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

Re: [FHCNET] Pruning the Temple Ordinances List

Expand Messages
  • Bill Buchanan
    Travis, I am very aware of the problem, as a friend went through this when his wife died several months ago. Some of my names are assigned to the temple. I
    Message 1 of 7 , May 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Travis,

      I am very aware of the problem, as a friend went through this when his wife
      died several months ago. Some of my names are assigned to the temple. I
      realize that we are encouraged to not reserve more names than we can
      complete in a reasonable amount of time, and I am repenting ... which is
      always a positive thing. My wife and I are at the temple twice a week, but
      even so, more of my names need to be assigned to the temple. I find it a
      simpler and more efficient way of doing things than passing out cards to
      friends and relatives, although it may take longer to complete the
      ordinances.
      The policy on frozen accounts has been loosened a little lately. It is
      easier to have names released. The eventual promise is that all reserved
      names will be released when the patron dies, but I don't hear this referred
      to very often.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


      Bill Buchanan

      On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Travis Morris <tdmorris@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > Recently a member in our ward died. After her funeral I, as a FH
      > consultant, tried to access her file in order to release her Temple
      > Ordinance List. Our ward clerk is right on the ball and had already
      > reported her death and her file was sealed. FamilySearch support said only
      > a direct family member can get a name released from her sealed Temple
      > Ordinance list.
      > You have 117 names in your list. Can you do all the work on all those names
      > before you die? Are you sure?
      > Travis
      >
      > From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > Bill Buchanan
      > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:02 PM
      > To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [FHCNET] Pruning the Temple Ordinances List
      >
      >
      >
      > It was sad work for me, as it was undoubtedly for you.
      > My list shrank from 133 to 117, not so bad, but these were Dad's
      > cousins. I knew the life stories of all of them.
      > In many cases, if I had done the ordinances last year they would have
      > qualified.
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jan Ashford
      I just went through the process last week of getting the names in my deceased husband s file released. He only had three, but they were released in about 3
      Message 2 of 7 , May 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I just went through the process last week of getting the names in my
        deceased husband's file released. He only had three, but they were
        released in about 3 days. Then support requested his PID and checked to
        be sure there were no more names in his file.
        I would say things are looking up with this problem. Be aware that the
        KD on this has not been updated and is very discouraging to patrons.
        Jan

        On 05/02/2012 04:19 PM, Bill Buchanan wrote:
        > . I
        > realize that we are encouraged to not reserve more names than we can
        > complete in a reasonable amount of time, and I am repenting ... which is
        > always a positive thing. My wife and I are at the temple twice a week, but
        > even so, more of my names need to be assigned to the temple. I find it a
        > simpler and more efficient way of doing things than passing out cards to
        > friends and relatives, although it may take longer to complete the
        > ordinances.
        > The policy on frozen accounts has been loosened a little lately. It is
        > easier to have names released. The eventual promise is that all reserved
        > names will be released when the patron dies, but I don't hear this referred
        > to very often.
        >
        > Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
      • Lois Casson
        I have a whole lot more than 117 names on my list but I submit everything directly to temples files and as I need names for endowments and sealings I print
        Message 3 of 7 , May 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I have a whole lot more than 117 names on my list but I submit
          everything directly to temples files and as I need names for endowments
          and sealings I print some off. I work at the temple so leave my cards
          there. This is the system I use to make sure no one is left in limbo
          when I die.

          Lo in Flo

          On 5/2/2012 3:31 PM, Travis Morris wrote:
          >
          > Recently a member in our ward died. After her funeral I, as a FH
          > consultant, tried to access her file in order to release her Temple
          > Ordinance List. Our ward clerk is right on the ball and had already
          > reported her death and her file was sealed. FamilySearch support said only
          > a direct family member can get a name released from her sealed Temple
          > Ordinance list.
          > You have 117 names in your list. Can you do all the work on all those
          > names
          > before you die? Are you sure?
          > Travis
          >
          > From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>
          > [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>] On
          > Behalf Of
          > Bill Buchanan
          > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:02 PM
          > To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>
          > Subject: [FHCNET] Pruning the Temple Ordinances List
          >
          >
          > It was sad work for me, as it was undoubtedly for you.
          > My list shrank from 133 to 117, not so bad, but these were Dad's
          > cousins. I knew the life stories of all of them.
          > In many cases, if I had done the ordinances last year they would have
          > qualified.
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >


          --
          Lo in Flo
          Lois Kalander Casson
          Pensacola, FL



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tom Kemp
          A simple solution/upgrade feature. nFS should add a feature that let s us check box (on the left column) - and then easily execute a mass flip of records from
          Message 4 of 7 , May 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            A simple solution/upgrade feature.

            nFS should add a feature that let's us check box (on the left column) - and
            then easily execute a mass flip of records from reserved for us to do to
            general Temple file - or vice versa.

            This is a needed enhancement that would be very handy.
            Tom


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Bill Buchanan
            Amen Brother. Please send your message to support@familysearch.org . Bill Buchanan ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 7 , May 2, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Amen Brother. Please send your message to support@... .


              Bill Buchanan

              On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Tom Kemp <thomas.j.kemp@...> wrote:

              > **
              >
              >
              > A simple solution/upgrade feature.
              >
              > nFS should add a feature that let's us check box (on the left column) - and
              > then easily execute a mass flip of records from reserved for us to do to
              > general Temple file - or vice versa.
              >
              > This is a needed enhancement that would be very handy.
              > Tom
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >


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