Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m all of the above; happy, thankful, excited

Ordinances Ready feature

Shout out to the new Ordinances Ready feature. It's the best thing going since the invention of the automatic garage door opener. I had a meeting with a group of young men last night and all but about 3 who had technical difficulties walked out of the center with 5 names for temple ordinances. Love it. Thank you.
  • Welcome back to the community support forum for FamilySearch. FamilySearch personnel read every discussion thread and may or may not respond as their time permits. We all share an active interest in using the resources of this site and as users, we have various levels of knowledge and experience and do our best to help each other with concerns, issues, and/or questions.

    I agree that this is a very good thing.


    Be very careful with Ordinances Ready. While it is great at pulling names that we have in our Temple list (shared included), when it goes beyond our list, there are some inherent problems that need to be addressed (and have other threads in this forum).

    First, the order in which names are pulled (see
    1)Your family names list (or "temple list" or "reservation list").
    2)Your family names that you shared with the temple.
    3)Names that are related to you that have been shared with the temple by someone else.
    4)"Green temples" from your tree.
    5)Names not related to you that have been shared with the temple.

    I always check to see if any name I am taking with me on a temple trip is current, has no duplicates, and is fully sourced. New sources are being added all the time and many of these show up as hints. So with respect to items one and two, do a quick check to make sure the names are current and fully "fleshed out".

    Item three is particularly troublesome. In many instances, these do not have any sources and they can have duplicates. When I first tested this new feature, I recognized a name that came up and knew that the proxy temple ordinances had been completed. I checked the record against the information that I had and found that somehow the system had pulled a duplicate of the existing record. After making sure the duplicate was truly a duplicate, I merged the duplicate into the existing (and older) record that I had, along with all the proxy temple ordinance information.

    Item four supposedly will not provide any names for which a duplicate exists (according to the article), but I would still check the name to make sure it has sources and no duplicates -- I take care of those that show up as "Possible duplicates" and then also use "Find" to see if the duplicate checker missed any.

    Item five has no checks against it, either. While these are not related to you, I would still check them to make sure the record is as complete as possible and that no duplicates exist.

    There are many temple-shared names that are not sourced or sometimes have just one source. These are problematical, since they need more research/sources/documentation before they are truly ready for proxy temple work.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned