temple icon color change.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I really appreciate your experiment.

As to why an unreserved, but available person will get the ordinances done --- eventually -- is because of the way that Ordinances Ready works. The order in which names are pulled are this (see https://www.familysearch.org/help/hel... for full details):

1 -- Your own names in your "My Reservations" list.
2 -- Your own names in your "Shared" list.
3 -- Names of your relatives that have been shared by someone else.
4 -- "Green temples" from your ancestral lines in the tree.

Three is where you experienced the success of having the ordinances picked up and completed. That will increase more now that anyone can reserve a shared ordinance outside Ordinances Ready.

Four is where the ordinances will eventually get done. I think the time frame may be a lot longer than 3, but eventually they will be picked up by a relative who is using the pedigree charts (both standard and descendancy) to find "green icons".

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The one thing that bothers me about using a single green icon is that I started going through the Recommended Tasks list, hoping to spot a green icon where one or more ordinances needed to be reserved.

That was a total failure and very frustrating and where the two shades of green would have helped immensely. I haven't suggested that we be able to search just for those temple opportunities with unreserved green icons, but it sure would be nice if we could for that (Recommended Tasks) list.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Been preaching 2 green colors from day 1, it only makes sense

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: True. I really hope that the two shades are adopted by the council. Right now, Jim has reported that no decision has flowed down from the council.

LegacyUser

Roger C. Nilsson said: Brother Greene, thank you for your quick response and your in-depth answer. As you speculated, I was unaware that any name in Family Search with a green icon will have the work done for them eventually which is what matters the most. That is great to know and since there is a serious backlog of temple work that has been shared with the temple, I will refrain for now from adding more to the queue.

You also make a good point with your answer in item two since we are all eventually connected. It has also made me consider the possibility that a future descendant of mine might want the great privilege of doing the ordinance work themselves.

Thanks again for all that you do. I'm reminded of the statement made by a leader in the church many years ago that the day may come when the temples will be operating around the clock and will be so busy that it will be difficult for an individual to do temple work in person.

LegacyUser

hthalljr said: I sincerely believe that the "simplified" color scheme is a disincentive to patrons, and especially the advice (hopefully not yet ensconced in the knowledge base) that patrons should avoid sharing ordinances with temple in hopes that sooner or later somebody will happen across the green icon and take it to the temple.

It makes me wonder if the notion has entered our culture that the growing size of the temple file means that the Saints are neglecting their duty to attend the temple. On the contrary, I see its growth to mean that the Saints are laying up treasures in heaven!

Because FamilySearch is a wiki, anyone, at any time, can change a "green" record to "orange." However once upon a time, when a patron saw "red," he or she may have been less inclined to make a spurious change.

Of thousands of ordinances that I have shared with the temple, subsequent changes to a record have invalidated the ordinance only about five times. In all but one of those instances, I was able to reinstate it.

If I remember correctly, it happened twice because a duplicate had been added, and twice more because invalid characters (such as parentheses around a nickname) had been added. The one true correction was a birth record that made the person a few years younger and less than 110 years old. (I had based the birth date on a marriage license: people often lie to avoid needing parental permission). So I added the 110th birthday to my calendar.

I was only able to spot these errors was because I had shared the name with the temple and could track the outcome. Otherwise, they would have remained invalid, waiting for someone to randomly stumble across them and fix them.

Sharing a name with the temple once gave it some measure of safety -- until the "red" icon was changed to double-minded "green." Surely some will think that the new green means "Throw caution to the winds!"

LegacyUser

Cindy Hecker said: I for one am grateful that a new person or member I am working with can see green temples whether share or not with the temple, they can find people in their family line that they can take to the temple. I worked with so many who need that discovery of finding temple work they do not care if it is shared or brand new. They just want to go and experience the temple blessing for themselves and their ancestors.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Greg, Thanks again for being willing to express your feelings, please understand that I am not saying that they are wrong. I am trying to explain why we did what we did. So let me reply to your comments and then put this to bed. The decision of whether to use one or two colors of green has still not been made definitively. I will answer assuming that we stay with one. I assume that if the decision is to go with 2 that everyone will be happy and we can close the threads.
When I made the statement that you quoted above it was in response to a forum member who had stated that he really didn't care if it was 5, 10 or even 15 years, as long as the work was completed. I was very careful to not state time frames in my response. Yes, it will get done, just like it will get done on the temple list. Guaranteed. For now, while it depends on a relative's use of Ordinances Ready to search the tree, it will probably take longer. In the future, when more are using OR I would hope that it would not take longer. Again, I was never intending in my response that it imply a time frame, just that it would happen.  I am not going to bring a doctrinal discussion about "spirit prison" to this forum, as we have been instructed not to. I'll let you and others study that out on your own.
I would also like to point out again, your motivation appears to be to get the work done for them ASAP. Is getting it done quickly more important than just assuring that it will get done? Remove time from the equation and what answers do you get? I am not asking this to open a debate, I am going to just wait for the decision now. I invite you and everyone else to ponder these things from an eternal perspective.

LegacyUser

Christine said: Greg, I have also done your experiment. I keep a document of family names I have entered and sourced but not reserved because I have plenty to do. More often than not when I go back to check those individuals most have been reserved and some have been completed already, while those I have shared with the temple (male endowments) are still uncompleted 6 years later. I used to feel the urgency almost bordering on panic that those I have entered may be lost, but with time and reflection I have come to trust Heavenly Father's plan that He will do His work and none will be lost. While I still search, document, and reserve names (and share with anyone who wants some) I find delight in leaving green arrows for an unknown to me (or sometimes known) relative to experience the thrill of the find. I trust their hearts are turning, and I trust that when I do all I can do, the work will be done.

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: Thanks Jim for your response.

Christine: you mentioned that male endowments in your experience rarely get picked up that were reserved w temple.

I may not have been clear in my experiment explanation. I was referring mainly to B/C and initiatory work. They got picked up and completed quickly when shared w temple, but very few in my experiment were completed after 8 mos if left unreserved.

endowments are different. In that same time period, I had NO endowments, male or female, claimed and done, and it did not matter if shared w temple or left unreserved. Each name for an endowment takes more timeto do, and they just seem to take longer to get claimed and done, no matter if shared w temple or unreserved (in my experience).

It seems your experience was different AS IT RELATES TO MALE ENDOWMENTS; eg that male endowments got picked up if left unreserved, but none were picked up if shared w temple. Did i understand and rephrase that correctly, in your experience?