I need to know the most correct and current answer about merging and original ordinances. There are

ShellyR Leavitt1

I need to know the most correct and current answer about merging and original ordinances. There are too many different answers or I think so....here in FSC for me. Txs

Once you've found the earliest ordinances for a person and your ready to merge, must that person be the one with the most original ordinance dates​ to have the original dates show or will the system adjust the ordinances to do this?

Brett .

@ShellyR Leavitt1​ 

.

Shelly

.

Short Answer: 'NO'.

.

Technically, it DOES NOT matter which individual/person that you chose to be the "Surviving" individual/person.

.

Of course, unless the "System" indicates that it MUST be a particular way, which does not happen too often; and, is due to a "System" requirement, that I will not elaborate on here.

.

The "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) are stored/part of a SEPARATE database to the "Family Tree" database. The two (x2) separate databases synchronise with each other so that they appear 'seamless' (ie. just one database).

.

Whichever way/order individuals/persons are "Merged"/'Combined", the "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) that was "Completed" EARLIER (ie. by 'Date') will be what appears in "Family Tree", in the "Ordinances" 'Tab', for the "Surviving" individual/person - EXCEPT, in regard to the 'Rider' outlined below ...

.

As an aside ...

That said ...

.

There are a couple of things ...

.

(1) Even when individuals/persons are "Merged"/'Combined", the "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) for the "Deleted" (a better word would be "Archived") individual/person in NOT/NEVER "Lost" (or, "Deleted"); as, that "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) resides in the "Temple" database. It is ONLY the "Result" that we see in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' that "Changes".

.

(2) There is a known problem/issue in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' that has NOT been addressed/fixed (and, may never be).

.

[ Oversimplification here ... ]

.

There are THREE (x3) "Fields" when it comes to "Ordinances" that are "Completed". They are:

(a) "Completed"

(b) "Date"

(c) "Temple"

.

There are many of the OLDER "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) records that DO NOT have ALL three (x3) "Field" filled in.

.

Usually, ...

- just "Completed" (ie. NO 'Date' of 'Temple"); or,

- "Completed" with a "Date" (ie. NO 'Temple'); or,

- "Completed" with a "Place" [eg. Endowment House] (ie. NO 'Date'].

.

This is a problem/issue ...

.

The OLDER "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) with

- just "Completed"; or,

- "Completed" with a "Date"; or,

- "Completed" with a "Place" (eg. Endowment House).

WILL be OVERWRITTEN with LATER "Completed" Work (ie LATER, more recent 'Date'); as, such later/more recent Work has ALL Three (x3) "Fields" filled-in.

.

And, this is REGARDLESS if it was done EARLIER (ie. OLDER/ORIGINAL 'Date').

.

Just a 'head-up' ...

.

IF,

You are "Merging"/"Combining" two individuals/persons; and, one of them has:

- just "Completed"; or,

- "Completed" with a "Date"; or,

- "Completed" with a "Place" (eg. Endowment House).

for the "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances)

THEN,

EXPECT to see in the resultant "Merge"/"Combine", in "Ordinances" 'Tab'', of "Family Tree", that the EARLIER (ie. OLDER/ORIGINAL) "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) to disappear and be OVERWRITTEN with the LATER (ie. NEW/more recent).

.

That is to say that you will often see the "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) of "Baptism" and "Conformation" with an EARLIER (ie. OLDER) 'Date'; then, "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) of "Initiatory" with a LATER (ie. NEWER/more recent) 'Date'; and, then, "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) of "Endowment" with with an EARLIER (ie. OLDER) 'Date'a SIMILAR (ie. around) that of "Baptism" and "Conformation". OR, any combination of such. It looks quite odd/surreal.

.

There is NOTHING that us Users/Patrons can do about the matter ...

It is what it is ...

.

I have raised the problem/issue with 'FamilySearch' on a number of occasions, BOTH, as 'Support' Case(s); and/or, through, the 'FamilySearch' ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum = 'To-Date', NOTHING has been done about the problem/issue. Possibly, most probably, due to the many competing priorities in "Family Tree" (and, the Other parts) of 'FamilySearch'; and, the limited resources available to 'FamilySearch'. A complex problem/issue. Most Users/Patrons do not notice; or, care. And, as I previously stated ... "Temple" Work (ie. Ordinances) for the "Deleted" (a better word would be "Archived") individual/person in NOT/NEVER lost (or, "Deleted"); as, it resides in a separate "Temple" database.

.

(3) Personal preference here ...

.

I always prefer to have the OLDER (ie. EARLIER) individual/person (ie. that which appeared in "Family Tree" FIRST- often pre.2012 coming from "New.FamilySearch") as the "Surviving" individual/person; and, certainly one associated with a User/Patron rather than just 'FamilySearch'; if, such is an/the OLDER (ie. EARLIER) individual/person.

.

But, that is just me ...

.

I hope this helps.

.

I hope that this is not too much, or too confusing ...

.

Brett

.

 

LegacyUser

Thank you, as always for your insights @Brett .​.

jfreed131.5556131600146611E12

If a "person" meaning PID has the PID that begins with KW, know that THAT "person" or PID is the original CHURCH RECORD. Please stay with that number. Don't lose the church record.

jfreed131.5556131600146611E12

Great post. I like the way you define things. It makes it very clear. Thanks.

ShellyR Leavitt1

Thank you! I feel confident moving forward! 😀​

ShellyR Leavitt1

I like to see my family's original ordinances because it helps me see who ​received their temple ordinance in their lifetime. ❤

Brett .

😀

ShellyR Leavitt1

@Judy Baugh Freed​ Thanks

Rita Sambrano Alonzo Swenson

I didn't know this. Thank you!