Explain better who I can vs should vs should not reserve for doing vicarious temple ordinances

Bruce6664

Be MUCH more explicit in how you describe who you should, and may do temple work for.

Perhaps I see things more black and white than others, but the descendants of my ancestors is EVERYONE. Hard Stop. If that is not what is meant, and I know that is not what is meant, then please be more explicit.

genthusiast

I think generally what is meant - is that you need to have researched and know your direct relation to the person for whom you are requesting/submitting reservation. A direct relation means you have a direct ancestral line back and possibly a cousin line forwards - in-laws are not a direct relation unless you know/researched the cousin relationship. Ordinances Ready I think only suggests these direct relationship opportunities - so if you want to - just run that for all your reservations.

It is pretty much impossible - from my perspective - to establish a documented cousin relationship for most people (generally those records are not extant). Relativefinder is fun to play with - but seems to suggest undocumented/suspect relationships.

Hope that helps cousin 👍

Bruce6664

Hi genthusiast,

Thanks for replying here.

"I think"

"generally what is meant"

THIS is the issue - you are guessing as to what is meant. Is it really so hard for FamilySearch to be more explicit as to what is meant? I understand that there will be a fair bit more text involved, and that flies in the face of presenting a simple message. Fine. Have an asterisk which then takes you to a more complete explanation, which will fill in all the gaps about what is meant.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your interpretation about what is meant. I think you are close. Why doesn't FamilySearch do that?

Jane Cantrell Brookman

@Bruce6664 Thank you for your suggestion on making instructions clearer. This has been submitted to the assigned project manager.

Bruce6664

Thanks for considering improving the wording for this. I might add that there are quite a few issues with the other sentences which explain the "rules" for reserving ordinances: The term "immediate family members" is explained in a section which is less likely to be read, instead of at the first instance, the one which applies to most people. The terms "family", "family line", and "related" are used, but it's not clear who that includes. Also the sentence beginning: "Possible ancestors" is also not as clear as it should be, adding the less precise "individuals with ... family relationship", as part of the explanation.

Thanks for your consideration in improving the explanations.