Please Don't Include "WAITING" Names in the 300 Lines Temple Reservations Limit
I share LOTS of endowments with the temple. However, I love to save the sealings for myself, because I can easily keep up with completing them. This results in the name being labeled as "WAITING."
With the new rule, a name that is "WAITING" still counts as a line item towards my 300 lines reservation limit. Please consider not counting these towards the 300. Because I have shared the endowments, I have to "WAIT." I cannot do the Sealings to Parents now.
I am NOT slowing down the work. I attend often to do all that I can, and then I share the rest. The work is slow because very few people actually do the endowments that I've shared with the temple.
Please don't count "WAITING" reservations towards the 300 lines limit.
@Deborah J. White One thing that I do to reduce the number of my own reservations is to go ahead and share the sealings with the temple as well. When I get notifications from FamilySearch that temple work has been completed, I go in and view that to see what is next for that person. Sometimes, I will then unshare the next ordinance if I am available to do it and I print it out and do it myself. That was something I recently changed on my reservations and it really helped me keep good track of all the reservations. There are times my adult kids can do more and times they can't, so I'm happy to share them with the temple in case they cannot be done by me.
Just a suggestion.1
Thanks for your suggestion.
The reason I like to keep the Sealings to Parent is that I have enough time to do all of them myself. And, the sealings are my favorite ordinances, especially for people that I've carried through the process starting with baptism.
Because the endowments take so long to complete, there are relatively few names that are ready for sealings. And then, several sealings can be accomplished in just one temple trip.1
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ... ]
I am certain, that there are, MANY; Many; many, of us, who WILL agree with you.
Related post ...
'Category' = Temple
HOME > FAMILYSEARCH HELP > TEMPLE
Please Don't Include "WAITING" names in the 300 Lines Temple Reservations Limit
@Deborah J. White I am the same way. I LOVE doing sealings! Honestly, out of hundreds of sealings shared, there have only been 3 that others have claimed, so I like the storage of sharing them. Once I get a notification that the Endowment has been done, I jump on and unshare the sealing that is now ready. It works smashingly well, truly. And I am still able to do nearly all of the sealings myself. Just last night, I unreserved 5 sealing to spouse or sealing to parent so I could get them done. It was super simple and they are now printed out and ready for tomorrow's sealing appointment.
I know changes are all so super frustrating, but we can definitely work with it and still accomplish this great work!2
I agree. I am scheduled to do a sealing session next week. Since my count is over 300, I was unable to add an additional child found doing census attachment today, unable to be reserved and printed. I like to have the family unit together when I seal the family together. This 300 reservation will prevent me from being able to do this until I get under 300. If assigned to temple count in this 300, it will force many of us to unreserve endowment assigned to temple. I don't see how this will help the work along in my family line as I am the only one doing the work. I need the help of the temple system.
Don't want to be negative but maybe since focus is trying to get the youth to get more involved, the reservation count should be for baptism, confirmation only.1
You made the comment, "If assigned to temple count in this 300, it will force many of us to unreserve endowment assigned to temple. I don't see how this will help the work along in my family line as I am the only one doing the work. I need the help of the temple system."
Be assured that the 300 count is only for your personal reserved list. Your shared-with-the-temple list is still unlimited. You can store just as many thousands of names as you need for as long as you want until you get around to pulling them back to your list to complete the work. In the meantime those names you have shared with the temple are available for all your living extended family - 1st through 10 cousins of all varieties - to help you complete, as well as other temple patrons who don't have names to take personally.
You are not "the only one doing the work." You have dozens if not hundreds of distant family who, when they click Ordinances Ready, will be given names you have shared with the temple. Now if they would just get in there and to that!1
Why am I still getting the message "Ordinances that were previously shared with the temple cannot be shared again." Why is that still on my list if I shared it with the temple and counts toward my 300. I am not trying to hoard names and would love to remove them from my list once they are shared.
Also, yesterday, I entered a new family. With the 300 limit, I was not able to reserve them and share them with the temple. Can you make it possible for us to share new names directly with the temple and bypass our lists? I hate to leave a family that I found, dated and sourced out there in the vast family tree hoping someone will find them. Please provide a way where we can share them with the temple and not leave them hanging.
Can you give an example of where you are seeing "Ordinances that were previously shared with the temple cannot be shared again" where you do not think it should be? If you give a couple of ID numbers, then people can see evaluate what is on their ordinance pages and maybe explain what is going on.0
@MarleneFish if a name was ever shared with the temple at one point, by you or by someone else, and it was brought into your personal list, it cannot be shared with the temple again. I have several like that on my personal list because I either took them off the temple shared list and brought them into my own list after I had once shared them with the temple or I found someone else had shared one or more with the temple that I claimed so I could do it. Once that is done, those will stay on your list and will have that message there. They need to be completed within 90 days. If they are not, I'm assuming they will be sent back to the temple reserved list. I'm not sure. I've never had any that hadn't gotten done in the 90 days. I know it used to simply go back to green for anyone to reserve, but that was before the changes a while back.0
@MarleneFish Also, another person had a fantastic response to someone asking the same thing about being at the limit and not being able to reserve more. I'll past it here:
Just take 50 names off your current 300 and share them with the temple. Then reserve and share everyone as you find them. That cushion of 50 names should be plenty if you need to reserve some names before they are fully ready to share with the temple.
All those names you have shared with the temple are still completely in your control (until a temple prints them) and can be pulled back anytime in the unlikely event you ever exhaust your personal list.
Our ability to reserve all of our extended family (and only them, not just random names which would be against church policy) has not been impacted in the least. There is no limit to our shared with the temple list. The only thing that has changed is that we are required to share more with the temple so that your living extended family, the ones you have never met, does not need to come to you for names, they can take the names to the temple directly when finding your shared reservations in Family Tree.
However, several people have suggested a "Share to Temple" button and I think that is a good idea as long as people realize those names are still on their temple reservation list, should only be people they are related to, and that they still have some responsibility to complete ordinance work for those names as they are able. Which makes me think that it may not be such a great idea. There may be too many people who say, "Oh, I'm not reserving these people for myself so it doesn't matter that I have absolutely no relationship to them." Putting them on our personal list first to reinforce that we should only reserve people we are related to then needing to share "our" names with the temple is probably best.
So just keep finding these people, reserving them, sharing them with the temple, and enjoy seeing the work completed by their descendants.0
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm just barely over 300 reservations, so I have plenty of options to work with.
Mostly, I was just hoping to share my idea (which I feel is entirely valid) with the people who make decisions. This is the "Suggest An Idea" section. Are any decision-makers reading my idea? If so, please let me know.
Thanks so much! :)0
@Deborah J. White, Yes, this is the place to suggest ideas, and I do think, with some reservations, that your idea is a good one. Sometimes when ideas are posted no one comments on them. Sometimes people agree and support the idea, sometimes others just point out all the problems with it. Sometimes discussions develop that have little to nothing to do with the original idea such as Marlene's supplementary question. There are times when I've posted something and even though I continue to get notifications that others have posted a comment on it, the topic has drifted so far that I'm not very interested in it any more and don't bother going back to read anything posted.
But back to ideas. Personnel from FamilySearch almost never comment on ideas but we have been reassured many times through the years that all posted ideas get reviewed by someone from FamilySearch and forwarded as appropriate to the correct division over such things. Despite this lack of feedback, I have seen many examples of ideas from users get incorporated into the website.
I think your idea might be a significant enough change in policy that it would likely need approval of the Church's Temple committee, if not the First Presidency, then the FamilySearch design team would have to come up with how this would work on the website, then the programmers would need to design, write, and test the programming changes, then release it to the site. At a minimum, all this would probably take at least a year.1
@ifyerhappyanduknowit, you stated "if a name was ever shared with the temple at one point, by you or by someone else, and it was brought into your personal list, it cannot be shared with the temple again." (Emphasis added.)
Do you have a clear example where that is really the case or does one of the blog articles mention that? I tested it out and it does not seem to be the case.
Here is a screen shot from my shared with the temple list:
Running through the process of unsharing:
There is no notification that this is now a 90-day reservation that cannot be re-shared with the temple. I shared it back to the temple without any trouble at all.
Marlene has not returned to share an ID, but do you have a person where you are sure you made the initial reservation, shared it with the temple, pulled it back to your list, and it now says it cannot be shared with the temple again? I'd like to look at that person's ordinance page in Family Tree and see what is going on.
Sort of off the point, but I've been thinking that it is nice that this new policy was implemented now. Since no reservations actually expire now, people have time to decide how they want to re-arrange their reservation lists. If expiration dates were in force, all those 90-day ordinances would be expiring and vanishing off the lists of people who have more than 300 lines and would not be able to be re-reserved. I haven't seen anyone mention that yet. I think I'll start a new post.0
@Gordon Collett thank you for trying that out. I may be remembering the names incorrectly, thinking they were ones I reserved. I only have 3 that give that message and I was pretty sure one was one that I reserved originally. I just looked again and it does look like all three are ones I claimed. I know I just finished a bunch of sealings that were previously shared but again, I must have been mistaken that some of those were my own reservations.
Thank you for testing that and sharing your findings!0