Extended Family Temple Ordinance Group

LegacyUser

Elizabeth Susan Clark Severson said: Please create "Shared Pool of Family Names" that need temple ordinances. Some generate more family names needing temple work than can do personally. I'd like to share/contribute these names to extended family members so they can access when needed. They don't need to reach out to me and I don't have to initiate email to them giving permission each time. It's more like a family association where once accepted into the family pool, one can contribute names needing work or select ordinances to do as needed. The pool is available anytime to those participating as needed. There is no time limit on how long names stay in pool but can have two year limit once selected and placed in individual temple tile. I think would expedite and encourage people to do family names. Thanks for your consideration!

LegacyUser

Elizabeth Susan Clark Severson said: i'm excited to consider possibility to share family names with extended family members in more efficient way and encourage more family work completed.

LegacyUser

Pamela Glenn Severson said: I would love to have access to a family pool for Temple Ordinances. My daughter has been an active Family History researcher, but as a full time missionary she does not have the capacity to perform all the work. We would love to be able to share names with other children away at college or living in other places more readily.
Many thanks!

LegacyUser

Aimee Wood said: I also like this idea of being able to share names with close family members. Since my children are boys, I am always swapping names with family members who can do female baptisms, and then getting them back so I can complete other temple ordinances.

LegacyUser

Christopher Severson said: What a great idea!

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Family / group account access to a single family tree.

This is something that has been bothering me for some time. I do almost all of the family history for my family, and although I have helped setup the rest of my families accounts so they can see all the work done. However for them to complete any of the temple ordinances that have been reserved I need to share them via email.

It would be much better if there were a way to link accounts into a familiy / group so that all members of the family / group could have access to print and do that work. For the work that had been printed, it would say printed by and then the family / group members account name so other members of the family would know this had already been printed and if a duplicate print was requested a simple warning that states this has already been printed, please confirm with (name of family / group member who originally printed) that they are happy for you to complete this work.

This would help temple work to be completed much quicker byt encouraging families to connect woth eachother on completing the ordinances. It would make it easier for those ordinances to be shared amongst family members and it would bring families closer together through shared family history and temple work.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: my son just shared this with me and this is a great idea

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: You no longer have to share via email if you shared the names with the temple system. Now they can go into the person's profile and "pull" the ordinance and subsequently print it to take to the temple. Like Ordinances Ready, they have 90 days (once the temples reopen) to complete the ordinances.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: thats true, but that still involves sharing it with the temple, it doesnt encourage family working together on their family history and temple work. and it still doesnt allow the entire family to see all the work available ordiances to complete easily and pick and choose easily which bits they want to do and work on.

It also opens up the posibility for others to request that work and reserve it to themselves. so again the only truely safe way to share and make sure is to share via email.

Also for those people who have insanly large family trees, sharing it with the temple poses the problem of having to manually search for the ancestor, short of providing the unique identifier for that person, that can be a long process. And yes it is easy enough to share the Unique identifier but again it doesnt encourage family working together easily on their family history and temple work.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The key is to be with the family members and attend the temple together. They each now can pull names from the temple list of their relatives and bring them to the temple.

Remotely encouraging others to perform Family History work is fine, but it does not replace the opportunity of working together in person. Right now, the pandemic has halted any vicarious work from being performed for our kindred dead.

As far as sharing with the temple, you have two years in which to start performing vicarious temple ordinances once you have reserved them. Those, as long as they remain in your "My Reservations" list are not available for anyone else to do, unless you print the card and send it to them or transfer the reserved name to them.

The system is no longer conducive to forming family groups for the purpose of reserving ordinances to take to the temple.

I'm another user and have involved my family, who do not live close to me, with genealogy trips, sharing baptism names with my grandchildren and that has gone a very long way to encourage them in their efforts. Because my grandson took family names with him to their temple, the other kids in the temple trip started bringing their own family names with them on those youth temple trips.

And, because my kids knew that I was heavily involved in research my ancestral lines (I've been at it for over fifty years), they got involved, but not with our ancestral lines, but their spouse's ancestral lines.

A family group, should it be implemented as has been described, would be superfluous for me and my family. I am a convert to the Church.

But in reality, we are all part of a much larger family group -- the family of mankind. It doesn't take much to discover that we have many relatives who we have never met, working our the same relatives.

The new system, that allows anyone to pull a name from the temple list, we would never have to be part of a family group to do vicarious ordinances for a relative.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Tom dude why are you so against this, so this doesn't work for you but quite frankly the current system doesn't work for me. Its might be easy for you to attend the same tamle with your family members together but that's not the case for every one.

I get that you don't like what's been proposed here for what ever reason but clearly there are a lot of other people who do and your the only one who doesn't. If it's not for you that's fine I'm glad the current system works for you, but right now all your doing is ripping at good ideas and it feels very negative.

Truely we do understand the way the current system works, and we are not trying to detract from the great works and progress that have been put into the system over the years to give us what we have now.

The proposal here would not have to be used by any one who didn't want to use it. And as such any one such as yourself who the current system capabilities work for would continue as is. However for those of us who do want more and who do need more we would greatly appreciate this idea being looked at again and actually being moved forward.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Why am I against this? I'm not, but the system is not set up to support groups. It was considered at one time, but at the present time with the rewrite, it has likely been shelved (but I do not know that).

Maybe at some future date it will be developed, but for right now, it isn't there and unless someone from FamilySearch reveals that it is still being considered by the council led by Elder Bednar and involving both the Temple Department and the Family History Department) it likely will never come to pass for FamilySearch. Two other members of the Council of Twelve Apostles are also on that council.

The direction for all things related to the temple come down from that council.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Besides something that would have to be developed under the direction of that council, there is also the issue of limited resources for such a development and a lot of questions that would have to be resolved.

For instance, how would reservations be handled? Would they have the same two-year limit as they do now? And would other relatives be locked out because the group held the reservations (they would be "In Progress" and not be available for anyone to pull, just as they are now).

I see a number of issues, especially if the same rules are applied to the group as they are to the individual.

Basically, I have to say that the idea with the present system, if implemented, would rob other users related to those persons of the opportunity to perform the vicarious ordinances for their relatives. Has anyone thought of that?

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Well your wrong, they would no more be blocked then they are now. If I reserve an ordinance then it's reserved no mater if its an individual or if it wour a group of individuals drawing from the same pool of reserved ordinances.

Also yes it has to be approved by some one on high in authority and yes there are limited resources, however that doesn't mean it can not happen and it doesn't mean it won't happen. If it was impossible then the idea would never have been up for consideration in the first place and also potentially if suggestions were not welcome then this forum would not exist.

Reservations would have the same 2 year limit. They would be reserved by the group to that one list of ordinances and then each member of the group would be able to print an FOR from the reserved ordinances in the list that they wish to perform. No need for sharing with the temple or sending via email, just log in and print. Simples!

If for some reason that printed ordinance was not performed and some one else in the group wanted to print and perform it, either of 2 options would work, an unprint button for the original person who printed it or a simple popup message similar to what we have for the 110 year permissions. That would mean if you tried to reprint an ordinance some one else printed you get a popup stating the ordinance was printed by person 1 please check with them before printing this ordinance again. If you have already checked and wish to proceed click here. Or something similar.

But in most circumstances the printed ordinance would be performed after printing.

Ordinances would still be sharable with the temple by the group / family leader. Its not really something that has any negatives. And it is something that yes it would take time to code, but its worth doing.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Also if you don't ask then you don't get. This is us asking

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: That's true, I also responded in the original thread and raised a number of questions about how such a system would work. For the council to consider your proposal, the mechanics of how it would be administered needs to be fully developed.

As I mentioned in my response in the other group, your needs would be better served by a private Facebook group where a lot more than just reserving names could take place, including planning family temple gatherings and temple trips.

As far as being blocked, the group idea is exclusionary, and something that the Church has moved away from. That is also mentioned in my response in the other thread.

Discuss issues, not personalities, please.

I really want an answer to if anyone has given consideration that forming an exclusionary group would rob other relatives of the opportunity to take their relatives' names to the temple and the related blessings of doing so.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: please see the other thread for my reply to your completly absurd facebook coment and other remarks on your opinion

LegacyUser

Lynne Stanley said: It may not work for everyone, but I like the idea of a Facebook group. Just a few months ago, I started one for that purpose.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Tom you say it would Rob others of taking their relatives names to the temple and the blessings of doing so........

I really don't understand where your coming from with this. If a person reserves a name of one of their ancestors at present which they do all the time, are they not also blocking a different descendant of the same ancestor and robbing them of blessings?

Who gets to decide who can do the work and gets the blessings.

And aren't the real blessings that we are all sealed together for eternity, no matter who performed the ordinances?

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Tom, I did you a favour, I think you will like this thread. You should check it out.

http://gsfn.us/t/56k1k

Its kind of a complete opposite of this idea. And I do really think you would like it, much better than your Facebook idea and I think it totally addresses your concerns

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I have to wait until I see what you are proposing and how it would work. Right now, there are a bunch of unanswered questions.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Facebook does not deal with reserving or performing vicarious ordinances. It is the means by which family details can be worked out within a closed group and includes ways to engage family members is researching their ancestors. It is a collaboration tool that goes beyond the individual, and includes family ancestral lines.

Facebook is not my idea, but something that has been discussed from time to time.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: As far as what I think, you came down hard and made a number of statements about how you saw my behavior, with everything from calling the Facebook idea inane to telling me that I was trolling you.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that I want to expose myself to that kind of personal attack and abuse from you.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: So now I'm abusing you and have made a personal attack on you.

Tom I'm pretty sure this is the type of message the previous thread was closed down for withe the moderates asking for these types of comments not to be made.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Tom maybe you could suggest an answer for this or any of the other things you don't like. It would help to know what you think a possible fix would be within the confines of what's being proposed

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Also you should check out the new thread before you labale it as an attack or abusive.

You may not have noticed but I'm actually trying my best here to accommodate all the things you don't like, to answer every question you have raised and to still keep possible solutions within the confines of family search instead of having to use outside site.

My goals are not to abuse you or any one else but simple to have a constructive discussion on ideas that have been raised. Let me be the first to try and de-escalate any tension by apologising to you for any hurt feelings you may have.

That being said I would also like you to know that the way in which you have approached your comments has not been constructive at all in my opinion and this has also upset me, which is why I made the comments I made. Maybe you can't see that or maybe you don't care either way I have now apologised and I do not expect any further toxicity.

Please if you wouldn't mind can we have some constructive comments and ideas.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: This is what I am talking about, which is why I won't participate in any of your discussion threads: "before you labale it as an attack or abusive." Your responses are always not just defensive (which is okay to a point), but also abusive to me.

This is my last response to you.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Tom how is that abusive to you, you called the tread abusive without even reading it. That's the abusive thing.

I have taken everything you have said in your comments and come up this a different idea for this situation one that fits with your none exclusionary theme and your now refusing to even acknowledge it because you think it will be abusive before you even look at it.

Did I not just apologise to you. I'm sorry but you I am being the opposite of abusive here and your still having a go at me. I really don't know what you want from me. Do I have to get down on my knees and beg forgiveness here because aside from that I'm all out of options.

You say I'm making personal attacks on you and being abusive but it seems to be the other way around and frankly the moderators have asked already for this behaviour to stop. I can't force you to read the new suggestion but I really do think that given all the feedback you gave on this thread and the previous one that been locked that you would appreciate a simple, elegant, none exclusionary idea that fits with the comments you have been making.

So please I ask you again to respect the moderators and stop acting like this

LegacyUser

FamilySearch Moderator said: Please consider that this forum is to help each other, that means there may be push-back on ideas. That is fine. Don’t take offense or retaliate and be willing to respect each other’s opinions. Please review the code of conduct https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/Community-code-of-conduct