Suggestion on making it easier to share reserved ordinances with the temple.

LegacyUser

Marsha King said: Suggestion on making it easier for users to share reserved ordinances with the temple. Currently with one click I reserve all “green icon” ordinances for a person or for a family. The ordinances fall into two categories: 1) ordinances that were previously not reserved, and 2) preceding ordinances that were previously reserved and shared by someone else. (For example, in order to reserve someone’s sealing to parents that has not been previously reserved, I have to also reserve their BCIE ordinances if they are currently shared with the temple. Those ordinances are assigned to me for 90 days.)

If I want to share all of these ordinances with the temple, I currently have to differentiate between the two types. I select ordinances that have not been previously reserved and then share them with the temple. In a separate step, I must also select the ordinances that have previously been reserved and shared, and then I unreserve them.

How about changing the “Share with temple” procedure so that one click will share all ordinances? For category 1, the ordinances would be shared, and for category 2, the ordinances would be unreserved and thus would return back to the temple list. I’m guessing that programming could differentiate between the two types and make the appropriate change.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Marsha:
I believe that the problem that you describe above has been fixed, please give it a try and let me know if I misunderstood.

LegacyUser

Marsha King said: I have reserved James Samuel McGruder LBQR-Z3Z, endowment with 90-day reservation because someone else has reserved and shared it, and sealing to parents never been reserved before. In My Reservations, those ordinances show up in 2 separate boxes. The endowment box says "Ordinances that were previously shared with the temple cannot be shared again." The sealing to parent box does not give that message. If I select both boxes and click on Share, I can only share the sealing to parents, not the endowment.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Marsha, the reason why you cannot share the endowment is because it has already been shared once. Ordinances shared with the temple cannot be shared again, unless you unreserve it, when you do that it will go back to the temple shared list. You can share the SP, you have to unreserve the E. Both will end up on the temple list when you do.

LegacyUser

Marsha King said: Using that logic, the endowment ordinance has also been reserved once, so I should not be able to reserve it again.

I really don't want to reserve it, but I am forced to reserve it in order to reserve the sealing to parents. If I can use one click to reserve shared ordinances and unreserved ordinances, then why not be able to share both ordinances with one click? The programming can recognize the different types of ordinance, and surely it can unreserve one and share the other. What is the purpose of making me go through two different procedures to put both ordinances on the temple list?

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: to be clear, I want to make sure you have tried to do what you want to do, which is just reserve and share the SP, in the last 24 hours. The reason I want to know is because something similar was just fixed and I want to see if that fix also fixed your issue. Can you reply with a yes I can do it now, or a no I cannot?  Thanks!

LegacyUser

Marsha King said: I just unreserved the ordinances mentioned above for James Samuel McGruder LBQR-Z3Z. I then reserved again. I could not reserve just the SP, so I have ended up with both E (90 days) and SP (new reservation). I still have to unreserve one and share the other to get them both on the temple list. So No, I cannot just reserve the SP. And I am still hoping you will consider a one-click way to move both types of ordinances to the temple list.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: OK, sorry for the delay, it took some research. The reason why you have to do this in multiple steps is because as much as possible we want to have a system that encourages folks to do a deceased person's ordinances in order. I know that it not a hard and fast rule, but it is desired. Therefore, when you try to share a SP that has never been reserved or shared before, it sees that an endowment has not been performed and it adds that to your reserve list with the SP, encouraging you to do the endowment first. If you then try to share the SP it will share that, but not the endowment, because the endowment has already been shared once, and we have coded the rule that ordinances cannot be shared more than once. Therefore, you have to take the second step of undeserving the endowment. I apologize for being the bearer of bad news, but in this case where there is overlap between two rules, it will require the extra step.

LegacyUser

Marsha King said: Thanks for your effort to do the research. I appreciate your doing that rather than just blowing me off.

Last night my husband and I looked through our temple cards from the last 5 years, trying to understand how it is possible to get ordinances out of order. All of our cards for individuals print the BCIE and SP ordinances, whether they have been completed or not. Temple workers check to make sure that preceding ordinances have been completed and will not let me perform an ordinance until the preceding ordinances are done. So would you help me understand how it is possible to perform ordinances out of order? How do the changes improve things?

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: The E is already shared with the temple, the SP is not. Someone could take the E for 90-days, print it, and then hold it for a few weeks.  Meanwhile, someone else comes along and picks up the SP, prints it, and goes that day. This actually happens all the time, separate cards, separate patrons, different timing. The SP is done before the E because that patron went to the temple sooner than the patron who holds the E.  Again, we cannot prevent it, but by trying to keep them together we might be able to in some instances.  In this case doing what we can to keep them together so that they can be performed together. The inconvenience you are experiencing is happening because your workflow is a sharing workflow with ordinances that have different timing for reserving.  Someone who is intent on doing the work will have no such inconvenience. Please, do not think I am judging or being harsh, I am just explaining that there are two workflows and sometimes we have to prioritize. None the less I will let the engineers know of this workflow friction.

LegacyUser

Marsha King said: From looking at our cards, when we print a SP, the card also shows all preceding ordinances with their completion dates, not their printed dates. Either that, or uncompleted ordinances show up as blank, so we must complete them first. So how does someone else printing the SP show a completed E date if it's not completed? (I thought the 90-day thing was new within the last few months. When did that change happen?)

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: I just heard back from the engineers, they have added this to their list of things to fix. No time frames yet, but weeks not months . Thank you for bringing this to their attention.

LegacyUser

Marsha King said: Thanks! It's time for me to quit bugging you. I appreciate your answering my questions. I may not understand the problems you are seeing, but I understand that all of you see a lot more of what goes on than I do and are trying to fix problems and make it better. We greatly appreciate FamilySearch at our house, and both of us spend a lot of time using it. We hope that you will be able to get things working more smoothly for all of us.

Marsha King

LegacyUser

Doris Ann Castleton said: I'm glad to be able to read through the discussion on this topic. I appreciate the complexity of the engineers' work behind the scenes, but also as a patron my time is valuable and I want to provide ordinances for as many ancestors as I can. I wish there was a way you could circle the green temple icon when it's a second reservation that is available--that way I would know if it meant that person needed an ordinance done, or whether it was covered already by someone who had shared it with the temple. I have so many first-time ordinances already to do I will leave the second-time ones for others. It takes considerable time clicking on the green icons to find out they are shared with the temple and I don't need to worry about them. Then the issue of keeping track of who you've already checked on in an orderly fashion is becoming overwhelming. I appreciate the chance to voice my concern. Thank you, Doris Castleton