Family Group App
I am tying out the Family Group app and I have a vital suggestion. I recently set up a Family Group for sharing names within my immediate family to use as a place family members of all ages could go and find names for temple work, based on criteria of ordinances they were approved to complete.
I went to Ordinances Ready to see what names were listed. I chose a name and researched how I might be related to that person. Once I had confirmed we were indeed related, I requested her ordinances. I then proceeded to try and add that person to the Family Group and was unable as her name had already been shared at one point. I understand the policy where you cannot share a name once it has already been shared, but it feels like it defeats the purpose of the Family Group concept. I am respectively requesting that an exception be integrated where names may be shared within the Family Group so that relatives may share in the responsibility of completing the work for their ancestors. Thank you.
Comments
-
Thank you for contacting FamilySearch Community. Your suggestion would be great posted in FamilySearch "Suggest An Idea." Please consider reposting there as the engineers and others will be aware of ideas you suggest. Your post has been moved to "General Questions."
https://community.familysearch.org/en/categories/suggest-an-idea
0 -
Jamie
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ... ]
Just in passing ...
And, just for clarification ...
When you 'say':
▬ "... had already been shared at one point ..."; and,
▬ "... I understand the policy where you cannot share a name once it has already been shared ..."
That, you are referring to "Temple" Work, that has ALREADY been "Share[d] with the Temple System", at some point in time.
Please conform.
'Thank You' in advance.
Brett
0 -
Jamie
Just in passing ...
As an aside ...
Unless, the Work, was AUTOMATICALLY, "Share[d] with the Temple System", by the "System".
[ ie. 'FamilySearch' ... ]
IF, the Work, was ORIGINALLY "Share[d] with the Temple System", by a User/Patron ...
You DO have the option, to TRY and "Request", that the User/Patron, who ORIGINALLY "Share[d] with the Temple System", to "Unreserve", from the "Temple System".
But ...
That Said ...
There is NO guarantee, that the User/Patron, will respond; and/or, "Unshare".
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
Mod Note: Moved to Suggest an Idea
0 -
There really is no need to share 90-reservations with the Family Group because, as you found, Ordinances Ready finds them for you.
At this point, Ordinances Ready checks in this order:
- Your personal reservation list.
- Family names that you shared with a family group.
- Family names that have been shared with a family group that you belong to.
- Your family names that you shared with the temple.
- "Green temples with clocks" on names of people who are related to you that have been shared with the temple by someone else. (90-day reservations.)
- "Green temples" on names of people who are related to you.
- Names not related to you that have been shared with the temple.
(See: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/where-does-ordinances-ready-get-names)
When Ordinances Ready found a name for you in category 5, that means it would also find it for any of your relatives who might belong to the family group.
0 -
Gordon
It's 'Brett'.
Just in passing ...
Personally, I think and believe, that we SHOULD, be able to "Share", ANY "Temple" Work, that has been "Share[d] with the Temple System", WITH a "Family Group", if we so desire.
As, I would humbly suggest, that in some (in fact, MANY) of such cases, that "Temple" Work MAY possibly; even, get done, MUCH "Quicker", than through the "Temple System".
And ...
In any event; UNTIL, a member of a "Family Group", in which that "Temple" Work is "Shared", actually "Reserves" the Work, such Work would REMAIN in the "Temple System"; and, STILL be available for either, ANY User/Patron; and/or, ANY "Temple", to do (ie. "Reserve"; and, be responsible for).
I actually 'see', the BENEFIT, of this suggested enhancement.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0
