Search for completed ordinances by date to verify an ordinance was recorded correctly
Ron Tanner said: All decisions that are made regarding temple information is reviewed and agreed to by the Temple department. Just like anything regarding membership is reviewed and agreed to by the Membership department.Are you saying that you would prefer the word "Completed" rather than a date and temple.0
Tom Huber said: I would prefer to see the original date, but in lieu of that, I would like to see "Completed" with the name of the temple (in the case of ordinances completed in 1973).0
Tom Huber said: Ron, thank you for responding. As I mentioned, my preference is to see the actual date, but where Completed with the name of the temple formerly was used, the practice of overwriting that information with a date that occurs later than the next ordinance should not have taken place. In other words, I am of the opinion that this was not done intentionally, but that the routines were not complete in that they did not test the existing dates against the date that was going to overwrite the "Completed" text.
There is ample reason to overwrite Completed, when the date is one that is in agreement with the other dates performed. In this case, all the non-sealing ordinances took place within a 16-day period, inclusive of the end dates. As I wrote, The referenced article says "Between 1960 and 1990, the confirmation ordinance was always completed on the same day, at the same temple, and by the same proxy as the baptism ordinance. The initiatory ordinance was always completed at the same temple but not always the same date. If the inferred initiatory is showing, it will show "Completed" with only the temple name."
The dates are 8 Feb 1973 (baptism and confirmation) to 22 Feb 1973 (endowment)- a period of 16 days, inclusive of the end dates. Over a twelve day period of time (4 of the dates fell on a Sunday or Monday when the temple is typically closed) the initiatory ordinance was performed in the Salt Lake Temple, where the other ordinances took place.
If I did not live 1200 miles from where the temple ordinance microfilms are kept in a special collections section, I could go to Salt Lake and search the films myself and find the date the initiatory ordinance was performed.
Support will not search those twelve days. They insist that I take the matter to my local authorities.
I happen to agree with the practice, only not the part where the practice did not test to make sure the date that overwrote "Completed" did not produce what is typically called a "false" positive - in other words, a bad date.
I doubt seriously that the Temple Department would agree to overwriting any "Completed" text with a date that is over 43 years our of sequence. In my opinion, the matter needs to be revisited and the ideal approach would be that FamilySearch bring up the problem to the Temple Department, not some lowly member, who apparently does not mean anything to FamilySearch support, waste the time of their leadership all the way back to the temple department.0
Now that we never gets cards returned from the temple, it would be really helpful if we could filter our reserved ordinances based on ordinance completed date. For instance if I have reservations and get baptisms and confirmations done, then it is very inconvenient to find which of my cards were just recently kept and destroyed by the temple. If I could have a filter in reservations that either filters on completed ordinance and date or even a filter that can eliminate completed ordinances that would be great. For instance, if I search for Endowments, then it includes those who both have and have not had their initiatory done. If I could eliminate those who do not have initiatory completed, I could more easily find those that just had their initiatory work done. It would be great to have this in the filters without needing to cross reference everything to notifications. The other scenario would be to be able to filter on completed ordinances and then sort by date completed from our reserved list and then this would be very simple.0