Vicarious Ordinances -- Reserving names for which I have no relationship.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I just did a quick check and I can still reserve the ordinance(s) for a person with which I have no relationship.

It is my understanding that Ordinances Ready will ignore any names of persons to which I have no relationship.

This needs to be extended to reserving (or pulling temple shared) name(s).

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: In reading through some of Jim Greene's comments, it appears I do not have to be related to pull a shared name (if available).

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: Which makes complete sense because you are not submitting the name, which does require a relationship, just doing the work. This is what happens when you go to the temple and are given an ordinance slip there.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: True. I need to find someone to which I do not have a relationship to see if the system will allow me to reserve (submit) a name.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: In trying to chase down an unrelated person, I ran into some that had duplicates. The system would not allow me to reserve ordinances if possible duplicates exist.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: Can't reserve until duplicates resolved (that is, merged or dismissed as not a match) has been in place for quite some time.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: I did find someone in which View My Relationship says I have no relationship and could still reserve ordinances. We still just get the document that we click to say that we understand who we can submit ordinances for and who we should not. So It's still just based on the honor system without any software blocks as far as I can tell.

LegacyUser

Lyle Toronto said: From the temple policy.
"You may also submit the names of the following individuals:

- Biological, adoptive, and foster family lines connected to your family.
- Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their families).
- Descendants of your ancestors.
- Your own descendants.
- Possible ancestors, meaning individuals who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate, such as those who have the same last name and resided in the same small geographic area as your known ancestors".

I think the key in this wording is "probable family relationship". For this reason they can't programmatically prohibit the reservation.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: The system only goes up to 15 generations for seeing a relationship. If you want to reserve someone out of that range, then technically you can but the system would tell you no. So I have mixed feelings about having the system check.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: That makes sense.

A year or more ago, someone complained that the temple list was very slow loading. It was because that user had reserved all the people in a small remote village who had the same name as their ancestor, but did not check to try to establish a relationship.

That will continue to be a problem, unless FS requires a permission request like they do for those born less than 110 years ago. But again, programming that could be a problem as you stated.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I think this is a dead issue, simply because of what Lyle reported. He is correct, so moderator, please lock this discussion from further comments.

Thanks.