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

Completed

Expand Messages
  • Leslie Vaughn
    I have read in the past on this list that in nFS the word completed in the LDS ordinance fields is because someone uploaded a gedcom file that had
    Message 1 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I have read in the past on this list that in nFS the word completed in the LDS ordinance fields is because someone uploaded a gedcom file that had something/anything in that field. As the system only recognizes official LDS ordinances from the IGI or membership records, whatever was on the gedcom file does not import and instead "completed" is put in that field. I assume that this is also the case when something was imported to nFS from the PRF or AF with something/anything in the fields.

      Now my problem, I have a family that shows on nFS and some of the family members show LDS ordinance dates, but the father says completed in his dates. I have checked for a duplicate father and there is none. I checked the IIGI and he is not listed. So someone must have input his name with a date that nFS doesn't recognize.

      I have contacted the help folks thru the feedback forum and I have been told that nothing can be done about this. I am not quite sure the folks who responded to me understood as the answers that I got were not quite on the mark.

      Is there a work around or is this poor man going to go through the eternities without his work being done? The only thing that I can think of is to have someone else in a non-nFS temple district do his work using temple ready. The problem is I don't know anyone in a non-nFS temple district who is related to this poor "completed" father.


      Leslie Vaughn

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dmerrill1967
      Leslie We re in a non-nFS district and would be glad to do the work for him. Please reply offline to dmerrill@infowest.com As I understand nFS you could enter
      Message 2 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Leslie

        We're in a non-nFS district and would be glad to do the work for him.
        Please reply offline to dmerrill@...

        As I understand nFS you could enter him as a new person, ignore the
        combining and submit him from there, then combine after the work is
        done. (A word-around)

        Dave

        > Is there a work around or is this poor man going to go through the
        eternities without his work being done? The only thing that I can
        think of is to have someone else in a non-nFS temple district do his
        work using temple ready. The problem is I don't know anyone in a non-
        nFS temple district who is related to this poor "completed" father.
        >
        > Leslie Vaughn
      • Sue Maxwell
        Leslie, have you viewed the information from the Family Group Sheet view? You can see the detail of completed there. You may find what you need there. SueM
        Message 3 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Leslie, have you viewed the information from the "Family Group Sheet"
          view? You can see the detail of "completed" there. You may find what you
          need there.

          SueM

          Leslie Vaughn wrote:
          >
          > ...
          >
          > Is there a work around or is this poor man going to go through the
          > eternities without his work being done? The only thing that I can
          > think of is to have someone else in a non-nFS temple district do his
          > work using temple ready. The problem is I don't know anyone in a
          > non-nFS temple district who is related to this poor "completed" father.
          >
          > Leslie Vaughn
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Sue Barnsley
          Leslie, Check with your temple first and ask the recorder to check the master database and see if this person appears there as having his work done with dates
          Message 4 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Leslie,

            Check with your temple first and ask the recorder to check the master database and see if this person appears there as having his work done with dates

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Leslie Vaughn
            To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:32 AM
            Subject: [FHCNET] Completed


            I have read in the past on this list that in nFS the word completed in the LDS ordinance fields is because someone uploaded a gedcom file that had something/anything in that field. As the system only recognizes official LDS ordinances from the IGI or membership records, whatever was on the gedcom file does not import and instead "completed" is put in that field. I assume that this is also the case when something was imported to nFS from the PRF or AF with something/anything in the fields.

            Now my problem, I have a family that shows on nFS and some of the family members show LDS ordinance dates, but the father says completed in his dates. I have checked for a duplicate father and there is none. I checked the IIGI and he is not listed. So someone must have input his name with a date that nFS doesn't recognize.

            I have contacted the help folks thru the feedback forum and I have been told that nothing can be done about this. I am not quite sure the folks who responded to me understood as the answers that I got were not quite on the mark.

            Is there a work around or is this poor man going to go through the eternities without his work being done? The only thing that I can think of is to have someone else in a non-nFS temple district do his work using temple ready. The problem is I don't know anyone in a non-nFS temple district who is related to this poor "completed" father.

            Leslie Vaughn

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





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Leslie Vaughn
            Thank you for the suggestion. The family group sheet view shows blank space under the ordinance dates. Blank dates show in this view unless there is an actual
            Message 5 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you for the suggestion.

              The family group sheet view shows blank space under the ordinance dates. Blank dates show in this view unless there is an actual date, even if in the individual temple ordinance screen "ready" "completed" "in progress" or "reserved" are in the field, so using this view only helps if there is an actual date complete

              Leslie




              From: Sue Maxwell
              Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 11:53 AM
              To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Completed


              Leslie, have you viewed the information from the "Family Group Sheet"
              view? You can see the detail of "completed" there. You may find what you
              need there.

              SueM

              Leslie Vaughn wrote:
              >
              > ...
              >
              > Is there a work around or is this poor man going to go through the
              > eternities without his work being done? The only thing that I can
              > think of is to have someone else in a non-nFS temple district do his
              > work using temple ready. The problem is I don't know anyone in a
              > non-nFS temple district who is related to this poor "completed" father.
              >
              > Leslie Vaughn
              >
              >

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





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Linda Stowe Miller
              Contact new FamilySearch Support, either using the feedback feature or by phone, to ask them to look into this more fully and advise you how to proceed. This
              Message 6 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Contact new FamilySearch Support, either using the feedback feature or by phone, to ask them to look into this more fully and advise you how to proceed.

                This would be better than a work-around.

                Linda Miller
                Vermont


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Leslie Vaughn
                To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 10:32 AM
                Subject: [FHCNET] Completed


                I have read in the past on this list that in nFS the word completed in the LDS ordinance fields is because someone uploaded a gedcom file that had something/anything in that field. As the system only recognizes official LDS ordinances from the IGI or membership records, whatever was on the gedcom file does not import and instead "completed" is put in that field. I assume that this is also the case when something was imported to nFS from the PRF or AF with something/anything in the fields.

                Now my problem, I have a family that shows on nFS and some of the family members show LDS ordinance dates, but the father says completed in his dates. I have checked for a duplicate father and there is none. I checked the IIGI and he is not listed. So someone must have input his name with a date that nFS doesn't recognize.

                I have contacted the help folks thru the feedback forum and I have been told that nothing can be done about this. I am not quite sure the folks who responded to me understood as the answers that I got were not quite on the mark.

                Is there a work around or is this poor man going to go through the eternities without his work being done? The only thing that I can think of is to have someone else in a non-nFS temple district do his work using temple ready. The problem is I don't know anyone in a non-nFS temple district who is related to this poor "completed" father.

                Leslie Vaughn

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





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ileen Johnson
                ... Leslie, Call FamilySearch Support (1-866-406-1830) again and tell them you don t think the missionary who took your call understood the problem. They can
                Message 7 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, "Leslie Vaughn" <Leslievaughn@...> wrote:

                  Leslie,

                  Call FamilySearch Support (1-866-406-1830) again and tell them you
                  don't think the missionary who took your call understood the problem.
                  They can pull up your case and transfer you up-line to someone who
                  can help you. Be patient with the Area Support Missionaries (some of
                  us are just learning), but persistent. Stay with them or keep calling
                  back until you get to someone who can solve the problem. :)

                  Ileen

                  >
                  > I have contacted the help folks thru the feedback forum and I have
                  been told that nothing can be done about this. I am not quite sure the
                  folks who responded to me understood as the answers that I got were
                  not quite on the mark.
                  >
                • Ileen Johnson
                  ... been told that nothing can be done about this. I am not quite sure the folks who responded to me understood as the answers that I got were not quite on the
                  Message 8 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, "Leslie Vaughn" <Leslievaughn@...> wrote:

                    > I have contacted the help folks thru the feedback forum and I have
                    been told that nothing can be done about this. I am not quite sure the
                    folks who responded to me understood as the answers that I got were
                    not quite on the mark.
                    >

                    By typing "Resolving Problems with Ordinance Dates" into the Help
                    Center Search field, you will find a document that answers your
                    problem. It basically tells you to give feedback. At least the
                    problem has been reported.

                    Ileen
                  • gturn55
                    ... in the LDS ordinance fields is because someone uploaded a gedcom file that had something/anything in that field. As the system only recognizes official
                    Message 9 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, "Leslie Vaughn" <Leslievaughn@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > I have read in the past on this list that in nFS the word completed
                      in the LDS ordinance fields is because someone uploaded a gedcom file
                      that had something/anything in that field. As the system only
                      recognizes official LDS ordinances from the IGI or membership
                      records, whatever was on the gedcom file does not import and
                      instead "completed" is put in that field. I assume that this is also
                      the case when something was imported to nFS from the PRF or AF with
                      something/anything in the fields.
                      >
                      > Now my problem, I have a family that shows on nFS and some of the
                      family members show LDS ordinance dates, but the father says
                      completed in his dates. I have checked for a duplicate father and
                      there is none. I checked the IIGI and he is not listed. So someone
                      must have input his name with a date that nFS doesn't recognize.
                      >
                      > I have contacted the help folks thru the feedback forum and I have
                      been told that nothing can be done about this. I am not quite sure
                      the folks who responded to me understood as the answers that I got
                      were not quite on the mark.
                      >
                      > Is there a work around or is this poor man going to go through the
                      eternities without his work being done? The only thing that I can
                      think of is to have someone else in a non-nFS temple district do his
                      work using temple ready. The problem is I don't know anyone in a non-
                      nFS temple district who is related to this poor "completed" father.
                      >
                      >
                      > Leslie Vaughn
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      Have you looked in "Combined Records", in there you can see all of
                      the submissions and if none are from the Temple you will know that
                      the actual Temple Ordinances are not in the folder. If you can find
                      the submission that contains the bad data you could uncombine that
                      submission then clear the name. That will be hard to do without
                      experimenting because those dates do not show in the Combined Records
                      screen. You could try Ancestral File or Pedigree Resource File
                      submissions, they are most likely to contain ordinance dates. You
                      can always recombine the records after you uncombine them.
                    • Leslie Vaughn
                      There were some combined records and I did as you suggested. Most of the records in the folder were from the temple file from when his children were sealed to
                      Message 10 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        There were some combined records and I did as you suggested. Most of the records in the folder were from the temple file from when his children were sealed to him and his wife. So I uncombined the one record that was submitted by an individual and it worked. It did show that it was ready. So I reserved the names to be done. My big concern is that someone will combine the records before I can get the FOR to the temple and the work done.

                        Thanks for the suggestion.

                        Leslie


                        From: gturn55
                        Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 10:10 PM
                        To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [FHCNET] Re: Completed



                        > Leslie Vaughn
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        Have you looked in "Combined Records", in there you can see all of
                        the submissions and if none are from the Temple you will know that
                        the actual Temple Ordinances are not in the folder. If you can find
                        the submission that contains the bad data you could uncombine that
                        submission then clear the name. That will be hard to do without
                        experimenting because those dates do not show in the Combined Records
                        screen. You could try Ancestral File or Pedigree Resource File
                        submissions, they are most likely to contain ordinance dates. You
                        can always recombine the records after you uncombine them.





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Sue Maxwell
                        Leslie, if you select the ready ordinance and tell nFS that you want to do it, nFS will lock it up for you. If you have already printed the FOR then no one
                        Message 11 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Leslie, if you select the "ready" ordinance and tell nFS that you want
                          to do it, nFS will lock it up for you. If you have already printed the
                          FOR then no one else can select that ordinance to be done.

                          SueM

                          Leslie Vaughn wrote:
                          >
                          > There were some combined records and I did as you suggested. Most of
                          > the records in the folder were from the temple file from when his
                          > children were sealed to him and his wife. So I uncombined the one
                          > record that was submitted by an individual and it worked. It did show
                          > that it was ready. So I reserved the names to be done. My big concern
                          > is that someone will combine the records before I can get the FOR to
                          > the temple and the work done.
                          >
                          > Thanks for the suggestion.
                          >
                          > Leslie
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Sue Maxwell
                          Leslie, if you select the ready ordinance and tell nFS that you want to do it, nFS will lock it up for you. If you have already printed the FOR then no one
                          Message 12 of 24 , Apr 6, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Leslie, if you select the "ready" ordinance and tell nFS that you want
                            to do it, nFS will lock it up for you. If you have already printed the
                            FOR then no one else can select that ordinance to be done. This isn't
                            like the old TempleReady where you had to race your floppy to the
                            temple. I'm glad you found the way to resolve it.

                            SueM

                            Leslie Vaughn wrote:
                            >
                            > There were some combined records and I did as you suggested. Most of
                            > the records in the folder were from the temple file from when his
                            > children were sealed to him and his wife. So I uncombined the one
                            > record that was submitted by an individual and it worked. It did show
                            > that it was ready. So I reserved the names to be done. My big concern
                            > is that someone will combine the records before I can get the FOR to
                            > the temple and the work done.
                            >
                            > Thanks for the suggestion.
                            >
                            > Leslie
                            >
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Leslie Vaughn
                            Thanks From: Sue Maxwell Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 12:01 AM To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: Completed Leslie, if you select the ready
                            Message 13 of 24 , Apr 7, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks


                              From: Sue Maxwell
                              Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 12:01 AM
                              To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: Completed


                              Leslie, if you select the "ready" ordinance and tell nFS that you want
                              to do it, nFS will lock it up for you. If you have already printed the
                              FOR then no one else can select that ordinance to be done.

                              SueM

                              Leslie Vaughn wrote:
                              >
                              > There were some combined records and I did as you suggested. Most of
                              > the records in the folder were from the temple file from when his
                              > children were sealed to him and his wife. So I uncombined the one
                              > record that was submitted by an individual and it worked. It did show
                              > that it was ready. So I reserved the names to be done. My big concern
                              > is that someone will combine the records before I can get the FOR to
                              > the temple and the work done.
                              >
                              > Thanks for the suggestion.
                              >
                              > Leslie
                              >
                              >

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





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Terri J.
                              This may not be entirely correct. At least. it is possible that someone can combine the records AFTER a FOR has been printed because I think we have done that
                              Message 14 of 24 , Apr 7, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                This may not be entirely correct. At least. it is possible that someone can
                                combine the records AFTER a FOR has been printed because I think we have
                                done that to ourselves. At least, we had some names cleared and they were no
                                longer available after we found that they had been done after all and had
                                combined them with the completed work. Make sense? It was and is very
                                confusing to us as well!

                                -Terri J.

                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com]
                                > On Behalf Of Leslie Vaughn
                                > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 8:46 AM
                                > To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: Completed
                                >
                                > Thanks
                                >
                                >
                                > From: Sue Maxwell
                                > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 12:01 AM
                                > To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: Completed
                                >
                                >
                                > Leslie, if you select the "ready" ordinance and tell nFS that
                                > you want to do it, nFS will lock it up for you. If you have
                                > already printed the FOR then no one else can select that
                                > ordinance to be done.
                                >
                                > SueM
                                >
                                > Leslie Vaughn wrote:
                                > >
                                > > There were some combined records and I did as you
                                > suggested. Most of
                                > > the records in the folder were from the temple file from when his
                                > > children were sealed to him and his wife. So I uncombined the one
                                > > record that was submitted by an individual and it worked.
                                > It did show
                                > > that it was ready. So I reserved the names to be done. My
                                > big concern
                                > > is that someone will combine the records before I can get
                                > the FOR to
                                > > the temple and the work done.
                                > >
                                > > Thanks for the suggestion.
                                > >
                                > > Leslie

                                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                Checked by AVG.
                                Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 4/6/2008
                                11:12 AM
                              • Sue Maxwell
                                But the point is, if they do combine the record then the completed notation reappears. But once the FOR is printed the work can still be done. SueM
                                Message 15 of 24 , Apr 7, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  But the point is, if they do combine the record then the "completed"
                                  notation reappears. But once the FOR is printed the work can still be done.

                                  SueM

                                  Terri J. wrote:
                                  > This may not be entirely correct. At least. it is possible that someone can
                                  > combine the records AFTER a FOR has been printed because I think we have
                                  > done that to ourselves. At least, we had some names cleared and they were no
                                  > longer available after we found that they had been done after all and had
                                  > combined them with the completed work. Make sense? It was and is very
                                  > confusing to us as well!
                                  >
                                  > -Terri J.
                                  >
                                • Terri Jaskolka
                                  This I can t swear to as we didn t take the form to the temple to attempt to have cards printed out. But as the FOR was no longer available online to be
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Apr 7, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    This I can't swear to as we didn't take the form to the temple to attempt to
                                    have cards printed out. But as the FOR was no longer available online to be
                                    printed out, we wondered if that meant the information would no longer be
                                    available on the temple end either. As I said, a bit confusing.

                                    -Terri J.

                                    On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Sue Maxwell <smaxwl@...> wrote:

                                    > But the point is, if they do combine the record then the "completed"
                                    > notation reappears. But once the FOR is printed the work can still be
                                    > done.
                                    >
                                    > SueM
                                    >
                                    > Terri J. wrote:
                                    > > This may not be entirely correct. At least. it is possible that someone
                                    > can
                                    > > combine the records AFTER a FOR has been printed because I think we have
                                    > > done that to ourselves. At least, we had some names cleared and they
                                    > were no
                                    > > longer available after we found that they had been done after all and
                                    > had
                                    > > combined them with the completed work. Make sense? It was and is very
                                    > > confusing to us as well!
                                    > >
                                    > > -Terri J.
                                    >


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Russell Hltn
                                    ... Are you positive about that? The FOR is not the last step. The barcode doesn t contain everything. The temple still has to look at the database to print
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Apr 7, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Sue Maxwell <smaxwl@...> wrote:
                                      > But once the FOR is printed the work can still be done.

                                      Are you positive about that? The FOR is not the last step. The
                                      barcode doesn't contain everything. The temple still has to look at
                                      the database to print the cards. If it finds it's already done, it
                                      may refuse to print the cards.
                                    • Sue Maxwell
                                      This discussion was over a week ago, but, I thought that I would follow through with what I found out. I spoke with one of the programmers of nFS and he said
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Apr 19, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        This discussion was over a week ago, but, I thought that I would follow
                                        through with what I found out. I spoke with one of the programmers of
                                        nFS and he said that it works this way. Once the FOR has been printed,
                                        nFS has the ordinances "locked up". The temple does not check files or
                                        cards, they only print what the FOR has locked up.

                                        In the past, once you ran TempleReady, you could simply not take the
                                        disk to the temple. So, nothing actually went into the system until the
                                        temple ran your disk. With nFS, the FOR is the final step before the
                                        printing of cards. You have already told nFS that the ordinances are
                                        going to be done by you. That barcode just references the file that is
                                        already in the system.

                                        SueM


                                        Russell Hltn wrote:
                                        >
                                        > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Sue Maxwell <smaxwl@...
                                        > <mailto:smaxwl%40earthlink.net>> wrote:
                                        > > But once the FOR is printed the work can still be done.
                                        >
                                        > Are you positive about that? The FOR is not the last step. The
                                        > barcode doesn't contain everything. The temple still has to look at
                                        > the database to print the cards. If it finds it's already done, it
                                        > may refuse to print the cards.
                                        >
                                        > _
                                        >
                                        >


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • James W Anderson
                                        There are two things that happen. 1. When you reserve a name, it says Reserved in the ordinance completion status summary for that name or in the other
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Apr 19, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          There are two things that happen.

                                          1. When you reserve a name, it says 'Reserved' in the
                                          ordinance completion status summary for that name or
                                          in the other places where it may show ordinance
                                          status.

                                          2. When you actually print the FoR, the status
                                          changes to 'In progress'. That shows until an
                                          ordinance is done and a date is entered into the
                                          system by the temple.

                                          One other matter that has come up. I cleared some the
                                          other night that were done in 1991 but at that time
                                          they had not found the marriage date to do the
                                          sealing. They have a year now but not an actual date.
                                          Now I found I could do the sealings and when the
                                          cards printed out I saw a date for baptism and
                                          endowment, but it showed 'Completed' for confirmation
                                          and initiatory. I thought that a temple-provided date
                                          would override 'completed' at some point. Have I
                                          found a tarantula sized system bug?

                                          --- Sue Maxwell <smaxwl@...> wrote:

                                          > This discussion was over a week ago, but, I thought
                                          > that I would follow
                                          > through with what I found out. I spoke with one of
                                          > the programmers of
                                          > nFS and he said that it works this way. Once the FOR
                                          > has been printed,
                                          > nFS has the ordinances "locked up". The temple does
                                          > not check files or
                                          > cards, they only print what the FOR has locked up.
                                          >
                                          > In the past, once you ran TempleReady, you could
                                          > simply not take the
                                          > disk to the temple. So, nothing actually went into
                                          > the system until the
                                          > temple ran your disk. With nFS, the FOR is the final
                                          > step before the
                                          > printing of cards. You have already told nFS that
                                          > the ordinances are
                                          > going to be done by you. That barcode just
                                          > references the file that is
                                          > already in the system.
                                          >
                                          > SueM
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Russell Hltn wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Sue Maxwell
                                          > <smaxwl@...
                                          > > <mailto:smaxwl%40earthlink.net>> wrote:
                                          > > > But once the FOR is printed the work can still
                                          > be done.
                                          > >
                                          > > Are you positive about that? The FOR is not the
                                          > last step. The
                                          > > barcode doesn't contain everything. The temple
                                          > still has to look at
                                          > > the database to print the cards. If it finds it's
                                          > already done, it
                                          > > may refuse to print the cards.
                                          > >
                                          > > _
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                                          > removed]
                                          >
                                          >



                                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                          Be a better friend, newshound, and
                                          know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                                        • Sue Maxwell
                                          Change your view to family group sheet and look at the detail. You will find the detail of each ordinance listed there and usually the dates will show. ...
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Apr 19, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Change your view to "family group sheet" and look at the detail. You
                                            will find the detail of each ordinance listed there and usually the
                                            dates will show.

                                            James W Anderson wrote:
                                            >
                                            > There are two things that happen.
                                            >
                                            > 1. When you reserve a name, it says 'Reserved' in the
                                            > ordinance completion status summary for that name or
                                            > in the other places where it may show ordinance
                                            > status.
                                            >
                                            > 2. When you actually print the FoR, the status
                                            > changes to 'In progress'. That shows until an
                                            > ordinance is done and a date is entered into the
                                            > system by the temple.
                                            >
                                            > One other matter that has come up. I cleared some the
                                            > other night that were done in 1991 but at that time
                                            > they had not found the marriage date to do the
                                            > sealing. They have a year now but not an actual date.
                                            > Now I found I could do the sealings and when the
                                            > cards printed out I saw a date for baptism and
                                            > endowment, but it showed 'Completed' for confirmation
                                            > and initiatory. I thought that a temple-provided date
                                            > would override 'completed' at some point. Have I
                                            > found a tarantula sized system bug?
                                            >
                                            > .
                                            >
                                            >


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Leslie Vaughn
                                            I have seen completed in the initiatory and the confirmation date fields but the baptism, endowment and sealing dates are there. I know that the endowment
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Apr 19, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I have seen "completed" in the initiatory and the confirmation date fields but the baptism, endowment and sealing dates are there. I know that the endowment could not have been done without the prior two ordinances, so I am not very concerned. I have experienced several times that the computer system didn't catch the information off the cards and some ordinances that I know were done say ready. I fish through all my ordinance cards that I have processed over the past 8 years and take the card with the stamped date in the missing field to the temple and they input the date. In the case of the "completed" initiatory and confirmation dates, I know that in the old IGI not every date got transferred over when everything became computerized, I suspect that this is the situation here.

                                              As confirmation and initiatory dates have never shown up on the IGI or the IIGI we have never before worried about it. I worry when I see completed with no date and there is NOTHING on the IGI for that person. That leads me to believe that "completed" got input when an uploaded file from the AF or PRF had something in the ordinance field but the system couldn't match it.

                                              Leslie


                                              From: James W Anderson
                                              Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:36 PM
                                              To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: Completed


                                              There are two things that happen.

                                              1. When you reserve a name, it says 'Reserved' in the
                                              ordinance completion status summary for that name or
                                              in the other places where it may show ordinance
                                              status.

                                              2. When you actually print the FoR, the status
                                              changes to 'In progress'. That shows until an
                                              ordinance is done and a date is entered into the
                                              system by the temple.

                                              One other matter that has come up. I cleared some the
                                              other night that were done in 1991 but at that time
                                              they had not found the marriage date to do the
                                              sealing. They have a year now but not an actual date.
                                              Now I found I could do the sealings and when the
                                              cards printed out I saw a date for baptism and
                                              endowment, but it showed 'Completed' for confirmation
                                              and initiatory. I thought that a temple-provided date
                                              would override 'completed' at some point. Have I
                                              found a tarantula sized system bug?

                                              --- Sue Maxwell <smaxwl@...> wrote:

                                              > This discussion was over a week ago, but, I thought
                                              > that I would follow
                                              > through with what I found out. I spoke with one of
                                              > the programmers of
                                              > nFS and he said that it works this way. Once the FOR
                                              > has been printed,
                                              > nFS has the ordinances "locked up". The temple does
                                              > not check files or
                                              > cards, they only print what the FOR has locked up.
                                              >
                                              > In the past, once you ran TempleReady, you could
                                              > simply not take the
                                              > disk to the temple. So, nothing actually went into
                                              > the system until the
                                              > temple ran your disk. With nFS, the FOR is the final
                                              > step before the
                                              > printing of cards. You have already told nFS that
                                              > the ordinances are
                                              > going to be done by you. That barcode just
                                              > references the file that is
                                              > already in the system.
                                              >
                                              > SueM
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Russell Hltn wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Sue Maxwell
                                              > <smaxwl@...
                                              > > <mailto:smaxwl%40earthlink.net>> wrote:
                                              > > > But once the FOR is printed the work can still
                                              > be done.
                                              > >
                                              > > Are you positive about that? The FOR is not the
                                              > last step. The
                                              > > barcode doesn't contain everything. The temple
                                              > still has to look at
                                              > > the database to print the cards. If it finds it's
                                              > already done, it
                                              > > may refuse to print the cards.
                                              > >
                                              > > _
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                                              > removed]
                                              >
                                              >

                                              __________________________________________________________
                                              Be a better friend, newshound, and
                                              know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ




                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • daniel2501au
                                              ... No, you haven t found a massive bug. The date of Confirmation and Initiatory are not necessary to be recorded to ensure that the saving ordinances are
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Apr 19, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, James W Anderson <genealogy248@...> wrote:
                                                > One other matter that has come up. I cleared some the
                                                > other night that were done in 1991 but at that time
                                                > they had not found the marriage date to do the
                                                > sealing. They have a year now but not an actual date.
                                                > Now I found I could do the sealings and when the
                                                > cards printed out I saw a date for baptism and
                                                > endowment, but it showed 'Completed' for confirmation
                                                > and initiatory. I thought that a temple-provided date
                                                > would override 'completed' at some point. Have I
                                                > found a tarantula sized system bug?

                                                No, you haven't found a massive bug. The date of Confirmation and
                                                Initiatory are not necessary to be recorded to ensure that the saving
                                                ordinances are complete. They still need to be done correctly, along
                                                with the priesthood ordination for deceased brethren which isn't
                                                recorded at all. The only ordinance dates that are recorded are
                                                Baptism, Endowment, Sealing to Parents, and Sealing to Spouse, and
                                                that's all that is necessary.
                                              • Sue Barnsley
                                                But what happens if it does come from the PRF and you put Submitted in that field, will it read it as being Done. If you put the word DONE in PAF it shows as
                                                Message 23 of 24 , May 19, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  But what happens if it does come from the PRF and you put Submitted in that field, will it read it as being Done.

                                                  If you put the word DONE in PAF it shows as the ordinances being completed without dates.

                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  From: Joseph
                                                  To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 4:36 PM
                                                  Subject: [FHCNET] Completed


                                                  I'm still looking for a better knowledge document that I have seen.
                                                  It's my understanding that the ordinance date appears only if the date
                                                  is from an official temple record (IGI). If it is from Pedigree
                                                  Resource File or unofficial source, the word "completed" is put instead
                                                  of the temple date, even if the temple date was there. I'll keep
                                                  looking for good official KDs.

                                                  Here's one in the meantime:
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                  *Completed

                                                  *
                                                  *An ordinance status that indicates that the ordinance has been
                                                  performed. If an ordinance is completed, the date when the ordinance
                                                  occurred and the temple
                                                  or place where it occurred may also appear.*
                                                  > _
                                                  > ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                  > _,_._,___

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





                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Joseph
                                                  Sue, this is the best I could find so far--hope it helps some: *Document ID: 102824* *new FamilySearch: Ordinances are showing only as Completed * *Problem*
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , May 19, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Sue, this is the best I could find so far--hope it helps some:

                                                    *Document ID: 102824*

                                                    *new FamilySearch: Ordinances are showing only as "Completed"*

                                                    *Problem*



                                                    **

                                                    The ordinances show as "Completed" but have no other information.
                                                    How can I find out when and where the ordinances were performed?

                                                    *Resolution*



                                                    **

                                                    If the ordinances show as "Completed," then the new FamilySearch does
                                                    not have any other information, just that the ordinances have already
                                                    been performed.



                                                    You may want to try one more thing: Look through the combined records of
                                                    an individual to see if there are any records from either Ancestral File
                                                    or Pedigree Resource File. If there are, uncombine these records, and
                                                    then check to see if the ordinances can be performed.



                                                    Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File records that show temple
                                                    ordinances as "Completed" also show as "Completed" in the new
                                                    FamilySearch. This is to prevent ordinances from being duplicated.



                                                    Sue Barnsley wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > But what happens if it does come from the PRF and you put Submitted in
                                                    > that field, will it read it as being Done.
                                                    >
                                                    > If you put the word DONE in PAF it shows as the ordinances being
                                                    > completed without dates.
                                                    >


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.