some patrons need temple cards back.

LegacyUser

Phil Jeffrey said: Thanks. I think it maybe 6% or less at some temples and maybe 1% at smaller ones. I ask because I am not sure what at what point the Temple dept. or the Temple President would consider it worth the time for the clerk. Keep in mind let's say 5 people want their cards returned that means a clerk/recorder will have to sort all the cards to find those 5 and now since each ordnance will have one card that potentially quadruples the number of cards. I have no influence into either of those  but was more curious than anything else. Obviously like you say those that are "serious researchers" would say "I need them". 

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: I agree that ultimately it takes less effort for a small group to do workarounds, then workarounds seems the best path.

But it seems to me that all cards have to be scanned one at a time, so they shouldn't have to sort through all the cards--just set aside the marked ones as they scan them. Then they then put those marked ones out for people to pick up and file the others. Admittedly I've done little in the way of scanning so I may be missing something there.

LegacyUser

Phil Jeffrey said: I haven't done scanning either. I am not sure how every temple does it but mine we have 4 scanning stations and then the cards once scanned have to go to the office for what use to be distribution. Somehow that would have to be coordinated with the 4 stations or somebody in the office would have to sort them out. That also use to happen pretty fast but since scanners have more time and may not return till the end of the day or every couple hours that complicates things.  I am not sure how it would work under the new guidelines. Due-able of course but just would take some logistics that I am not sure Temples would want to do. 

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: You may have already discussed this and I missed it, but as part of the process could there be a requirement that the cards get scanned twice by two different persons?

LegacyUser

Phil Jeffrey said: I am not sure and how they are done currently but I believe each temple may do it differently based on staffing, some may have the resources to do that. That process comes from the temple department which we don't have a  lot of influence on. I'll see what I can do with the contacts I have but I can't promise anything. 

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: Thank you. It just seems that scanning them twice could go a long way toward seeing that none are missed.

LegacyUser

Ron Tanner said: We are also considering providing a completed temple list where you can go, find your reservation and print the card. It will have the date and temples where that reservation was done. Would this be helpful? If so, why?

LegacyUser

Brett said: All

It is both, interesting; and, sad, to hear that two (x2) of the apparent reasons for the "Completed" CARDS, with the "Tick" and "Date Stamp", that have been "Processed", will NOT be RETURNED to Patrons were, basically:

(1) the amount of effort required by the Office Volunteers, at the Temples, to get the Cards back to Patrons in a timely matter; and,

(2) that very few (ie. a low percentage, as suggested, 6%) of the "Completed" CARDS, with the "Tick" and "Date Stamp", that have been "Processed", were being "Collected" by Patrons.

The request to the Leaders of the Church, for the non-return of the "Completed" CARDS, with the "Tick" and "Date Stamp", that have been "Processed", would obviously have been made by the "Temple Department".

What is disturbing is that those aforementioned reasons are being DRIVEN by the situations in the (larger) "Temples" in Utah; and, possibly, other (large) "Temples" in the 'United States of America'; and, possibly even in other parts of the 'Americas'.

I know that when we visited some of the (larger) "Temples" in Utah; and, other (larger) "Temples" in the 'United States of America', that there was negligible, if any, waiting time, for the RETURN of the "Processed" CARDS - but, we were tourists and had some time to spare.

I am certain that for the Members in Utah who are able to visit "Temples", more often/frequently and on short notice, with just a short time to spare, that the "Waiting" for the RETURN of the "Processed" CARDS, may be a problem/issue, compared to other parts of the World.

I commend the "Temple Department" for wanting to "Process" the "Completed" CARDS, with the "Tick" and "Date Stamp", TWICE, in an effort to reduce errors (ie. Non-Recording).

But, I certainly do not like that effort at the expense of NOT returning the CARDS to Patrons - there are other options.

[eg. When "Scanning" the CARDS for "Processing" the FIRST time, simply "Image" the CARDS, as well, thereby, the "Temples"/"Temple Department", has an "Image" of the CARDS that CAN be USED for SECONDARY "Processing"; as, a way to reduce errors (ie. Non-Recording)].

And, if the retention of the "Processed" CARDS, is such a problem/issue for the (individual) "Temples", due to storage capacity; and, if the RETURN of the CARDS was NOT requested by the Patrons; then, put a retention 'Date' of "Whatever" (ie. for argument sake, say, 2 Weeks), after which the CARDS could/would be, either, put into 'DEEP' Storage; or, Destroyed.

I am certain that many of the Members is Utah (especially), where the Work on their Ancestral lines has been going on for many 'Generations', that they are well beyond their DIRECT Ancestral lines; and, the RETURN of the "Completed" CARDS, with the "Tick" and "Date Stamp", for the collateral lines, is NOT a real requirement.

But, for many Members throughout the rest of the World, where the Work for their DIRECT lines have NOT be been undertaken (or, at least, not fully undertaken), the RETURN of the "Completed" CARDS, with the "Tick" and "Date Stamp" IS a real desired requirement.

I truly hope that the non-return of the "Completed" CARDS, with the "Tick" and "Date Stamp" that have been "Processed", is ONLY something that will happen in Utah; and, NOT in the rest of the World - but, I suspect not.

But, perhaps that is just me.

Brett

LegacyUser

Brett said: Ron

'No', NOT really.

I want to HOLD (and retain) the SINGLE "Original" (Family) CARD, of my Ancestor, with ALL the AVAILABLE Work, that is being undertaken, with the "Tick" and "Date Stamp", for each of the individual "Ordinances", as they progress.

I DO NOT want to have to "Re-Print" a "New" CARD, for my Ancestor, each time, for the next "Ordinance".

Plus, I want to be able to RETAIN the ("Completed") SINGLE "Original" (Family) CARD, of my Ancestor, with the "Tick" and "Date Stamp", for each "Ordinance", as it was undertaken and "Processed" at the time - once ALL is complete.

Very simple really.

I would rather wait for the "Processing" (ie. "Recording"); and, collect the CARDS after each "Ordinance" is completed.

But, perhaps that is just me.

Brett

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: I agree with Brett, however, since we are going in the direction of never getting our cards back, then, YES, I want a list of all completed work where I can print a card that has all the completed ordinance data. If I can't have my card back then at least I can print out a completed card.

Questions:
1) Would this card have identifying information that could be used to find the completed ordinances if, by any chance, they should disappear from FSFT?
2) If the ordinance data should disappear from FSFT would this card be proof that they was completed?

If this "completed" card would not be proof of completion, then what would be the purpose in printing out the card?

LegacyUser

Emmanuella Christianne A. Koncurat Overstreet said: I go with scanning the cards twice. then returning them to the patrons. Years ago we did scan the family cards twice but not the temple list.
We scanned, stamped then scanned again. It was quick and accurate. I don't know why they stopped doing that way. Let's go back to it.
If a patron cannot wait for their cards, they are kept at the temple for 1 month at Mt. Timpanogos. I know other temple also keep them for a certain length of time.
If a patron wants their cards they will come back and pick them up when they do another ordinance.
Emmanuella

LegacyUser

Christine said: I wonder if one of the reasons (aside from accuracy of completed ordinances) that many desire to keep the card is because many of us are not screen driven. I don't know if this makes sense to anyone besides me, but when I hold that card of my relative that I spent hours in finding (often through miraculous means), documenting, praying over, sheding tears for, and serving in a tangible, spiritual way, I feel the deep connection to them and remember all of those experiences again.

For years on each card I have written my relationship to the relative through a line pedigree and how they are connected. "Christine - Elden - Theodore - Julia - William. William's cousin's son." I write little snippets of their life - "father died in a Civil War prisoner of war camp in Elmira, New York 2 days before the Civil War ended." "Mother of 10 children - 8 who died as infants." "died in a coal mine accident at 16 years" "died as an infant 1 day old - also had 5 other infant siblings who died less than one month old" All of these examples are from real people in my family. While waiting in the temple to perform the temple ordinances I (or my family who I share my cards with) read the back of the card and think about that person and their life experiences - the joys, challenges, trials and hardships they experienced. Because of this simple documenting on those physical cards the temple experience is deeper and more personal.

Do I need the card to feel and remember those sacred experiences? No, but looking on a computer screen does not bring those feelings and memories back to me. Perhaps for some people the computer or screen can bring those connections, but for me the card represents much more than simply a name.

However, because I support the Brethren, I will happily reprint new cards for each ordinance (as I usually do anyway since it is an easier way to ensure no extra duplication which may have occurred since the time I printed the first ordinance) and spend the time writing the relationship and reminders on the back of the card multiple times. It seems a small price to pay in time and effort to reap such bounteous blessings.

In answer to Ron's question. Yes, a completed list might be helpful.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Then there is the situation where a card that was THOUGHT to have been recorded after the work was done, but wasn't. The information stamped on the card would NOT appear on the "reprint" since it was never recorded in the system.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: "I wonder if one of the reasons (aside from accuracy of completed ordinances) that many desire to keep the card is because many of us are not screen driven."

Yep. That is at least partially what I meant about investing an almost mythical status in the cards. People focus on the wrong thing. They focus on the representation of the process, rather than the process itself and the result of the process. A secular equivalent is people waxing lyrical about the smell and feel and look of paper books. They don't seem to realise that with modern screen-reading devices text can be very much easier to read in terms of clarity and that you can do things like text-to-speech, or even via things like Audible's Whispersync get an actual unabridged audiobook read out in time to the highlighted text or search the text. With paper books there are genuine advantages they have such as not having any vulnerability to power cuts (at least during the day!). With the ordinance cards I see perceived, but not actual advantages for them, unlike paper books v ebooks or optical discs v downloaded or streamed music where I can see actual advantages for the physical medium.

LegacyUser

Phil Jeffrey said: Transition in technology is always hard at first as we often have no idea what the unknowns will be. For example going from PAF to NFS was very hard for many and still is as I see cases all the time about PAF. I really believe this will work out and we will look back later and wonder why it wasn't done before. Bumps in the road will get worked out and those that really, really want cards will find options till they feel comfortable.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: All shifts are on 4 hours.

Baptism office, the patrons do the scanning themselves under watch of the baptism supervisory and they do get them back immediately after scanning and stamping.

Initiatory - request BEFORE start if scanning is not at iniatory desk.

Endowments are taken by the workers and taken to the office to be scanned and stamped. It is up to the patrons to pick them up if they want them back.

Sealings - request the recording (scanning and stamping) while you are in sealing office BEFORE start of sealing session. It will be done promptly and picked up at office. (Verified after I made the calls).

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: PCC ordinance secretary said you can still get the cards only if you made arrangement to get them back promptly. The trouble is the 6 percent patrons are active and prompt in retrieving the cards. Not the 94 percent who left in file drawers for weeks/months.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Jeff, if it did not show up within 24 hours, then the person did not follow the procedure (2 witnesses to ensure the scanning is actually flashed on computer monitor.) I know because I saw with my own eyes that the scanning has to be done carefully to ensure the bar code had been scanned. After all I had more than 600 baptisms in one month and I had to watch most of time to ensure the proxies do them right, even taking part as needed if staff is short-handed at times (that is Salt Lake Temple, which can be busy at times.)

LegacyUser

Mary C Najar said: Scanning the card twice will not help with the problems I have been experiencing. I have had multiple SP ordinances show up as having been recorded. But when I go into the actual ordinance page I see that the original entry showing when I printed the card and to whom the child will be sealed is still there. There is a new entry showing the date of the sealing (which is the date stamped on the card) and then a message stating that the parents names are private or that they do not match those listed in FT. I have had this happen 7 times this year. I am not sure the new process will improve this as the summary page and the person page both showed the work was done. I went into Roots Magic and for some of these (2005 and 2011) it shows that I transferred over the SP and the parents names and now it shows the sealing date with no parents. It will now allow me to request the SP to the parents, which are the same parents that came over with the sealing into RM. This issue doesn't sound like a recording issue. If I didn't have my cards, how would I prove it to correct the problem.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: As you said it won't solve your problem. The problem is the result from bad merges or improper merges or discovery of wrong parents and delinking from them.

I have this problem, too and it take some effort to rid of wrong parents or realignment that was the result of bad merges even there's correct set of parents in first place.

LegacyUser

Phil Jeffrey said: That is a tree Data Quality issue and having cards or not wouldn't make any difference since they were recorded but just may not be showing because of a merge or some other factor. Those get sorted out by sending cases to our Data Quality Group

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: Is sending cases to the Data Quality Group different than simply opening a new case?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: First, welcome to the community support forum for FamilySearch. FamilySearch personnel read every discussion thread and may or may not respond as their time permits. We all share an active interest in using the resources of this site and as users, we have various levels of knowledge and experience and do our best to help each other with concerns, issues, and/or questions.

If you have received the card back from the temple (and that appears to be the case, since you mentioned that the date is stamped on the card), then your temple has not yet been transitioned to the new system.

The temple messages likely come from the Temple Department through FamilySearch's message system. There can be a propagation delay back into the FamilySearch database from the Temple Ordinance Database.

Wait a couple of days and if the information has not shown up in FamilySearch, then report the name of the person and the PID in this discussion thread, so that it the problem can be tracked down and taken care of.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: You've actually reported more than one issue. I have responded only to the delay in getting the date the ordinance into FamilySearch's FamilyTree record for that person.

Normally, you should report each issue separately, but the other issue is related to the new system.

It appears that the person you are talking about where "... the parents names are private or that they do not match those listed in FT." was the subject of a merge. If you have the card, check the ID on the card against the ID in Family Tree and if they are different, then you are looking at a different person's record. Use Find by ID to pull up the record of the person on the card. The ID will also be in the message you received that the ordinance had been completed.

If the ID on the card, in the message match the ID for which the message appeared, then that needs to be investigated by FamilySearch, so report that information here (or in a new thread).

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Finally, you can no longer transfer any ordinance data from Roots Magic (or any other system) into FamilyTree. Those dates are now completely controlled via the Temple Ordinance Database and if there are any problems, then you will need to open a support (report as a "Problem" via Feedback) case and fully describe the problem you are seeing. In most cases, merges can create a major problem with the ordinance dates, so you will need to go back through the change log of any person where a problem between what you have in your local Roots Magic database and Family Tree exist. Most likely you will find that there has been a bad merge and the record that was merged incorrectly needs to be unmerged (if the merge took place some time ago, then the record needs to be restored).

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Yes and no. Escalating a case can work with either a new case or with existing open cases (not with these discussions).

If you get a nonsensical (or boilerplate) response, provide additional detail in the case and ask that it be escalated to data quality for resolution.

If the case has been sitting there open the case and provide additional information (you should be able to attach images to the case) and ask that the case be escalated to the Data Quality group.

LegacyUser

Emmanuella Christianne A. Koncurat Overstreet said: Mary, did you check for duplicates on the parents. If you merge the duplicates on the parents, it may solve your problem
Emmanuella

LegacyUser

Phil Jeffrey said: Like Tom said the more details you provide the better it will be and not get a boilerplate template. I can't tell you how many cases I have seen like my uncle John Smith has the wrong ordinance dates. Like how many John Smith's do you think we have? Even with dates and places that can be difficult but with a PID maybe parents' name if you have them or a spouse or children the better document the case the less chance it will come back to you for more details. Here is a little inside knowledge. DQ is extremely backed up and in some cases months, rejecting a case for lack of details can push you back sometimes to the end. Document, document, document if you want it to get it resolved ASAP.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Tom, you wrote "If you have received the card back from the temple (and that appears to be the case, since you mentioned that the date is stamped on the card), then your temple has not yet been transitioned to the new system. "

Actually it's less than 1 hour from the moment the scanning is certified to the message notice in your family search account.

I know because I checked. when endowment is done in Jordan River Temple at specific time.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The message proves that the card was correctly scanned. I also wrote that the message appears to be triggered by the Temple Department and their Temple Ordinance Database which is sent through the FamilySearch message system.

My local temple is currently closed for cleaning and refurbishing, so I have no means to check the claims that the dates are not refreshed in the Tree or on the patron's temple list page.