Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Ordinances Ready SS doesn't follow my temple's (church?) rule for sealing to spouse

I ran the Ordinances Ready selection, on the temple menu, for sealings to spouse and it did indeed find 5.
However, not all the other ordinances of the participants were completed. Only 1 couple had all the other ordinances completed.
Our temple requests that we not do Sealing to Spouse unless it is the last ordinance for the couple. Could the program be updated to not find sealings to spouse unless the other ordinances have been performed? I am confident that few people will check to ensure that what the computer has done is valid.
Has the requirement changed or is there an issue here?
Thank you,
Rod Watson
5 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • There is no rule. There is a suggested order in which sealings are to take place, but it is not a "rule."

    The same is applied to sealing to parents.

    See "Sealing to spouse ordinance completed before individual ordinances" at https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale... , which explains current accepted practices.
    The Ordinances Ready feature allows sealings to be done before the individual ordinances. It is acceptable to do these sealings without checking that the individual ordinances have been done.

    See also "In What Sequence Should Ordinances Be Performed?" at https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale... , which provides the order in which ordinances should be performed. Note that the two articles (both issued by the Church) appear to be in conflict until you read "(if possible) and Whenever possible"

    Note the suggested order is not an absolute or the Temple Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would have made it an absolute and would not have used "(if possible). Whenever possible" in the article about the order in which we should perform the ordinances.

    Many members get hung up over the order when in reality, there are instances where such an order is not possible.
    • view 7 more comments
    • I realize that, but that was before members could prepare names at home online and when they still did extraction for temple file. Now that we supposedly all work together on our families, and we can see what ordinances have and have not been done, they have asked us to do them in the proper sequence. If they don't really care if we do them in proper sequence, they probably shouldn't say we should in an article.
    • Ordinances Ready still provides that opportunity. Because the cards are printed separately, it is entirely possible to perform the couple sealing without realizing that other ordinances still need to be done for one or both of the persons that are being sealed.

      This has been well-documented in Church produced articles.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    An easier solution might be to help temple workers understand the correct policies for ordinance order and the exceptions that Ordinance Ready presents. I'm not trying to be snarky, but it would make it easier to fix the issue you are facing.
    • view 10 more comments
    • Concisely explained gasmodels.

      https://www.facebook.com/familyhistor...

      Here is a good explanation with a diagram from Ron Tanner that should help you understand this policy exception. His explanation begins around 9 minutes and continues through almost the 15 minute mark,
    • That is a good explanation of one of the reasons why it would not be possible for an individual to do a sealing to parents, which further explains the "if possible" and "when possible" that's in one of the articles someone quoted from. So I think that just further proves the point that "if possible" or "when possible" means if it's possible for you do do those ordinances. I don't think it means at all that you only have to do the individual ordinances first "if possible" or "when possible." That makes no sense when other articles make it clear we are supposed to do them in order.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Has anyone seen this article? "In What Order Should Ordinances Be Performed?"

    It says, "Please perform temple ordinances in the correct sequence. Perform individual ordinances before sealings. The FamilySearch Family Tree website does not clear ordinances if prerequisite ordinances have not been cleared or performed.

    The correct sequence of ordinances is as follows:

    Baptism.
    Confirmation.
    Initiatory.
    Endowment.
    Sealing of a husband and wife and sealing of children to parents (if possible). Whenever possible, parents should be sealed to each other before the children are sealed to the parents."

    I think people are reading this wrong. When would it be impossible to seal a husband a wife together, and when would it be impossible to seal a child to his parents, and when would it be impossible to seal the parents before sealing their children to them?

    I think it means things like you can't seal a husband and wife if one of them was born less than 110 years ago without permission from a close relative. Or you can't seal a man and woman as husband and wife if they were never married or there is no evidence they ever lived together as husband and wife. Or if neither spouse has a vital date or marriage date. Or you can't seal a child to parents unless you know at least the name of the father.

    Also, this article, Sealing to spouse ordinance completed before individual ordinances," says, "The member who reserved the sealing and printed the card is the only person who can ensure that the sealing-to-spouse ordinance is done in the correct order. As a result, sealing-to-spouse ordinances are often done before the baptism, confirmation, initiatory, and endowment, even though they should be done after."

    Just my opinion, but if something "should" be done a certain way, that's what we "should" do. And if FamilySearch is telling us we shouldn't do the sealings before the individual ordinances are completed, then they shouldn't be sending us emails telling us we have sealings to do in Ordinances Ready when the individual ordinances are not completed. And, in fact, the first article I quoted says FamilySearch won't even clear them! I suppose we can stretch some words like "if possible" and "whenever possible" to mean what works best for us at the time, but it's kind of hard to change the meaning of "won't even clear them" -- which they are.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    That is a good explanation of one of the reasons why it would not be possible for an individual to do a sealing to parents, which further explains the "if possible" and "when possible" that's in one of the articles someone quoted from. So I think that just further proves the point that "if possible" or "when possible" means if it's possible for you do do those ordinances. I don't think it means at all that you only have to do the individual ordinances first "if possible" or "when possible." That makes no sense when other articles make it clear we are supposed to do them in order.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Still confused. ;) Ordinance Ready just gave my daughter 5 sealings so spouse. 4 do not have their endowments completed yet. So. . . proceed tomorrow as planned? Or wait and let them expire?
    • view 1 more comment
    • She received a message from someone telling her she is not following policy by doing the sealing before the endowment. Sigh. She was worried we did something wrong (since the person told her she did!) I have been telling people if ordinance ready gives you the names and they are not duplicates do them and don't worry if they do my follow the traditional order! But I guess I better help her send a reply!
    • Ordinances Ready
      The Ordinances Ready feature allows sealings to be done before the individual ordinances. It is acceptable to do these sealings without checking that the individual ordinances have been done. Share this link in the reply.

      https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 4
    I would suggest we have some faith that FamilySearch, as a department of the Church, is instituting proper directions from the temple committee whose current chair according to Wikipedia is Elder Bednar. In other words, assume that Ordinance Ready is functioning acceptably in the opinion of the temple department. Otherwise I think we can safely assume the temple department would not have allowed it to be turned on.

    There have always been variations in the order in which ordinances were performed with four primary divisions. Most of these variations have to do with who was completing the ordinances, a patron or the temple.

    1) Personal ordinances have always been B/C/I/E/SS. SP could have been never if BIC, before age eight with no other ordinances done, after age eight with only B/C done, after age eighteen or so with B/C/I/E required first. For sealing to parents, all the parents ordinances are also required to be completed first.

    2) Proxy ordinances submitted by living descendants or relatives with the ordinances personally done by those relatives. These have historically been done in the same order as personal ordinances with the exception that the age eight and age eighteen distinction was removed. Note that one current requirement is that B/C are completed the same day at the same baptismal session.

    In the past, we were not to do SP for spouses of our relatives. The significant recent change is that we have been instructed to complete SP for those spouse of our relatives even though we are not to complete ordinances of that unrelated spouse’s parents. This instruction has been repeated by FamilySearch multiple times on this board.

    3) Proxy ordinances submitted by living descants or relatives with the ordinances completed by random strangers in the temples. These have also historically been done in the same order as personal ordinances with the exception that the age eight and age eighteen distinction was removed. However, baptisms and confirmations are now done on different days and may even be done at different temples and have been for a couple of decades.

    4) Non-patron submitted ordinances, i.e., extraction records. Batches of extracted marriage records always had SS with no other ordinances done. Batches of birth records sometimes had all of B/C/E/SP done without any preceding couple sealings of their parents. Other times, only B/C were done, leaving the other ordinances up to relatives to complete when these children were found in the IGI. Then at other times, only the SP was completed which put these children in the IGI for their relatives to find and complete the B/C/E/I and parents SS.

    Now we have a fourth category, Ordinance Ready, which is a mixture of 2, 3, and 4 and blurs the line between a patron completing the ordinances and the temple completing the ordinances.

    Personally, I am going to trust that the temple department has given proper directions to Family Search, has authorized this method of getting needed ordinances completed and am not planning on checking anything else if Ordinances Ready says to do the ordinances.

    For relatives that I am personally researching and submitting in the traditional manner, I will continue to make sure the ordinances are completed in the customary B/C/I/E for all family members then sealings path.

    Every article on the issue in the help center does state that the order is not important regarding the validity or effectiveness of the ordinances. So why should it matter to us? I think it is because doing the ordinances in the same order we did them personally reinforces our personal temple experience in going through both as the individual whose name we carry and in recollection of our own ordinances. We are symbolically reconfirming our own covenants as well as allowing others to make those same covenants. By finding one person, taking that person through each ordinance in tern, doing the same for the person’s immediate family, then sealing them all as a family in the same sealing session, we can have powerful temple experiences. But sometimes, we just need to get work with a bunch of loose ends tidied up and completed which is what Ordinances Ready allows us to do.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 3
    This is just my opinion. Personally, I don't think of my ancestors as names. I think of them as people and families. I love doing sealing to spouse and then having the children sealed to the parents as the culmination of a wonderful process. I like to think of their joy when they are baptized and realize they are on their way. And the best part for me is thinking about them when the day of the grand finale comes when they will be sealed together forever as a family. I often share other ordinances with family and friends, because I just can't do them all. But not sealings. They are the best!

    I realize that not everybody can find families to do from start to finish and they are just thankful for any family name the system can find for them to take to the temple. And that's great. But if you can make sure the other ordinances are done first, (and you can) why would you not do that??? I can't imagine a couple up there (real people, not names) being like -- oh, we're sealed for eternity? Hmm...But what good is that if we don't have our other ordinances done? Oh, well at least it's done when we need it.

    That isn't the way I want it to be for my ancestors on the day they are sealed to each other and their children are sealed to them. But this is just my opinion.
    • Wonderful. And I agree completely. And I would not change what you are doing in your personal temple worship. However, this is not required under what is apparently current policies for names obtained through Ordinances Ready.
    • I feel the same way, Dale! I even go so far as to hold a person out to wait for their spouse to catch up in ordinances so my husband and I can do the proxy endowments together in the same session. I have enough names reserved that I can coordinate these kinds of experiences and I haven't had to use Ordinance Ready yet. If you prefer to manage your reservations and experiences in this manner, just do it! Others enjoy having the ordinances pulled for them and LOVE Ordinance Ready for the ease it gives them. Both are acceptable methods of getting the work done or Ordinance Ready would not have been implemented. Temple staff should have this exception clarified, sooner than later.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Yes! What Gordon said! Especially the last paragraph. We were typing our replies at the same time! Did you notice that? :)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I agree with Gordon's comments and especially the last paragraph.

    It would be nice to know if anything is going to be done (some has been done already with the temple reservations) to resolve some of our concerns about Ordinances Ready ordinances for people whose record has detected potential duplicates, no sources, or incomplete and/or standardized vitals.

    The standardized vitals now must be corrected or the system puts any reserved (shared or not) ordinances into a "Needs more information" status until the detected issues have been resolved.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Bottom line is if someone gets an ordinance to do from Ordinances Ready, they can if they want to, go to the person page, see if other ordinances have been completed if it's a SS, or no matter what the ordinance is -- see if there are any glaring mistakes on the page -- like the mother is younger than her children or the same man is her husband and her father (and yes, that happened with one of my ancestors -- the very same day somebody added his mother as a second wife another person requested the SS) or the wife is 20 years older than the husband or they have 35 kids and on and on. And then if the data looks crazy, don't do it. I think NOT doing wrong or unnecessary ordinances is just as important as doing necessary ordinances. Obviously, I digressed. Because Ordinances Ready giving out SS when the individual ordinances are not yet done is just one part of the problem. Ordinances Ready makes it too easy for people to just grab and go. I use it. Actually I love it! It's become my new go-to place for helping me find mistakes in my tree before somebody does incorrect ordinances. It's great for that. I just wish it would give me males, too. ha ha. Don't be fooled by my name. I am a female.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 5
    In January the Relief Society President in our ward wanted to have an activity in which every sister could print out a card to take to the temple. My wife is on the activity committee for the Relief Society and I ended up getting volunteered for this.

    These are the handouts I put together and went through as they all sat in the Family History Center at a computer and did each step as I went though the handouts. If anyone would like to have these, feel free to download them:











  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    Wow, Gordon! This is amazing! I am a Stake T & FH Consultant Lead, and we are having a training meeting next Sunday and this is so helpful! You just saved me a lot of work. Plus I never could have done this so well. Thank you soooo much! I'm assuming you're ok with me sending it to my consultants after our meeting, too?
    Thank you!!!!!!!!
    • view 3 more comments
    • The process doesn't do any checking and we've requested that these be checked for sources in other discussions. But because the process is dictated to FamilySearch from the Temple Department, I'm not sure if Ordinances Ready will do any pre-checking before it provides us with the names for an ordinance section.

      Right now, if I use Ordinances Ready, I don't print the names to take until I've thoroughly investigated the person to make sure that there are no duplicates and that all the hints have been resolved. If there are no sources, I'll take some time to do the research and only after I'm satisfied that all duplicates have been merged, hints processed, and so on, will I go ahead and print the name(s) to take with me for a temple session.
    • The very least they could do is put a popup that says to do all that first. It blows my mind that they don't in spite of everything said in this forum. Ordinances Ready is actually one of my go-to places -- not for ordinances to do, but to find mistakes in my tree. Works great for that! Although for me it usually brings up names that are in my temple list anyway, so I know they're right. But when I help others in my ward, I tell them right off, "now we can't trust this to be accurate." And in their trees I would say about 75% of the time it's an ordinance they should NOT do. So we spend the time fixing their tree. Can you imagine how many bad ordinances get done?! They actually did a demo on it in our RS recently, and the presenter said, "See how easy it is. You can just use your phone and take it to the temple and do your own ancestor." I cringed. And raised my hand. In all good conscience I had to. And that's why I don't get that FamilySearch doesn't feel the same responsibility!

      Think about this. Those most apt to use it are those who think they can't find a name any other way, because they think "it's all been done" or they just don't know how to use Family Tree. So if they don't have their own temple list and most of it really has been done, pretty much the ONLY names it's going to bring up are one of the few their relatives "missed." And if a bunch of competent genealogist relatives missed it, it probably shouldn't be there in the first place.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    Gordon,
    Has this procedure been placed in the Family History Guide (yet); if not, IMO, it deserves to be there.

    It also would make an excellent FS Wiki article.

    I do, however, feel that many will think it may 'ruin' the 'ease' of the 'click and go' philosophy currently in vogue.

    WELL DONE, (as usual)
    • Thanks. Unfortunately, I have too many other things I'm trying to get done to take it any farther than this.

      As far as "click and go," Ron Tanner did mention in one of his Q&A's that one of the goals of Ordinances Ready was to get people into Family Tree to find a name in the hopes that they will then stick around and do much more.

      Also, there are other glimmers of hope. One of the counselors in our stake presidency whose parents are long term genealogists spoke at a bishop's training meeting which was two days before the Relief Society activity. (I was just there as the stake tech guy broadcasting it to an outlying branch and had already finished my handout.) His topic was the stake's family history goals for the year. Last year it was to get 500 individuals in the stake to print out an ordinance card and take it to the temple. He said they wanted to make a significant change this year and have 550 individuals print a card and have a significant spiritual experience with that name. Which is only possible by learning about the person. Previously in Stake Conference he spoke about the experience his 12 year son had recently had in finding an ancestor to do ordinances for who was not already in Family Tree and doing the baptism and confirmation for that ancestor. With such leaders, there is hope.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Has anyone thought about the fact that if you always had to wait until someone's individual ordinances were done before you could seal them, and that children could not be sealed to parents until the parents' ordinances and sealings were done, no one would ever be sealed?? You'd have to start with Adam & Eve and work forward, generation by generation. Let's have faith that FamilySearch and the Church know what they are doing in allowing spouse sealings before individual ordinances are complete, and move on from here.
    • view 1 more comment
    • The sealing to the parents belongs to the child, not the parents. That has always been the case and as such, the status of any of the parent's ordinances (including sealed to each other) is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite ordinances are those of the child (and none of those exist for children who die before the age of 8).

      Gordon's two promoted responses are spot on. Any argument to the contrary is really an argument that is disagreeing with the direction of the Brethren. For those who feel that the advice that Gordon has provided is incorrect need to take this matter up with their Stake Presidency.
    • I agree with Gordon's comments and was "seconding" them in my final sentence! Don't know why you'd think otherwise.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Sullivan, there is nothing that says parents have to be sealed to their parents before their children can be sealed to them. In other words, I can seal all of my mother's siblings to her parents (my grandparents) even if I don't know who my grandparents' parents are. The parents individual ordinances and their sealing to each other should be done (not HAVE to be done, but should be done) before their children are sealed to them. I realize there is some confusion about that now, but no one has ever said, officially that is, that the parents need to be sealed to their parents before their children can be sealed to them.

    Until Ordinances Ready, this was the direction from FamilySearch (in other words, from the Church). https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...

    And these two insinuate the same policy:
    https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...

    https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...

    This whole discussion started because people have been surprised that Ordinances Ready is giving them SS to do when one or both of the people still have individual ordinances that are not completed. It just seemed strange to some of us, in light of these articles, that OR was doing that.

    My opinion is that as strange as that is, it isn't as bad as the fact that most of them that come up in my OR either should not be done at all or they don't have enough information and/or sources to make doing them a wise thing to do. We are being told just click and go. I don't understand why no mention is every made that we should go to the person in the tree and make sure their is enough data, that the data makes sense, and that there is at least one source to prove it.

    And a lot of the data is wrong and there ARE sources to "prove" it, because there are so many bad Record Hints that people also just add willy-nilly along with all the other people in them, creating very mixed up families -- like wrong spouses! And children! And then OR picks up on them and says, here, just click and go. And those of us who see what is happening to our lines can't keep up with the corrections fast enough to stop OR giving people wrong ordinances.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Looks like those links might not work. Just search for these in Help.

    In What Sequence Should Ordinances Be Performed?

    Sealing to spouse ordinance completed before individual ordinances

    Reasons why ordinance dates in Family Tree are out of order
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Dale, as Gordon correctly pointed out in his first post, the Church has been performing SS ordinances for years without the other ordinances being done, particularly in the case of extracted records. And I agree with him that if it were improper, FamilySearch would not have allowed Ordinances Ready to select these ordinances for us to complete. So let's trust that doing SS ordinances before individual ordinances are complete is also an acceptable procedure (in addition to completing the individual ordinances first). P.S. Perhaps we'll hear more about this from the Brethren this week in the Rootstech sessions that will be broadcast over the Internet.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I do realize it's "ok" to do SS without the other ordinances, but if it is ok I think those articles need to be changed. We're getting mixed messages.
    • view 6 more comments
    • The only reason for a member to contact their Stake President is if they disagree with some policy that has been established.

      That happens to be the case here, where Dale is insistent on always doing the vicarious ordinances in a specific order. He has applied his own interpretation, which is unfortunate and something that none of us have the right to do.
    • I have never disagreed with any Church policy in my life and I never will. You didn't read my last post either. It's fine. I didn't read all of yours either. I only read this far -- "The point, Dale, is that you are questioning Church policy." I won't be posting anything in Get Satisfaction again, because I don't like the angry feelings I am having right now. I won't even look here again. It's a waste of my valuable time anyway. Posting things here doesn't do any good anyway. I posted 33 examples of atrociously bad Record Hints in another thread because they asked for an example, and that was a waste of time, too. There's too much work to do in the tree fixing mistakes and keeping up with the features that make it easier for mistakes to happen if I don't intercept them before someone who doesn't know what they are doing finds them, to be wasting my time reporting problems I find that nobody cares about anyway. If I get an email saying somebody commented I'm just deleting it. So please don't anybody waste your time trying to rescue my soul. ;) And don't worry about me. My testimony is very strong and nothing will ever change that, and I will never disagree with any Church policy.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    Since two completely different topics are starting to be conflated here and since people are starting to be quoted out of context and since words are starting to be put into other people's mouths that they did not say, before this discussion deteriorates any farther, I'd like to go back to some important points Dale brings up:

    My opinion is that as strange as [doing sealing out of order] is, it isn't as bad as the fact that most of them that come up in my OR either should not be done at all.... We are being told just click and go....

    And a lot of the data is wrong and there ARE sources to "prove" it, because there are so many bad Record Hints that people also just add willy-nilly along with all the other people in them... And those of us who see what is happening to our lines can't keep up with the corrections fast enough to stop OR giving people wrong ordinances."


    These are serious concerns and have been ever since New Family Search when people just went through the tree looking for green icons to harvest. Things got a lot worse when the first tree crawlers came out that would give people dozens if not hundreds of green icons with no encouragement to do any confirmatory research.

    I do think the situation has improved dramatically with Ordinances Ready because of two aspects. First, that one is presented with a very strictly limited number of names. Secondly, because if the names are not already on your personal reservation list, all the names I have seen so far checking with various people in my family come from red icons, that is, names that have been shared with the temple and therefor are going to be done at some time anyway. That means that instead of people finding huge numbers of green icons of questionable quality, dumping them into the temple system, and creating a big backlog of ordinances waiting to be done, people are finding a small number of red icons, removing them from the temple system, and getting them completed.

    Also, since using Ordinances Ready requires one to sign into FamilySearch people are at least presented with encouragement to look around while they are there.

    But back to the two topics that are getting confused here that need to be separated out:

    1) Can we do any and all ordinances presented to us by Ordinance Ready?

    2) Should we do any and all ordinances presented to us by Ordinance Ready?

    Regarding the first, I pretty sure I’ve over explained my view that the answer must be yes because that was how the program was designed and released.

    Regarding the second, I agree completely with Dale that the answer is no. The point of my handout was to teach the people I held the class for to think about the names they find and make at least some effort to confirm that ordinances are being properly done. Our stake presidency is making a big push this year for our stake members to take family names to the temple and have a spiritual experience with those people which can only be done if one knows who that person is, knows that one is really related to that person, knows that that person really existed, and knows that that person is in the correct family. I certainly intend to do what I can to encourage people to use Ordinances Ready to correct and improve entries in Family Tree while they help clear up the backlogged temple system.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Thank you so much, Gordon, for really reading and understanding what my point has been all along. I 100% agree with everything you said. And you made two points I hadn't thought of that also make a lot of sense:

    I do think the situation has improved dramatically with Ordinances Ready because of two aspects. First, that one is presented with a very strictly limited number of names. Secondly, because if the names are not already on your personal reservation list, all the names I have seen so far checking with various people in my family come from red icons, that is, names that have been shared with the temple and therefor are going to be done at some time anyway. That means that instead of people finding huge numbers of green icons of questionable quality, dumping them into the temple system, and creating a big backlog of ordinances waiting to be done, people are finding a small number of red icons, removing them from the temple system, and getting them completed.

    So even if there are problems, maybe Ordinances Ready lessens some of the even bigger problems. Let's hope. They taught in my RS last week all about this great new feature. All you have to do is go here, click here, and print or take your phone to the temple and show them and they'll print. "It's that easy! Smile"

    Thank you for taking the time to reply because of my comment to Tom. It's nice to know some people understand where I'm coming from. I know it takes time. Time I just don't have anymore. Too many mistakes in the tree and more to prevent because of bad Record Hints, Possible Duplicates, and Ordinances Ready to waste time in this forum. Doesn't do any good anyway. Thank you!!!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    By the way, I was just at Rootstech today and met Ron Tanner, who is one of the top guys at FamilySearch (you can Google him to find out his background). When asked about this issue of Ordinances Ready allowing SS sealings to be done before individual ordinances are completed, he was explicit that this is appropriate and approved by the Brethren. As far as he was concerned, and I would agree, this is "case closed". However, if you still want to write him, his email address is ron@familysearch.org. By the way, I highly recommend watching his presentation about What's New on FamilySearch, which was broadcast and recorded.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Gordon, could you please post your Dropbox link to your handouts again? I was late to the party and missed them. Sigh...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    Gordon,

    As, apparently, no one else chose to add your excellent OR flow chart to the FSWiki, I tried it myself (with your implied consent herein).

    It's a 'work in progress' but, here it is. https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/...

    I'd be happy to adjust it in any way you might like to see or remove it all if you'd prefer. (or, of course, anyone with editing privileges can improve it)

    It's at least in the permanent (?) FS Wiki file.

    Thanks again for all your excellent inputs to this forum - and elsewhere.
    • Great job.

      Given the nature of the discussions and the repeated request for more names, the other gender, and so on, a slight modification to Gordon's material is in order.

      Presently, the fourth point under "Why Temple Ready?" says "Provides work for just one temple visit."

      I believe better wording would be "Provides work for one temple ordinance session."

      A person can easily do more than one temple session in a visit and the process only provides enough names for one ordinance session.

      Thoughts?
    • Yes, I have a thought. Better they only bring one mistake (endowment) or 5 or 10 for the other ordinances than to double the mistakes. I have seen temple lists with 10's of thousands of names, most of them shared with the temple, of course. Randomly scanning their lists I see that most names have no sources at all, minimal information AND they aren't even related to them. And it's shared ordinances that OR draws from for most of the people who use it to find ordinances to do. So my thought is let's not encourage FamilySearch to give them any more than they already do.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Reposting this, because I know these comments get hidden if they are just a comment.

    The very least they could do is put a popup that says to do all that first. It blows my mind that they don't in spite of everything said in this forum. Ordinances Ready is actually one of my go-to places -- not for ordinances to do, but to find mistakes in my tree. Works great for that! Although for me it usually brings up names that are in my temple list anyway, so I know they're right. But when I help others in my ward, I tell them right off, "now we can't trust this to be accurate." And in their trees I would say about 75% of the time it's an ordinance they should NOT do. So we spend the time fixing their tree. Can you imagine how many bad ordinances get done?! They actually did a demo on it in our RS recently, and the presenter said, "See how easy it is. You can just use your phone and take it to the temple and do your own ancestor." I cringed. And raised my hand. In all good conscience I had to. And that's why I don't get that FamilySearch doesn't feel the same responsibility!

    Think about this. Those most apt to use it are those who think they can't find a name any other way, because they think "it's all been done" or they just don't know how to use Family Tree. So if they don't have their own temple list and most of it really has been done, pretty much the ONLY names it's going to bring up are one of the few their relatives "missed." And if a bunch of competent genealogist relatives missed it, it probably shouldn't be there in the first place.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Reposting this as a Reply, because I know Comments can get lost or are not as easily visible.

    Yes, Tom, I have a thought. Better they only bring one mistake (endowment) or 5 or 10 for the other ordinances than to double the mistakes. I have seen temple lists with 10's of thousands of names, most of them shared with the temple, of course. Randomly scanning their lists I see that most names have no sources at all, minimal information AND they aren't even related to them. And it's shared ordinances that OR draws from for most of the people who use it to find ordinances to do. So my thought is let's not encourage FamilySearch to give them any more than they already do.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Dale

    A couple of things that have been, discussed; and, references cited in many previous post in this Forum.

    "SS" Work is often done 'out of order' (as such Work done in the past is a prime example); and, in fact, can "technically" (via, the "System") be done 'out of order' - although the preference is that it is done in order.

    "SP" can be done 'out of order', in regards to the "Parents" Work NOT being done; as, that "Sealing" relates to the "Child" and NOT the "Parents".

    Here are a few "Knowledge Articles" on the matters:

    Correct order of temple ordinances ... (52726)
    https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...

    Where it states that ... "Although vicarious ordinances performed out of sequence are valid, they become effective only after the prerequisite ordinances are completed."

    .
    Why are the temple ordinance dates out of order in Family Tree? ... (53783)
    https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...

    Where it states that ...

    - The names came from an extracted record. For example, if the name was extracted from a marriage record, only the marriage information was available. At the time, only the sealing to spouse was performed. The remaining ordinances were done later. They may even still need to be done.

    - The ordinances were inadvertently or intentionally performed out of order in error.

    .
    Why was a sealing ordinance done out of order? ... (538365)
    https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...

    Where it states that ...

    Ordinances Ready
    The Ordinances Ready feature allows sealings to be done before the individual ordinances. While performing all ordinances in proper sequence is preferred, it is acceptable to perform sealing-to-spouse ordinances without checking that the individual ordinances have been performed.

    Extracted marriage records
    In the past, many sealing-to-spouse ordinances that came from extracted marriage records were completed before the individual ordinances.

    .

    And, as has been proffered by 'Tom' in previous posts ...

    -----
    Do not overlook the "if possible" and "Whenever possible" parts of the instruction. They are not equivalent to "Always", but allow for variations of the sealings (only) due to circumstances.
    -----

    So ...

    If the "System" allows it; then, go with the flow ...

    We do not live in a perfect World, far from it ...

    Don't sweat it ...

    As long as the WORK gets done ...

    And, most importantly, remember ... "Although vicarious ordinances performed out of sequence are valid, they become effective only after the prerequisite ordinances are completed."

    Just my thoughts.

    Brett
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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