR make sure that they have a valid
                      relationship established with that person.

                      At one time, I submitted work for the parents of spouses of people
                      with whom I had a valid relationship. I was wrong in doing so. I could
                      have the work done only for the spouse or otherwise legally connected
                      non-relative, but not their parents with whom I have no family ties. I
                      need to follow up since I've run into a number of instances where the
                      unrelated (other than through marriage) spouse had more than one wife
                      -- and also check to see if I'm responsible for the half-brothers and
                      sisters to my family. (Note: I have submitted a request for this
                      information to FamilySearch.)
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.