Retrieve names that have been shared with the temple system by others

LegacyUser

Rebecca Jones said: I would love it if we could easily retrieve names that have been shared with the temple system by someone else.
My family is looking for family names to take to the temple but whenever we find a name that needs work it seems to have been recently shared with the temple system and given to strangers to do the work. Obviously the person who shared the name with the temple doesn't mind who does the work, so instead of having to personally contact each person to ask them to retrieve the names and unreserve them it would be great to be able to reserve the name for myself with the click of a button.
It seems that some people find a name, reserve it and then routinely share it with the temple instead of leaving the temple work for other distantly related cousins to experience the joy of finding and doing the work. Thanks.

LegacyUser

Dallin Scott McKinnon said: It would definitely be nice to have a 'retrieve' option like you describe--perhaps the name could be released to any direct-line family members for a two-week period, and if the temple work is not done by then, the name would return to the temple system.

LegacyUser

Auria Mikele Kirkendall said: Yes, PLEASE! I am finding people in my direct line whose names I cannot take to the temple because someone reserved it and shared it with the temple. HELP!

LegacyUser

Chas Howell said: The only way I know of now is to contact the person who shared it with the temple and have them unshare/unreserve it and then you reserve it.

LegacyUser

Pamela Hill said: I think it would be great if a name shared with the temple system could be pulled back and reserved under their own reservation list, so we could perform these temple ordinances for distant relatives.

LegacyUser

TManning said: Agree with the restriction that the name would only be released for a time and if it was not complete it would be put back on our shared with the temple list. I am more than willing to share with any relatives but I do want to know that they will complete the work that I have spent so much time researching.

LegacyUser

S. said: I posted in the past was to help speed things up, all I can say is I hope the best for people to get their names done.

LegacyUser

Jennifer Jill Kastner said: I agree that it would be nice to have a retrieve button. I find names that say things like Shared with Temple System 22 February 2007 and here it is January 2018 and the name is still sitting there undone, but I can't get to it. I find that names shared with the temple system do not get completed quickly as the person may think, but instead sit there for years. Please release them to anyone who would like to do the work.

LegacyUser

Jay Erekson said: Here is a question. Looking at the total number of ordinances completed, what is the percentage of family file names compared to temple names? Most people that I know take their own family names to the temple and do not do names provided by the temple. Also, my brother is in a temple district which does not provide names, so each patron has to bring family names. So it is no wonder why names shared with the temple take forever.

I agree with the idea to be able to retrieve temple shared names with a deadline for the patron to complete the retrieved name.

LegacyUser

Chas Howell said: Jay, what temple district does not provide patrons with proxy names?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Jennifer and Jay,

We patrons have been told that FamilySearch is working on a solution wherein a patron can take a temple-shared name to the temple. What will be involved hasn't been told to us, but we have been assured that it is something that is being worked on.

Jennifer,
If the relative that was shared with the temple system over ten years ago is a relative of yours, open a case ("problem") through feedback. Be sure to indicate the relationship you have with the person you want to have assigned to you and ask that it either be released or assigned directly to you. Be sure to give your helper number as well as contact information in the support case. The best solution is to actually call using the number provided on the Contact Us page of FamilySearch.org.

Jay,
I am bothered by the fact that there is at least one temple district in the system that does not provide names. We have been told that the way the names are shared is that they are assigned to the temple in which the patron (who is sharing the names) lives. That means that if they live in the district where names are not provided, then those shared names will never get done. To me, this is a big issue.

Hopefully, the ability to "pull and take" names from the temple-shared state is something that will be released very, very soon.

My other hope is that the names will no longer be assigned to specific districts, but released to the temples on a first-shared, first-pulled basis by temples puling names from the system. It will certainly help those names that have been stuck in the system forever.

There have been numerous discussions about this topic for a long time.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: As an added note, if you have left a message or sent an email to the person who shared the name(s) and have not received a reply, definitely open a case or call support to get the name assigned to you.

LegacyUser

Chas Howell said: Ditto what Tom Huber said.

LegacyUser

Jay Erekson said: I do not know if I want to reveal the name of the temple that does not use names from the temple department, where patrons only perform ordinances for family names that they bring or a name that someone else has left at the desk because of the overwhelming number of cards that they have. It seems to me that the trend is to have temple patrons provide their own names, so I do not see any cause to be bothered by one or more temples that require patrons to provide their own names for ordinance work.

I had a few names reserved where the endowment was shared with the temple, and I had reserved the sealing to parents. After sitting on them for over a year, I decided that I had enough other names reserved that needed my attention, so I released those that had been shared with the temple.

LegacyUser

Chas Howell said: Got it. I was taken aback when your post above said temple "district",

LegacyUser

Anna Fingerle said: Some members are giving thousends of names into the temple list and family members who would like to love to do them are not able because of this way of doing. My husband and I were temple workers for a long time and we know that all ordinances need about 4 hours per person. If someone have more than 30,000 names in their temple file it needs about 64 years to do them all by one person (if this person would go daily to the temple for all sessions. By this example you see that this way of doing blocks members who only give a few names in the temple file. It would be great if there was a limit (maybe 500) per person. My husband and I found thousends of names while we were working on our tree but only reserved what we could handle. By looking time by time to the names, we were happy to see someone else reserved them. That brings families together. We often have contacts with people working on that trees. So we found family members we did not know before

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: "We patrons have been told that FamilySearch is working on a solution wherein a patron can take a temple-shared name to the temple. What will be involved hasn't been told to us, but we have been assured that it is something that is being worked on."

LegacyUser

Richard Page Mills said: I found a relative whose temple work was reserved and shared with the temple 5 years ago and on February 27th was still not done. Is there a typical turn around time for the temple system to do the work?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: For women, endowments typically take two or more years to complete after the initiatory is completed. For men it is now five and more years.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The problem is that the system has been flooded with patrons who have shared thousands of names. I've seen complaints about load times for the Temple list from people with well over a thousand names on the list.

LegacyUser

Nancy Elaine Watson said: I am having the same problem, trying to do the work for names "shared with the temple." I hope that the suggested "Retrive" function will be released very soon! My families are waiting for everyone to be together and they could be if the shared names could be shared to ME!

LegacyUser

Nancy Elaine Watson said: I know some of the problem about patrons who send in thousands of names. It isn't always something we would want to limit. For example, one aging woman in Canada has volumes of family names from Sweden and Denmark. she is basically like an indexer, entering all the names from these massive volumes and sharing them with the temple. I would hate for her to be limited in what she submits because these names are not found anywhere else. But if they are not being done because people can't retrieve them, then I think her hard work is not being effective. But I don't believe she sends thousands in one load. I can see that could put a strain on the server.

Also, I think that you wouldn't really have to be a direct relative to retrieve names shared with the temple. Think about it. Suppose I go to the temple without a name and I just ask for a shared name. That wouldn't be my relative, just a random name. So why couldn't I just retrieve and print any name from the temple and take the name with me? Caution: A name retrieved and printed would actually fall into the same category as reserved names for that patron. And reserved names tend to stay in reserve sometimes for years. I like the latest time limit on reserved names and that would also apply to retrieved/reserved names. After a retrieved/reserved name was left undone for two years, it should go back to the temple shared list.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: I thought that I heard someplace that ordinances shared with the temple are no longer limited to just the temple which district you live in. I've seen some ordinances recently that were performed on continents different from where I live. I'm pretty sure they were ones that I had shared with the temple.

Can anyone confirm this?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Ron Tanner talked about this as a future benefit of a project to replace the old code (which was borrowed from newFamilySearch) that runs the Temple reservation and ordinance section with new that will allow FIFO across the entire temple system,

There were a number of issues involved and he basically said that a number of teams were being assigned the project. It was very high on the priority list, but because of the amount of work needed, it was hoped that the project could be completed "within a year" -- that now appears to be sometime in 2019.

His presentation was part of his RootsTech presentation. He posted a concise presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0itqD...

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Re the woman in Canada -- I hope she can prove her relationship. It is okay for her to enter the names, but if she cannot provide or prove her relationship, then she should not be reserving them even if she shares them with the temple.

Even though I am a convert to the Church and a number of my lines need work, there is no way I could add "thousands" of name and reserve them, simply because I cannot prove any relationship.

In thinking about the thousands of names issue, I am impressed that these folks are simply putting in names, regardless of any relationship that they may have.

There was a discussion not long ago where a person was talking about losing a lot of names that he was unsharing from the temple system, but accidentally unreserved instead. We want an easy way to retrieve those names (there is one, but it involves fully certified family tree management programs that can download a patron's relatives from Family Tree.

The problem may have been (and looking like) he had entered and reserved names of persons for which he had not established a relationship. He never responded to the question if he was related to those folks or not, leaving me with the impression that he had failed to observe (or was ignoring) the policies issued by the Brethren (leaders of the Church). That non-compliance can cause members to permanently lose access to the system.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Ron mentioned that the reason this has a very high priority, including having a number of development teams assigned is because of the "stuck" names. He explained that the present system only allows names to be "pushed" to the temples, which is also a problem. The new system will allow temples to pull the names and they will come from the entire log of names on a first in (as far as the particular ordinance (and gender) is concerned), first out (or pulled by any temple).

This will result in all shared names being treated equally with respect to the gender and next ordinance.

LegacyUser

Nancy Elaine Watson said: My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that you must be a relative or have permission from a close relative to do the work for people who were born less than 110 years ago. After 110 years you do not need to "prove" a relationship but since the temple work is sacred, people should only do the work for their relatives. Also, the church policy says that you can do the work for people with the same surname in the small area where your family is found. But I should also clarify that this woman in Canada is using family history books kept and passed down to her by her own family. Thus, all the people in the books are her family and most were born over 110 years ago. As for sharing them with the temple, I may be wrong. She may only be adding them, but not sharing with the temple. Plus, she has been in contact with FamilySearch and they know what she is doing.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The woman (in Canada) who is using Family History books is most likely just copying in the information without any sources (other than the book). That means that the names are sitting in Family Search without sources and may actually be incorrect. The National Genealogy Society adheres to the principle that. "Genealogy without documentation/sources is mythology."

Far too many people copy without researching. This has been going on for a long, long time and FamilySearch is an attempt, with more emphasis on sources, complete with a fair hinting system, to encourage actual research.

Since she has contacted FamilySearch (or vice versa) and okay'd her efforts, it is likely that she is not reserving them, but only entering them, as you mentioned, a super indexer of sorts.

As far as any temple reservations are concerned, irregardless of the number of years ago the person was born, yes, relationship must be established. That is the policy, which is found in https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...

It is very straigh-forward and says the following:

Policy
Temple ordinances are sacred and should be treated with respect. Please reserve ordinances for individuals only if you are related to them.

A letter from the First Presidency dated February 29, 2012, states "Our preeminent obligation is to seek out and identify our own ancestors. Those whose names are submitted for proxy temple ordinances should be related to the submitter."

You are responsible to submit names of the individuals below:
1. Immediate family members
2. Direct-line ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on, and their families).

You can also submit the names of the individuals below:
1. Biological, adoptive, and foster family lines connected to your family.
2. Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their families).
3. Descendants of your ancestors.
4. Your own descendants.
5. 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 area as your known ancestors.

The same article contains related links establishing relationships, details concerning unrelated persons, persons born before 1500, and even a link to the copy of the First Presidency letter.

LegacyUser

Cyrus Simper said: Hey if that lady needs baptisms performed I would be happy to help.

LegacyUser

Jeffrey Warren Hess said: Which is a problem, by the way, if the person who shared the name has been excommunicated, because he would then lose his access to the FamilySearch "Temple" tab. So, if someone ever tells you that they no longer has access to the Temple tab, please don't try to help them get there. They can't, and they'd rather not talk about it.

LegacyUser

Francine Schilmoeller Larsen said: The Temple System nationwide is some 2 to 2 1/2 years behind in shared work, but Family Search expires names by hard dates, even those we are actively working. My husband and I work in the temple, and family history center and have taken hundreds of my family names to the temple, and completed each and every ordinance ourselves. On one occasion when my ward needed names for other sisters at a baptism event I attended, I shared 15 of the 34 so others had a name to do, but I was in attendance to witness the baptism for every person.
It is frustrating, when my profile is 'active' and I'm working through families, but the system drops them, and allows strangers to grab them up, even those who have NO INTENTION to do any work themselves. Why even make that an option? We are here and want to do the work ourselves.
So while I am diligently trying to work through names in proper ordinance order, some get grabbed an the ordinance is done by a random temple OUT OF ORDER, or I am restrained from doing the work because I'm waiting on another person, but my date is still expiring.
I just ran into another individual tonight whose work I would have done, but someone grabbed it and shared it, didn't even print it-- so there was no intention to personally do the work. These individuals should just leave it--- family will pick it up.
Please work on the following improvements:
1) Make names shared with the temple retrievable, by anyone who wants to personally do the work.
2) Extend the expiration date so that names are NOT DROPPED from a profile when progress is being made.