Restricting temple ordinances until there are sources confirming the person lived to be 8
It would be wonderful to restrict temple ordinances electronically until there are sources that confirm the person lived to be 8 years of age ie marriage, census, death. It is exciting to see the green icons light up the way to performing ordinances until one discovers there is no evidence they need to be baptized, confirmed, initiatory, nor endowed. Even Ordinances Ready can be misleading. It would be more efficient to wait until the sources show the person lived to the age of accountability or definitely died before. This could be done on your end by programming a new colored icon with an explanation that it would become available once adequate documentation was attached. It would sure save a lot of unnecessary ordinance work and free up time for those who really need all ordinances to be done and not just sealing to parents.
I would love to "like" or "upvote" this idea but don't see the icons. I very much agree with this sentiment.0
Until that upgrade is made, you might want to show others the "Beyond the Minimum" list given by Sister Kathryn Grant on the BYU Sunday videos.
This is the title: FamilySearch Beginner Series (for LDS) 5: Preparing Names for Temple Ordinances- Kathryn Grant (8-22) It is on slide #21
Personally I never submit work for anyone unless I have evidence that he or she survived to age 8. Life is too short. But there are a serious number of people out there who not only ignore this limitation but will happily create new records in order to do more Temple work with a casual disregard to the possibility of duplicates.1
Prior to 1815 in Norway there were no birth records kept, only christening records. Likewise prior to 1815 there were no death records, only funeral records. If there was no body to hold a funeral over, a not uncommon occurrence among costal fishermen and among farmers who used fjords for transportation rather than roads, or if a family was too poor to pay the priest for the funeral, there would be no funeral record.
Also prior to 1815 few priests keep confirmation records of the 14 to 16 year olds which would be next record you would ever expect to find about a child.
The first census to list people's names was 1801. The next countrywide census was 1865 which means that a huge number of people born between 1802 and 1864 or who died before 1801were never recorded in any census.
Would you deny saving ordinances to the huge number of people who clearly were born but were not in a parish where confirmations were recorded, never married, and never had a funeral because of poverty or because their body was lost?2
Gordon, thank you so much for your knowledge of Norway! I knew nothing of these records. It reminds me of the scarcity we have in the U.S. before 1850 Census records were changed to include all family names.
Where do you find Norwegian names? I would be happy to use family Bibles or even family memories as a source, as long as it showed that they lived past eight years old.0
For many of these people, the only record of their life is their christening record. No family Bibles, no journals, no family memories, no government records, no census records. If they did not marry and did not have a funeral then no other church records either.
I've become quite in awe of the fact that the practice of infant baptism and the insistence of priests that every child must be baptized within days of birth is the only reason we have any record at all of the existence of millions of people which allows us to provide all needed ordinances for them. To refuse to do ordinances for them just because that is the only record would be a mistake. A few extra hours in the temple is never wasted, even it is just us having the benefit of it.0
I agree that people should not be denied ordinance work but I have plenty of work to do for those I know lived to age 8 or older. I prioritise these. In the millennium, when more information will be available, the work can be done for those previously missed.0
Thank you, Graham. I do the same as you. I prioritize. I have more than enough work to do for those documented to be 8. I was just hoping for a more efficient way to quickly prioritize my work. As a physician, I am accustomed to a 60+ hour work week. I love to devote precious time to those who really need B C I and E. I sort them one at a time now. I was hoping to find a way to make my choices more efficient.
I certainly agree that we should not deny people ordinances. I did not intend that. I just would like to get them the proper, appropriate one(s). If they only need SP, then that’s great to provide for them .
It really is wonderful that we can identify them through christening records. That is a great insight and attitude. They are not lost to us. Waiting for or searching for further documentation is honorable though. They will all receive every ordinance necessary.
At this point in the history of FamilySearch, I think it wise to prioritize. It won’t be long before more records will be made available to us for clarification. It is so much more efficient now than before. It can only become even better with time. I only wished OrdinancesReady felt the same way and didn’t send names that could wait for that prayed for confirmation. Or that when my personal research finds a new person with only christening records, I and those from my family searching with me, could quickly see where priority service can be employed.
Having a new colored icon instead of green, would be a terrific help. An explanation bar could also be included sharing what the color means and stating it’s ok to do B C I E but allow those of us where every minute is precious, to serve those who are in need of all the ordinances first.
Please consider passing this suggestion up the chain. It would be kind for many like me.1