New "Non-Related" Temple Ordinance Icon - Unintended Consequences
11 December 2024, apparently a new temple icon has been released.
I’m now having to go through my reserved pile and getting rid of all the names I can no longer work on, after agreeing with those I helped as a FamilySearch Helper to do the temple work for their ancestors (non-members). You snooze, you loose… All I have left are Endowments and Sealings. All the other work was completed, but I am not allowed to work on those names any longer, due to the new icon that was just initiated. I am blocked from further work, because I am not “related” as far as FamilySearch is concerned. (See attachments)
I will now go through the remaining 3,300 names in my temple share queue that have not been printed and unreserve them. Around when COVID hit, I had 10K in my Temple Share. A few of those I am not “related” to are from Jamaica (Kamala Harris relatives via her father and his cousins). Yes, I did get permission from all those related to the names I have reserved. Now I feel like an "Indian Giver”, where an agreement was achieved, but now has to be backed out. Perhaps those spirits in question will be knocking more insistently on their descendants "doors" now?
Proposed Idea: Couldn’t they just add a "non-related” temple filter, so I can unreserve them in batch mode?
I have to generate a list of unprinted and then select ordinance lists and go through those one at a time. (Two browser windows, so I don't have to refresh after each search and just copy the PID into the URL over the old one in the 2nd "Find" window.)
Example: No "known" direct relationship >
Commentaires
-
The new policy also affects our Ward Family Group electronically. Unless the originators print their cards and distribute them manually. (We do have a separate Ward "Proxy Box" for that purpose).
0 -
The new system has a few problems, apparently. I just tried to reserve some relatives I added in - my 10th cousin 1 time removed. There were three children I found who were not in FamilySearch so I added them. At first the system did not let me reserve two of them because it thought we weren't related, although when I click "view relationship" it showed. I refreshed a couple times, after double checking that the relationship was there, and finally it let me.
So it is not impossible that the system will balk at allowing you to reserve definite relatives, but if you keep at it, it should. At one point, when I checked the sibling of a cousin I had just reserved, it showed no relationship to the sibling, but then it corrected after a couple refreshes.
1 -
@RobertLeighPritchett said "I’m now having to go through my reserved pile and getting rid of all the names I can no longer work on.…"
You don't need to do that. The FAQ section of the article Clarified Temple Submission Features specifically says "There are currently no plans to remove names that members submitted or shared before this change." Of course, you can make your own decisions about what you would like to do with existing reservations, but no action is required for those reservations.
That same point applies to existing reservations shared with a Family Group.
1 -
There are no plans by FamilySearch to remove names that members submitted or shared. True, but attempts to print out names for further temple work is blocked, ergo, useless for further temple work from my end. I unreserved every single one of the over 3K profiles from both my Temple Share and MyReservations and Family Groups that were not already printed out by me that did not show a relationship or where none could be found. I am now free to explore the Temple Hints and begin including those into my Temple Share and Family Groups and My Reservations without further angst. If those I unreserved want their ordinances completed (only Endowments and Sealings at this point), then they will have to visit their direct descendants and make it so.
0 -
Third-party standalone genealogy programs apparently are getting in step. For example, Legacy shows immediately if a particular name in the Swedish Death Index is related or not to the person who has their FamilySearch Account connected, so no further action is required relating to temple work for those particular profiles, until such a time as can be made for a relationship connection.
0 -
This change should not affect shared reservations to a Ward Family Group unless those sharing were reserving ones they should have been. You can still help others through shared reservations in a group or those you get from Ordinances Ready shared to the temple.
1 -
The change does not affect any shared into Temple System.
In fact the temples have been constantly at least since July 29, 2024 "raiding" the shared names to keep the temple baptism files filled, particularly the females because the old Temple Extracted Files are exhausted already for the females and now the female initiatories.
0 -
W D Samuelsen, my experience indicates that Shared names in Temple Share are in fact blocked from further temple work (see my attached file at the beginning of this conversation) - if FamilySearch does not see an existing relationship between me and them.
I also can verify that names already shared with me in various Family Groups that are not "related", have not been affected - yet.
I really appreciate the rapid response regarding the "relationship" policy - and its modification, perhaps based on my input here and from others.
0 -
Response to RobertLeighPritchett
Do not unreserve, they are still under your control, not system.
The only ones marked "not related" - are the ones not reserved by anyone, considered not related.
Read what Alan Brown said in his post above, please.
0 -
I will reiterate what I discovered. I had around 3K names I had done all the temple work for, except Endowments and Sealings. When the "not related" policy became "enforced", every single one of those came up with "I am not related" and therefore, I was blocked from further temple work for those profiles. They were names I had been given permission to do from folks I had worked for as a FamilySearch Helper, who were not members of the church. They agreed that temple work could be done for their lines, since I had told them this was our way of honoring my ancestors - and theirs. FamilySearch could not "see" a relationship between me and their ancestors, so there was nothing more I could do. My "solution" was to remove them from my Temple Share queue, since my "responsibility" on behalf of those deceased individuals has been removed. Thus the reason for this thread as unintended consequences. The revised policy is acceptable. Will work continue? It will have to be done by descendants who are members of the church - or by special permission. That is now out of my hands - and that is fine.
0 -
Robert, you're doing it wrong way.
Once you have permissions from those folks, and already in shared system, do them. not unreserve them just because the policy says so. You have the permissions already to do them or work with others to get them done, not just in your ward/stake but also with friends who are members and go to temple regularly.
1 -
If it affecting those you have already reserved, or someone else has reserved and shared to a group or temple, then support needs to know. Please do not unreserve them as it is harder for engineers to see the problem and fix it. Unfortunately, Richard has already done this so unless someone else sees the problem so the engineers can see, then it will likely not get fixed.
0 -
You can not do any names that have been blocked. Period. Unless you arm-wrestle with FamilySearch for those "rare cases". I decided to do the "malicious compliance" route and not go there. It is up to those individuals on the other side of the veil to work with their descendants to continue their eternal progression.
THE "FIX" IS IN THE IMMEDIATELY REVISED POLICY. For those who desire to pursue it. I have too many other folks on my plate ("relatives") I have refocused on.
0 -
Now if FamilySearch had an "unblocking" function…
After all, when we go to the temple and are handed a name, do we reject it because we decided that we are not related to that person? Ever?
1
