Completed SP ordinances still show "request"
Below are 4 examples from my family tree that SP still shows "request" and the ordinance has already been done. I read the sheet telling what to do and I did everything that I was asked to do: Checked for duplicates and matched info for both child and parents and in these cases the parents are shown . I already repeated the Temple work for some others with the same problem but don't want to do that again.
William Clink William Clink 1685 – Deceased • LL7D-S2G
Joseph Clink 25 June 1721 – 1778 • LZ28-X7N
Elizabeth Clink 19 November 1758 – Deceased • LZ28-VYH
For Andrew Clink : 9XLL-J1F
Best Answers
-
I would like Support to fix these ordinances so they no longer show "request," as the ordinances have already been completed. Thanking you in advance.
0 -
This is often a problem you can solve yourself if you like logic problems and have the right kind of patience and research skills. It does takes some investigative work and some people do just need to turn it over to a friend who finds such things a fascinating challenge. Here is an analysis of your first example. The key to this is the Change Log.
William Clink 1685 – Deceased • LL7D-S2G
His effective sealing was completed in 1986. That means it was imported with a version of him into Family Tree when it was created in 2012 to parents that came with him in that import.
LL7D-S2G's change log shows that this ID was created in 2016. Therefore it is not the source for the sealing. Going farther up the Change Log shows that five other William Clinks were merged into this record.
Taking those one at a time we have:
97V8-HKV - this record never had parents so this is not the source of the sealing.
97VZ-Y9B - this record also never had parents so again is not the source of the sealing.
97VH-TPQ - neither did this one.
97VH-TPQ - neither did this one. These four all just merged his children into the family.
97V1-D1R - this is an extracted christening record for a William Clink christened 06 SEP 1698, Moneydie, Perth, Scotland. This is definitely the source of the sealing because it was an extraction record and was imported into Family Tree when it was first constructed.
Now comes an important question. Should this William Clink chr 1698 ever have been merged with with your William Clink born 1685? Are they really the same person? You have as the father of your William Clink a William Clink. The extraction record for William Clink has his father as Robert Clink.
If you are sure you have the right father, then the merge never should have happened. 97V1-D1R needs to be restored and put back with his father. The entire extraction record needs to be restored to its form when originally created and the christening date for Robert's son taken off your William. Doing so will take 97V1-D1R's sealing off of your LL7D-S2G and fix his ordinance page, leaving the sealing for your William still needing to be done.
Since extraction records come right out of the parish records, in this case, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X1K7-3PR that means 97V1-D1R's father really is Robert Clink and that cannot be changed.
If you are unsure how to undo the merge, since it doesn't involve your family I'd be happy to undo things for you (and illustrate step by step if you'd like). Just let me know if you would like me to.
0
Answers
-
Thank you for posting in the Community about the SP ordinances that have been completed. We will forward your case to a specialty department for review and resolution You may be contacted by that team if they need more information.
0 -
William Clink LL7D-S2G
Joseph Clink LZ28-X7N
Elizabeth Clink LZ28-VYH
Andrew Clink 9XLL-J1F
The temple ordinances now appear correctly in Family Tree.
0 -
I did check them and it is perfect now. Thank you so much! I will subject a few more that have the same problem.
Thank you for the wonderful support that is done here!
0
