Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m frustrated

temple ordinance lists, selection and refinement

1) Temples should always have to select ordinances with the earliest reservation dates---first in, first out is a proven way to keep things orderly. "My house is a house of order." I have names I submitted in 2007,2008,2009, 2010 still in my reserved ordinance file in the shared section awaiting the temples to do them.
Yet, names I submitted much later are selected by temples to do instead of the earlier ones which should have priority in my opinion.
2) One should be able to have the assurance that if they place names in the reserved list and share them with the temple that they will get done. I have seen names I submitted and shared with the temple end up again with ready on their ordinance and saying they have been shared but NOT done.
3) When one selects temple, the names appear usually in order with the ones just submitted first. What should happen in my opinion is that the names should appear with the ones that were submitted first. In order words, if the names are stored in a list, then the new names should be added to the bottom of the list rather than the top. Again, first in--first out.
4) When selecting something other than ALL, it would be nice if it would load ONLY those selected rather than having to have the it list the whole ordinance list every time. This would save many hours of server time. Currently if I want to see names that are not printed, I have to sit through loading the whole list of 7000+.
If I have 200 in the not printed list, the time to load the 200 compared to loading the 7000 even if a sort had to be made would be much faster and save a lot of wasted server time as well as internet loading time.
5) Selecting ordinance order does NOT work properly. If I select that I want to see SP, SS will come up first. It apparently does the sorting by the number of ordinances left to do rather by the ordinance to do itself.
2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • As a temple office worker, I may be able to give some insight on your first two comments. In our temple we are careful to do ordinances in the order we have printed them.For instance, baptisms printed on 16 December 2014 will be done before any printed after that day. If we have printed ordinances that are not done within 90 days of when they are printed, the temple department notifies the temple recorder. We then go through stacks of ordinance cards until we find the one in question and record it. If we cannot find it, the ordinances are "released". This may be what you are seeing with reserved ordinances showing up again as available. Losing ordinance cards is a rare occurance in our small temple, but when you consider how many temples there are and that some are very large, this could happen now and then.

    I think you should pick one of those names that was reserved in 2007 and write to FamilySearch Support about it. Go to "Get Help" at the top of the page and then "Send Message". This will be the fastest way to get help on this issue. Depending on the response, you may want to do this with other names that were reserved that long ago.

    Since more and more people have learned about sharing names with the temple, it is taking longer and longer to get names done. The last I heard was 3 years for men, less for women. I rarely share names with the temple. There are lots of distant cousins who would be glad to do the work and they would probably do it right away if it is not reserved.
  • (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

  • It may be great to do them in the order you have printed them but that has nothing to do with when they are RESERVED. The RESERVED date appears on the temple ordinance list. The real question is how do you select the ones to PRINT and how do you know they correspond with First in First out.
    • view 5 more comments
    • There was no comment on the possibility of having the system load only the not printed or printed lists rather than loading ALL every time. Again, the computer time would be vastly saved.
    • Your temple list has "shared printed" (brown) and "shared" (only) (red) icons.

      Clicking on my own "Shared" list, the "Shared Printed" shows up in that list (there is only one of the 89 shared names).

      Sorting the list, I have one that goes back to 2010, and that is a problem, but it is a sealing to the parents.

      The problem is that this person was born in 1910, which is within the 110-year period, so I cannot reserve the endowment (the other ordinances were completed), so the sealing to parents remains incomplete. At least, this issue caused me to look at the record and I'm going to unreserve that sealing ordinance (which was made when the rule was 95 years, not the current 110.
  • (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

  • That is a question for the Temple Department. In the office we do not select names. They just are given to us. I have always assumed that the Temple Department was giving us the "oldest" names, those reserved the longest.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • It is not the oldest reserved but oldest put into the shared list supposedly; however I have found that to generally not be entirely true either. If you take your shared temple list and then have it sort by modified the brown squares should probably be in order and they are not. But the modified date is apparently not always the date they are added to the list. The only way to get the date added to the list is on the individual's ordinance page--not on the popup either. Could the date of addition to the list be added as a sort so that we could see that ordinances are being done in order????
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • When NewFamilySearch rolled out in 2007-2009 depending where you live, the temples were told to scan in all the cards they had sitting in their offices. I was told that those would "go to the temple file." Like you, I found that no temple work was being completed. I reported and FamilySearch subsequently managed the problems. You should have heard the gasp on the other end of the line!! So many of those names that go back to 2007-2009 should be unreserved and re-reserved.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Could we not have the date that the person was placed on the list show somewhere on the temple ordinance list rather than only at the person's ordinances. The odinance list shows reserved and modified neither of which is the date that the name was SHARED with the temple. As I understand it names SHARED with the temple should be done in the order of the date with which they were SHARED, i.e. first in first out. If we could sort by that date we could see if for some reason our older names are not being done I still have many which show they were modified in 2009 and 2010 which are not done nor selected by the temple to do. Finding out when they were shared is another matter as you have to leave temple ordinance file and go to the ordinance detail for the person. Even then I still have some from 2009.
    • While I generally agree with you on doing the FIFO based upon the Shared date, I also understand that temples can pull names for only those ordinances that need to be completed. That could (temporarily) make the list seem inconsistent.

      But otherwise, I agree with the FIFO concept based upon when the name was shared with (placed into) the temple system.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Ron Tanner (FamilySearch.org Product Manager) May 04, 2016 15:22
    The date column on the Temple tab shows the Modified and Reserved date. The Reserved date would be the one you are looking for.
    • view 2 more comments
    • AMEN!!! I think this is another example of FamikySearch and Temple departments not coordinating. It is really discouraging to work hard to identify people and have names languish. Especially if extraction names are given priority!!
    • They certainly are NOT done in the order reserved. I asked this question once before and was told they are supposedly done in the order they are shared. The temples are taking ordinances much later than a lot of the ones I have reserved and I was told that was because they go by the shared date. I looked at the modified date as the shared date but that still doesn't do it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    The problem is two fold. Patrons of smaller temples with smaller capacity and more family names take much linger to complete endowments than big temples. Stop making every name I submit go to my little temple.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Ron Tanner (FamilySearch.org Product Manager) May 04, 2016 19:26
    I have begun, last week, conversations with the Temple Department to review the current process of how these names are moved to temples. It will take some time to come to a good plan. We are working on it but don't expect a change any time soon. We have to be careful to make sure we do not do something that causes a temple to not have the ordinances they need.
    • view 2 more comments
    • I can understand the situation with the drawers, but that isn't the problem.

      It is the way the patron-supplied cards are handled in Utah temples vs. those not in the Mormon corridor.

      I could leave up to fifty (50!) cards at one of the temples and they would do them.

      They weren't stored in drawers, but were used in place of names pulled from the temple-shared list or extraction program.
    • EXACTLY!!!!!!! Our recorder refuses to be involved stating "The temple does not supply the names." It is a disconnect. The drawer is a battle. People keep putting their names in front of others and some names never get done. I just put mine in the back and tell my friends to look there :-) Can I give you 50 cards?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m encouraged
    Thank you! And please take extraction names out of the mix!!! You can post them so we can research them, but clogging up the already over crowded endowment queue is tough.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Ron Tanner (FamilySearch.org Product Manager) May 04, 2016 19:48
    Extraction names are not used unless there are no ordinances of the requested type available in the temple shared list.
    • view 3 more comments
    • Hi Ron,

      From the experiences of others, it appears that extraction names are freely mixed with patron-supplied temple-shared names. That needs to be given a very serious look, especially since a patron-supplied temple-shared name can sit with no action for better than three years (sometimes much longer).
    • Copying this so Ron will see it for sure:
      I worked in initiatory again today and noted that the sheets had both patron (a variety of countries represented on each sheet) and Extraction (all Hungarian). So, I asked our recorder how the sheets were printed out...if he selected extraction or patron. He said, "No, we just click a link and the names Salt Lake wants to send us are printed. We have no control over them, other than the number we print." So, FamilySearch, or whoever, is mixing extraction and patron submitted names with the names that go to/are downloaded by the temples. At the very least for initiatory, but likely for other ordinances as well.
      I object to this. Our patrons would still be able to access the extraction names under research tabs, but first priority for temple ordinances should be given to member submitted names. Haven't we been taught that those are our responsibility and have a greater likelihood of waiting for this work to be completed?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m Frustrated
    1
    WRONG!!! I work in the Newport Beach Temple as an ordinance worker and frequently supervise the initiatory. There are two different lists which come through. (the five name sheets...those with "Patron" on the top and those with "Extraction" on the top. I find it hard to believe that all jillion Hungarian names we've done over the last year were because there were no member submitted names to be done. Just ain't so!!
    IF it is true that there were NO patron submitted names to be done (and we have a drawer system full of names stake members leave for others to do), THEN they should use names in the drawer. IF those are all exhausted, (never happen) THEN they should do extraction.
    Our recorder won't get involved and repeats over and over (and it makes no sense to me) that "The temple is not in charge of supplying the names." Then who does? And they should do a better job!!!
    • view 4 more comments
    • I worked in initiatory again today and noted that the sheets had both patron (a variety of countries represented on each sheet) and Extraction (all Hungarian). So, I asked our recorder how the sheets were printed out...if he selected extraction or patron. He said, "No, we just click a link and the names Salt Lake wants to send us are printed. We have no control over them, other than the number we print." So, FamilySearch, or whoever, is mixing extraction and patron submitted names with the names that go to/are downloaded by the temples. At the very least for initiatory, but likely for other ordinances as well.
      I object to this. Our patrons would still be able to access the extraction names under research tabs, but first priority for temple ordinances should be given to member submitted names. Haven't we been taught that those are our responsibility and have a greater likelihood of waiting for this work to be completed?
    • Absolutely, which is why I would like Ron to push this through along with our concerns. We need to be able to clear out the patron-submitted names long before any extracted names are used.

      Only when patron-submitted names are used, then it would be fine to use extracted names.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Alas, the most logical explanation is the internet, email, and deaths, hardware and capabilities are still being developed, and these older records are in a pile, when the current reservations are caught up, then those older ones might be dragged out of the hard cover boxes, in which they reside. An email (electronic mail) I imagine is prioritized in the order received, those ones going into new Temples, are likely archived, alphabetically and chronologically, in boxes with triplicate inventory lists, like they do at the state. When one computer user leaves, the next one is unlikely allowed access to the prior users files, lots of reasons why. So, let's say I create an automated application through a data base, that will pass on what I haven't finished to any anonymous user thereafter, who, simply clicks on the the report stating the status of the files, they don't, shouldn't get anything but the database of whats left. It's no too hard, windows has a scheduler, the private user information has nothing to do with maintaining a open log. People wrote it in a book, and the next one to take over, opens the book, continues, do they care who held the book before them. Well, electronically, privacy is an issue, rather than having a pool, of data, that can be shared without sharing identities, shouldn't be any different than the book version. Yet, there are laws, about retention, access, control, custodian of records, who allow limited access to that specific, not to copy, share or keep, to review and return. The chain of custody cannot be expanded, to let anyone look at anything, no very specific, why, who, how long, the name of, the reason for, the return time, and swearing to keep these rules as they are.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • A couple of things on this old (and should be retired) discussion:

    The extraction program has ended per Ron Tanner in either his RootsTech presentation or one of his live Facebook question and answer sessions. Only when members stop reserving and sharing enough names, the program will remain ended.

    The entire temple reservation, ordinance, and methodology of providing the temples with names is being reworked, again per Ron Tanner. A lot of FamilySearch resources are being committed to completing this rework as quickly as possible because the current code being used is from newFamilySearch and cannot "scale" to cover the current system requirements. Thus, the rework will free "stuck" ordinances, and the names the temples need will be pulled by the temple as they need it, on a first in, first out, basis (that is, the names will be done in the order they were submitted/reserved).

    I have no idea what Dennis is talking about or to which, if any, reply or comment he is addressing.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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