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

Re: [FHCNET] Missing ordinances on extraction generated submission.

Expand Messages
  • Sue Barnsley
    James, There are many records like that in the system. Some dating back as far as 1995 where only the baptism/confirmation has been completed. The majority of
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 18, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      James,

      There are many records like that in the system. Some dating back as far as 1995 where only the baptism/confirmation has been completed. The majority of it is extracted work. Not sure how the current system is going to handle those.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: James W Anderson <genealogy248@...>
      Date: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:00 pm
      Subject: [FHCNET] Missing ordinances on extraction generated submission.
      To: fhcnet@yahoogroups.com

      > I've got a problem trying to resolve an issue regarding a name
      > me and another consultant found and connected to a tree that has
      > the baptism and confirmation dates, but show the rest of the
      > ordinances as 'in progress' four years later.
      >
      > No record is found even in the old IGI of this name. No
      > other records exist save for the one record for this person even
      > in nFS for the individual, and there are no combined
      > records.
      >
      > There is however an extraction batch number, C-005296, found in
      > the notes, which is how it got to the Boston Temple and had the
      > first ordinances performed, and I would assume the rest also,
      > but no way exists right now of telling for sure whether it was
      > there or elsewhere, or whether the rest of the ordinances even
      > got done.
      >
      > Here's my other consultant's individual.
      >
      > Harry H. Bozearth
      > b. 1882
      > PID M5MX-7XK
      >
      > The problem is Support thinks (twice now) that this was
      > submitted by a member, and did not see the extraction
      > record. It's from a birth/christening record of some sort.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      Sue


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ileen Johnson
      James, I searched for Harry H. Bozearth b. 1882, date range 5 years, United States, New Jersey and found him. Then I noticed I had not logged in to see the
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 18, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        James,

        I searched for Harry H. Bozearth b. 1882, date range 5 years, United
        States, New Jersey and found him. Then I noticed I had not logged in
        to see the ordinance dates, so I signed in and searched again. Could
        not find him using the same parameters as above. When I searched
        without loggin in, the source showed C005296 Type: film, no Source
        Number. Interesting. . . .

        --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, James W Anderson <genealogy248@...> wrote:
        >
        > I've got a problem trying to resolve an issue regarding a name me
        and another consultant found and connected to a tree that has the
        baptism and confirmation dates, but show the rest of the ordinances as
        'in progress' four years later.
        >
        > No record is found even in the old IGI of this name. No other
        records exist save for the one record for this person even in nFS for
        the individual, and there are no combined records.
        >
        > There is however an extraction batch number, C-005296, found in the
        notes, which is how it got to the Boston Temple and had the first
        ordinances performed, and I would assume the rest also, but no way
        exists right now of telling for sure whether it was there or
        elsewhere, or whether the rest of the ordinances even got done.
        >
        > Here's my other consultant's individual.
        >
        > Harry H. Bozearth
        > b. 1882
        > PID M5MX-7XK
        >
        > The problem is Support thinks (twice now) that this was submitted by
        a member, and did not see the extraction record. It's from a
        birth/christening record of some sort.
        >
      • T. Mason
        ... and another consultant found and connected to a tree that has the baptism and confirmation dates, but show the rest of the ordinances as in progress four
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 18, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, James W Anderson <genealogy248@...> wrote:
          > I've got a problem trying to resolve an issue regarding a name me
          and another consultant found and connected to a tree that has the
          baptism and confirmation dates, but show the rest of the ordinances as
          'in progress' four years later.
          > <<<<<<snip>>>>>>>

          Three time in the past two weeks I've been helping members who are
          having serious problems because of this topic.

          Each have had direct line relatives whose data was partially processed
          in the Church record extraction process. In each case the records are
          listed in nFS as "In Progress". They have been in some stage of a
          "cleared" status for over ten years each in the IGI.

          There was another member who I helped on Tuesday who had 35 cards with
          blanks in the sealing to parent's field and the cards were processed
          through TempleReady in May 2000. (Eight years ago.) They were listed
          as "In Progress" in the nFS and we found this when I helped him
          register. Those sealings were processed the next evening.

          Although it appears records submitted to Temple File are being
          processed much faster it seems that some of the new temples pull
          batches of records and them set them on shelves - in case the Internet
          system goes down. They don't rotate the batches, they just sit on the
          shelves like the cards from the extraction records have sat on the
          shelves. (Shame on them for creating this artificial roadblock.)

          Also some people still regard all names they prepare as theirs only
          and they selfishly hoard them - ignoring the advice that they should
          only reserve enough names that they can process in the next few
          months; they should enter the rest of the names into nFS and release
          them for others to help with work.

          The nFS program was primarily designed as a means to stop the
          duplication of ordinances.

          The new Family Search program finally requires ordinances to be
          processed in sequence which I accept as a correct principle. But the
          problem to me seems there is a block when ordinances been on hold in a
          "Cleared" or "In Progress" status for ten years.

          The patron I was helping was quite concerned about her great
          grandfather's family because she has cancer. If we expect members to
          accept the responsibility to bind their family together, then I think
          the process of blocking these ordinances must somehow be stopped.
          We've got to accept the human side of this data processing method. She
          quite deserves the privilege of doing this work before she dies after
          waiting all these years. Instead of having us submit to the process,
          the nFS program should be a tool to help the member bind their family
          into an eternal unit.

          The extraction records need to be rechecked for they are duplicating
          submissions.

          I think there needs to be some method to release all records for
          ordinance work if they are held for more than a year.

          Terry Mason
          Clermont, FL
        • James W Anderson
          Try it again both with and without login to be sure it s the same one (it is, but seeing if there is something else odd doesn t hurt), here are the complete
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 18, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Try it again both with and without login to be sure it's the same one (it is, but seeing if there is something else odd doesn't hurt), here are the complete details on the birthplace and date.

            15 November 1882
            Chester, Burlington, New Jersey
             
            (no United States).


            --- On Fri, 7/18/08, Ileen Johnson <ileenjohnson@...> wrote:
            From: Ileen Johnson <ileenjohnson@...>
            Subject: [FHCNET] Re: Missing ordinances on extraction generated submission.
            To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 6:01 PM











            James,



            I searched for Harry H. Bozearth b. 1882, date range 5 years, United

            States, New Jersey and found him. Then I noticed I had not logged in

            to see the ordinance dates, so I signed in and searched again. Could

            not find him using the same parameters as above. When I searched

            without loggin in, the source showed C005296 Type: film, no Source

            Number. Interesting. . . .



            --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups. com, James W Anderson <genealogy248@ ...> wrote:

            >

            > I've got a problem trying to resolve an issue regarding a name me

            and another consultant found and connected to a tree that has the

            baptism and confirmation dates, but show the rest of the ordinances as

            'in progress' four years later.

            >

            > No record is found even in the old IGI of this name. No other

            records exist save for the one record for this person even in nFS for

            the individual, and there are no combined records.

            >

            > There is however an extraction batch number, C-005296, found in the

            notes, which is how it got to the Boston Temple and had the first

            ordinances performed, and I would assume the rest also, but no way

            exists right now of telling for sure whether it was there or

            elsewhere, or whether the rest of the ordinances even got done.

            >

            > Here's my other consultant's individual.

            >

            > Harry H. Bozearth

            > b. 1882

            > PID M5MX-7XK

            >

            > The problem is Support thinks (twice now) that this was submitted by

            a member, and did not see the extraction record. It's from a

            birth/christening record of some sort.

            >





























            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Snow, Donald R.
            Jim and Eileen, IGI batch C005296 was extracted from FHL film #0494195 which consists of New Jersey records, Births Atlantic-Hudson v. 12 1882-1883 . So it s
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 19, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Jim and Eileen, IGI batch C005296 was extracted from FHL film
              #0494195 which consists of New Jersey records, Births Atlantic-Hudson
              v. 12 1882-1883 . So it's from the temple file and maybe waiting for
              other ordinances, too. Regarding IGI batches without the film
              number, we've got a database here at the London FHC that we can look
              up most of them in since our patrons find so many of them and want to
              know the film so they can see the original record.

              Elder Snow


              At 02:16 AM 7/19/2008, James W Anderson wrote:

              >Try it again both with and without login to be sure it's the same
              >one (it is, but seeing if there is something else odd doesn't hurt),
              >here are the complete details on the birthplace and date.
              >
              >15 November 1882
              >Chester, Burlington, New Jersey
              >
              >(no United States).
              >
              >--- On Fri, 7/18/08, Ileen Johnson
              ><<mailto:ileenjohnson%40gmail.com>ileenjohnson@...> wrote:
              >From: Ileen Johnson <<mailto:ileenjohnson%40gmail.com>ileenjohnson@...>
              >Subject: [FHCNET] Re: Missing ordinances on extraction generated submission.
              >To: <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
              >Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 6:01 PM
              >
              >James,
              >
              >I searched for Harry H. Bozearth b. 1882, date range 5 years, United
              >
              >States, New Jersey and found him. Then I noticed I had not logged in
              >
              >to see the ordinance dates, so I signed in and searched again. Could
              >
              >not find him using the same parameters as above. When I searched
              >
              >without loggin in, the source showed C005296 Type: film, no Source
              >
              >Number. Interesting. . . .
              >
              >--- In FHCNET@yahoogroups. com, James W Anderson <genealogy248@ ...> wrote:
              >
              > >
              >
              > > I've got a problem trying to resolve an issue regarding a name me
              >
              >and another consultant found and connected to a tree that has the
              >
              >baptism and confirmation dates, but show the rest of the ordinances as
              >
              >'in progress' four years later.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > No record is found even in the old IGI of this name. No other
              >
              >records exist save for the one record for this person even in nFS for
              >
              >the individual, and there are no combined records.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > There is however an extraction batch number, C-005296, found in the
              >
              >notes, which is how it got to the Boston Temple and had the first
              >
              >ordinances performed, and I would assume the rest also, but no way
              >
              >exists right now of telling for sure whether it was there or
              >
              >elsewhere, or whether the rest of the ordinances even got done.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Here's my other consultant's individual.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Harry H. Bozearth
              >
              > > b. 1882
              >
              > > PID M5MX-7XK
              >
              > >
              >
              > > The problem is Support thinks (twice now) that this was submitted by
              >
              >a member, and did not see the extraction record. It's from a
              >
              >birth/christening record of some sort.
              >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >

              Elder Donald R. Snow, England London Mission
              London Family History Centre (formerly Hyde Park Family History
              Centre), http://www.hydeparkfhc.org
              Retired Professor of Mathematics, Brigham Young University, Provo,
              Utah; snowd@...

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