smac97 Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Is this correct? In my area the temple has placed limits on the number of Temple File names that can be done. The limits specifically relate to baptism/confirmation, initiatory and sealings (perhaps because they are faster ordinances and patrons can do many during a session instead of 1 individual endowment). I don't know if this limitation is unique to my local temple but I assume it's not. I am open to information on this point. I have not heard of there being a constraint on temple work arising from a lack of names. Quote But my point is, it seems that there are more people doing temple work than the church can provide names for. I'm not sure you are correct about that. Let me lay out my thinking on this issue: 10,000 Sessions / 670,000 Endowments: Consider the Provo Temple, which I understand is the busiest temple in the Church (certainly one of the busiest). There is an endowment session that begins every 20 minutes from 5:40 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Mondays, from 5:40 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, and from 7:00 a.m to 8:00 p.m. on Wednesdays through Saturdays. That works out to 212 sessions per week, or a bit over 10,000 sessions per year (212 X 48 weeks). While evening endowment sessions are full, I think many morning and afternoon sessions are considerably more sparse (my neighbors, who work at the Provo Temple, mentioned that the temple has had to cancel a few endowment sessions for the first time in the history of the temple, likely owing to the opening of the Payson and Provo City Center temples). So let's guesstimate an average of 70% capacity per session (that's probably a bit much, but let's run with it). IIRC, there are about 96 or so seats in the endowment rooms in the temple (7 rows of 7 seats on each side, minus one space each side for wheelchairs). So 70% capacity would put us at about 67 names per session. With 10,000 sessions, that would put us at about 670,000 endowments per year. Considerably Fewer Endowments Overall: Keep in mind that the Provo Temple is the busiest one in the Church. There are many others which can also handle substantial numbers of sessions/patrons (the ones that come to mind are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boise, Rexburg, Mesa, Portland, Seattle, Logan, Brigham City, Ogden, Bountiful, Draper, Oquirrh Mountin, Jordan River, Mount Timpanogos, Payson, Manti, St. George, Denver, Washington D.C.). However, of the 152 currently operating temples, many dozens of them are "smaller" temples, designed for only a few endowment sessions each week. For example, the Colonia Juarez temple in Mexico conducts five sessions per week. Aba Nigeria conducts 11 sessions. Adelaide, Australia: 7. Anchorage Alaska: 13. Taipei, Taiwan: 20. These smaller temples also have considerably fewer seats in the endowment room (as compared to the Provo Temple), and hence fewer patrons per session, and hence fewer names for whom temple work is performed per session. Spitballing - Ten Million Endowments Per Year: So let's spitball and guesstimate that the with the Provo and other larger/busier temples on one end of the spectrum, and the smaller temples on the other end, we end up with an average of five million names per year. That would be five million people for whom temple work is performed. Since we're spitballing, let's double that amount to ten million names per year. Big Numbers, Many Years: There have been about 107 billion people who have ever lived on the earth. At the present rate of ten million endowments per year, it would take the LDS Church over 10,000 years to complete the temple work for everyone who has ever lived as of 2016. Also, 55.3 million people die each year at present, which would obviously lengthen out the 10,000-year project by a considerable margin. Sparse Records, Still Big Numbers: Of course, we don't have records for the vast majority of those 107 billion people. Far from it. Record-keeping was sparse for the vast majority of human history. Nevertheless, census records, tax records, etc. have been around and preserved in many countries for many decades now. And if there are 55 or so million people presently dying each year, it seems like there will be records for quite a few of them from here on out. (However, we should also keep in mind that, apart from direct ancestors, temple work may not be performed for an individual until 95 years after that person's death.) Where Do We Stand Now?: In 2013, the LDS Church announced a milestone of "{having} attained one billion searchable records added to the Church’s FamilySearch website in less than seven years." I have no idea how many names (for whom temple work has not been performed) can be gleaned from these billion records, but I suspect there are quite a few. Freedmen's Bureau Project: Notwithstanding the above milestone, I don't think we are running out of names. For example, a few months ago the Church announced the completion of the Freedmen's Bureau Project, in which 19,000 volunteers spent two years indexing 1.76 million records, from which "nearly 1.8 million names of former slaves and immigrants from Civil War-era records." Extrapolating from the Freedmen's Bureau Project: Wow! 1.8 million names from 1.76 million records? That's nearly a 1:1 ratio! So let's take a look at the Church's FamilySearch website. Let's be conservative and say that their billion records is not nearly as efficient in terms of name extraction as the Freedmen's Bureau Project. Let's assume a 4:1 ratio (one name for every four records). That would mean the FamilySearch database has about 250 million names available in these billion searchable records. Now let's also say that of these 250 million, 20% of them (50 million) have already had their temple work done (or else the 95 year hold has not yet lapsed). That leaves 200 million names left for temple work. At 10 million endowments a year, it would take the Church 20 years to complete just these names. Many a Mile Yet to Travel: But how much further can the Church go? How many more records are out there? How many more names? Well, this 2014 article gives us some idea: Quote Over the past 80 years or so, some 5 billion genealogical records have been captured by teams from the church using microfilm and, more recently, digital scanning of documents. These records have come mostly from North and South America and Western Europe. Even so, an estimated 10 billion more records remain to be captured from those regions of the world, said Paul G. Nauta, FamilySearch marketing manager. And much of the world remains unaccessed for records. In total, some 60 billion records remain to be digitally captured from all regions of the world, Nauta said. An army of volunteers around the world is working to digitally index online the 5 billion records already in the church’s possession. At the current pace, it will take 200-300 years to index those already-captured records. And that does not include the 100 million new digital images of historic records added each year from the efforts of the church’s 250 camera teams worldwide. How many names will be gleaned from the "5 billion genealogical records ... captured by teams from the church"? How many from the "10 billion more records remain{ing} to be captured" in North/South America and Western Europe? How many from the "some 60 billion records" not yet accessed in the rest of the world? Also, what do you think of the 200-300 year backlog of indexing work referenced in the article? Might this be a significant bottleneck in terms of slowing down temple work? The Saints Need to Improve: How many people in the Church have done their Four Generations chart? Not as many as you'd think. I have ancestors in the Church going back many generations on both sides, ancestors with large numbers of descendants in the Church, and yet we are still finding ancestors for who temple work has not been performed. The same goes for my wife's family. In sum, I don't think a lack of names is a material problem. Rather, I think the bigger problem is getting the Saints to the temple on a regular basis, and also to do genealogy work on a regular basis. Quote Work has often been repeated for individuals in the past. partially due to poor record keeping but perhaps possible to keep up with the demand of patrons as well. I am not aware of any competent evidence indicating that the Church is running out of names of deceased persons for whom temple work can be performed. Does anyone have any information on this point (besides conjecture, I mean)? Quote IOW- in some ways the church seems to be running out of names. Individuals can bring their own names but again it gets into a problem of repetition when different family members do the same work for James J Smith, Jim Smith, Jimmy J Smith, Jim Johnson Smith etc. etc. I suspect the Church is getting substantially better and reducing errors relating to duplicate names, particularly with the advent of interconnected databases. I am quite serene about this topic. If and when the Church manages to outstrip the pool of names of deceased persons for whom temple work is possible, I think the Lord will open up new resources for us, perhaps even including amazing/miraculous ones. Thanks, -Smac Edited September 27, 2016 by smac97 4
Scott Lloyd Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: I am open to information on this point. I have not heard of there being a constraint on temple work arising from a lack of names. I'm not sure you are correct about that. Let me lay out my thinking on this issue: 10,000 Sessions / 670,000 Endowments: Consider the Provo Temple, which I understand is the busiest temple in the Church (certainly one of the busiest). There is an endowment session that begins every 20 minutes from 5:40 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Mondays, from 5:40 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, and from 7:00 a.m to 8:00 p.m. on Wednesdays through Saturdays. That works out to 212 sessions per week, or a bit over 10,000 sessions per year (212 X 48 weeks). While evening endowment sessions are full, I think many morning and afternoon sessions are considerably more sparse (my neighbors, who work at the Provo Temple, mentioned that the temple has had to cancel a few endowment sessions for the first time in the history of the temple, likely owing to the opening of the Payson and Provo City Center temples). So let's guesstimate an average of 70% capacity per session (that's probably a bit much, but let's run with it). IIRC, there are about 96 or so seats in the endowment rooms in the temple (7 rows of 7 seats on each side, minus one space each side for wheelchairs). So 70% capacity would put us at about 67 names per session. With 10,000 sessions, that would put us at about 670,000 endowments per year. Considerably Fewer Endowments Overall: Keep in mind that the Provo Temple is the busiest one in the Church. There are many others which can also handle substantial numbers of sessions/patrons (the ones that come to mind are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boise, Rexburg, Mesa, Portland, Seattle, Logan, Brigham City, Ogden, Bountiful, Draper, Oquirrh Mountin, Jordan River, Mount Timpanogos, Payson, Manti, St. George, Denver, Washington D.C.). However, of the 152 currently operating temples, many dozens of them are "smaller" temples, designed for only a few endowment sessions each week. For example, the Colonia Juarez temple in Mexico conducts five sessions per week. Aba Nigeria conducts 11 sessions. Adelaide, Australia: 7. Anchorage Alaska: 13. Taipei, Taiwan: 20. These smaller temples also have considerably fewer seats in the endowment room (as compared to the Provo Temple), and hence fewer patrons per session, and hence fewer names for whom temple work is performed per session. Spitballing - Ten Million Endowments Per Year: So let's spitball and guesstimate that the with the Provo and other larger/busier temples on one end of the spectrum, and the smaller temples on the other end, we end up with an average of five million names per year. That would be five million people for whom temple work is performed. Since we're spitballing, let's double that amount to ten million names per year. Big Numbers, Many Years: There have been about 107 billion people who have ever lived on the earth. At the present rate of ten million endowments per year, it would take the LDS Church over 10,000 years to complete the temple work for everyone who has ever lived as of 2016. Also, 55.3 million people die each year at present, which would obviously lengthen out the 10,000-year project by a considerable margin. Sparse Records, Still Big Numbers: Of course, we don't have records for the vast majority of those 107 billion people. Far from it. Record-keeping was sparse for the vast majority of human history. Nevertheless, census records, tax records, etc. have been around and preserved in many countries for many decades now. And if there are 55 or so million people presently dying each year, it seems like there will be records for quite a few of them from here on out. (However, we should also keep in mind that, apart from direct ancestors, temple work may not be performed for an individual until 95 years after that person's death.) Where Do We Stand Now?: In 2013, the LDS Church announced a milestone of "{having} attained one billion searchable records added to the Church’s FamilySearch website in less than seven years." I have no idea how many names (for whom temple work has not been performed) can be gleaned from these billion records, but I suspect there are quite a few. Freedmen's Bureau Project: Notwithstanding the above milestone, I don't think we are running out of names. For example, a few months ago the Church announced the completion of the Freedmen's Bureau Project, in which 19,000 volunteers spent two years indexing 1.76 million records, from which "nearly 1.8 million names of former slaves and immigrants from Civil War-era records." Extrapolating from the Freedmen's Bureau Project: Wow! 1.8 million names from 1.76 million records? That's nearly a 1:1 ratio! So let's take a look at the Church's FamilySearch website. Let's be conservative and say that their billion records is not nearly as efficient in terms of name extraction as the Freedmen's Bureau Project. Let's assume a 4:1 ratio (one name for every for records). That would mean the FamilySearch database has about 250 million names available in these billion searchable records. Now let's also say that of these 250 million, 20% of them (50 million) have already had their temple work done (or else the 95 year hold has not yet lapsed). That leaves 200 million names left for temple work. At 10 million endowments a year, it would take the Church 20 years to complete just these names. Many a Mile Yet to Travel: But how much further can the Church go? How many more records are out there? How many more names? Well, this 2014 article gives us some idea: How many names will be gleaned from the "5 billion genealogical records ... captured by teams from the church"? How many from the "10 billion more records remain{ing} to be captures"? How many from the "some 60 billion records" not yet accessed? Also, what do you think of the 200-300 year backlog of indexing work referenced in the article? Might this be a significant bottleneck in terms of slowing down temple work? The Saints Need to Improve: How many people in the Church have done their Four Generations chart? Not as many as you'd think. I have ancestors in the Church going back many generations on both sides, ancestors with large numbers of descendants in the Church, and yet we are still finding ancestors for who temple work has not been performed. The same goes for my wife's family. In sum, I don't think a lack of names is a material problem. Rather, I think the bigger problem is getting the Saints to the temple on a regular basis, and also to do genealogy work on a regular basis. I am not aware of any competent evidence indicating that the Church is running out of names of deceased persons for whom temple work can be performed. Does anyone have any information on this point (besides conjecture, I mean)? I suspect the Church is getting substantially better and reducing errors relating to duplicate names, particularly with the advent of interconnected databases. I am quite serene about this topic. If and when the Church manages to outstrip the pool of names of deceased persons for whom temple work is possible, I think the Lord will open up new resources for us, perhaps even including amazing/miraculous ones. Thanks, -Smac Brilliant, Smac! I cover family history for the Church News, so I am aware of the explosive growth that has occurred with the Church's family history efforts in the internet age. But you have encapsulated it nicely here. Bravo! 1
JLHPROF Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 2 hours ago, Eek! said: If there was not a properly functioning temple when Jesus was on the earth, and if the ordinances need to be performed in an earthly temple for everyone, then when could He have received them? The keys are certain signs and words by which false spirits and personages may be detected from true, which cannot be revealed to the Elders till the Temple is completed. The rich can only get them in the Temple, the poor may get them on the mountain top as did Moses. - Joseph Smith Elder Joseph Fielding Smith shared his belief that Peter, James, and John “received their endowments on the mount” (see Doctrines of Salvation 2:165) As I said before, Christ received all his ordinances. Baptism - Matt 3:13-16 check! Confirmation - (although perhaps not in the traditional sense) Matt 3:16-17 check! Priesthood keys - Matthew 17:1-3 (compare D&C 110) check! Endowment - a little trickier, but probably Luke 4 and Matthew 4's 40 days. check! Marriage - Luke 10:38-42/John 2 check! Second Anointing - Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8 check! 1
cinepro Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I am open to information on this point. I have not heard of there being a constraint on temple work arising from a lack of names. I'm not sure you are correct about that. Let me lay out my thinking on this issue: 10,000 Sessions / 670,000 Endowments: Consider the Provo Temple, which I understand is the busiest temple in the Church (certainly one of the busiest). There is an endowment session that begins every 20 minutes from 5:40 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Mondays, from 5:40 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, and from 7:00 a.m to 8:00 p.m. on Wednesdays through Saturdays. That works out to 212 sessions per week, or a bit over 10,000 sessions per year (212 X 48 weeks). While evening endowment sessions are full, I think many morning and afternoon sessions are considerably more sparse (my neighbors, who work at the Provo Temple, mentioned that the temple has had to cancel a few endowment sessions for the first time in the history of the temple, likely owing to the opening of the Payson and Provo City Center temples). So let's guesstimate an average of 70% capacity per session (that's probably a bit much, but let's run with it). IIRC, there are about 96 or so seats in the endowment rooms in the temple (7 rows of 7 seats on each side, minus one space each side for wheelchairs). So 70% capacity would put us at about 67 names per session. With 10,000 sessions, that would put us at about 670,000 endowments per year. Considerably Fewer Endowments Overall: Keep in mind that the Provo Temple is the busiest one in the Church. There are many others which can also handle substantial numbers of sessions/patrons (the ones that come to mind are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boise, Rexburg, Mesa, Portland, Seattle, Logan, Brigham City, Ogden, Bountiful, Draper, Oquirrh Mountin, Jordan River, Mount Timpanogos, Payson, Manti, St. George, Denver, Washington D.C.). However, of the 152 currently operating temples, many dozens of them are "smaller" temples, designed for only a few endowment sessions each week. For example, the Colonia Juarez temple in Mexico conducts five sessions per week. Aba Nigeria conducts 11 sessions. Adelaide, Australia: 7. Anchorage Alaska: 13. Taipei, Taiwan: 20. These smaller temples also have considerably fewer seats in the endowment room (as compared to the Provo Temple), and hence fewer patrons per session, and hence fewer names for whom temple work is performed per session. Spitballing - Ten Million Endowments Per Year: So let's spitball and guesstimate that the with the Provo and other larger/busier temples on one end of the spectrum, and the smaller temples on the other end, we end up with an average of five million names per year. That would be five million people for whom temple work is performed. Since we're spitballing, let's double that amount to ten million names per year. Big Numbers, Many Years: There have been about 107 billion people who have ever lived on the earth. At the present rate of ten million endowments per year, it would take the LDS Church over 10,000 years to complete the temple work for everyone who has ever lived as of 2016. Also, 55.3 million people die each year at present, which would obviously lengthen out the 10,000-year project by a considerable margin. Sparse Records, Still Big Numbers: Of course, we don't have records for the vast majority of those 107 billion people. Far from it. Record-keeping was sparse for the vast majority of human history. Nevertheless, census records, tax records, etc. have been around and preserved in many countries for many decades now. And if there are 55 or so million people presently dying each year, it seems like there will be records for quite a few of them from here on out. (However, we should also keep in mind that, apart from direct ancestors, temple work may not be performed for an individual until 95 years after that person's death.) Where Do We Stand Now?: In 2013, the LDS Church announced a milestone of "{having} attained one billion searchable records added to the Church’s FamilySearch website in less than seven years." I have no idea how many names (for whom temple work has not been performed) can be gleaned from these billion records, but I suspect there are quite a few. Freedmen's Bureau Project: Notwithstanding the above milestone, I don't think we are running out of names. For example, a few months ago the Church announced the completion of the Freedmen's Bureau Project, in which 19,000 volunteers spent two years indexing 1.76 million records, from which "nearly 1.8 million names of former slaves and immigrants from Civil War-era records." Extrapolating from the Freedmen's Bureau Project: Wow! 1.8 million names from 1.76 million records? That's nearly a 1:1 ratio! So let's take a look at the Church's FamilySearch website. Let's be conservative and say that their billion records is not nearly as efficient in terms of name extraction as the Freedmen's Bureau Project. Let's assume a 4:1 ratio (one name for every four records). That would mean the FamilySearch database has about 250 million names available in these billion searchable records. Now let's also say that of these 250 million, 20% of them (50 million) have already had their temple work done (or else the 95 year hold has not yet lapsed). That leaves 200 million names left for temple work. At 10 million endowments a year, it would take the Church 20 years to complete just these names. Many a Mile Yet to Travel: But how much further can the Church go? How many more records are out there? How many more names? Well, this 2014 article gives us some idea: How many names will be gleaned from the "5 billion genealogical records ... captured by teams from the church"? How many from the "10 billion more records remain{ing} to be captured" in North/South America and Western Europe? How many from the "some 60 billion records" not yet accessed in the rest of the world? While the numbers in the post look impressive, I suspect the biggest issue is a massive bottleneck getting available names into the proper systems and format for use in the Temple. The stupid thing about this is that it doesn't have to be a mystery. The Church knows whether or not it is running out of names, and whether or not they are circulating duplicating names. But if that ever were the case, it could never be acknowledged, since it would devastate Temple attendance throughout the Church. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 15 minutes ago, cinepro said: While the numbers in the post look impressive, I suspect the biggest issue is a massive bottleneck getting available names into the proper systems and format for use in the Temple. I suspect the "bottleneck" is not nearly as great -- or as constrictive -- as you imagine it to be. Have you gone on the FamilySearch.org website recently and seen how easy it is, first to identify ancestors (or cousins) needing temple work and, second, how expeditiously the names can be readied for temple work? Did you know you can print out an ordinance card on your own computer at home and take it directly to the temple? Come into the 21st century, man! Furthermore, did you know that millions of volunteers around the world, Mormons and non-Mormons, working at their own computers, are indexing names and vital information from digitized images of records so that these can show up on the ancestral family trees of FamilySearch users and, in cases where temple work is needed, be readily flagged for it? Quote The stupid thing about this is that it doesn't have to be a mystery. The Church knows whether or not it is running out of names, and whether or not they are circulating duplicating names. But if that ever were the case, it could never be acknowledged, since it would devastate Temple attendance throughout the Church. There's no mystery. Nor is there a conspiracy or coverup. The Church is not "running out of names." That's mere fanciful and ill-informed conjecture. 1
notHagoth7 Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Big Numbers, Many Years: There have been about 107 billion people who have ever lived on the earth. At the present rate of ten million endowments per year, it would take the LDS Church over 10,000 years to complete the temple work for everyone who has ever lived as of 2016. Also, 55.3 million people die each year at present, which would obviously lengthen out the 10,000-year project by a considerable margin. Quoted to emphasize implications suggested earlier...
notHagoth7 Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Because you need individual commitments ....Ordinances for all is ordinances for none. Atonement for all who believe/accept/repent ...what then? It's not atonement for none. Apostolic blessing conferred upon all present...what then? It's not a blessing for none. So while I agree with your initial assertion about individual commitments, I don't believe your closing assertion necessarily follows. Edited September 27, 2016 by notHagoth7 1
cinepro Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I suspect the "bottleneck" is not nearly as great -- or as constrictive -- as you imagine it to be. Have you gone on the FamilySearch.org website recently and seen how easy it is, first to identify ancestors (or cousins) needing temple work and, second, how expeditiously the names can be readied for temple work? Did you know you can print out an ordinance card on your own computer at home and take it directly to the temple? Come into the 21st century, man! Furthermore, did you know that millions of volunteers around the world, Mormons and non-Mormons, working at their own computers, are indexing names and vital information from digitized images of records so that these can show up on the ancestral family trees of FamilySearch users and, in cases where temple work is needed, be readily flagged for it? There's no mystery. Nor is there a conspiracy or coverup. The Church is not "running out of names." That's mere fanciful and ill-informed conjecture. Well, there is this anecdote. Has anyone else had a similar observation? https://wheatandtares.org/2016/07/10/running-out-of-temple-names/ On a visit this week to the temple with my daughter, I learned a few interesting things. I noticed that during confirmations, the temple has only printed sheets with three names. The temple worker said the temple is running out of names, so if you don’t bring your own names, they will let you only do three confirmations and four baptisms. They also said they won’t allow endowed people to be baptized on behalf of the dead unless they bring their own names. 1
cinepro Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 34 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: Atonement for all who believe/accept/repent ...what then? It's not atonement for none. Apostolic blessing conferred upon all present...what then? It's not a blessing for none. So while I agree with your initial assertion about individual commitments, I don't believe your closing assertion necessarily follows. The idea that there are hard and fast rules on this is absurd. We're talking about "proxy" ordinances. The person isn't even physically there. There is no metaphysical reason that one person couldn't be baptized on behalf of a billion people all at once. The important part of the process is that the disembodied spirit "accepts" that baptism. Obviously, vicarious Temple work has a huge component that involves the living. So I can see the current system being set up so the Temples aren't sitting idle 99% of the time waiting for those who are doing ordinances for themselves. And the constant encouragement for members to have a Temple Recommend and go to the Temple is certainly an important part of the Church. But we don't need to overstretch in justifying the current system beyond what it obviously is. 4
Gray Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) 51 minutes ago, cinepro said: Well, there is this anecdote. Has anyone else had a similar observation? https://wheatandtares.org/2016/07/10/running-out-of-temple-names/ Several years ago someone local in a stake calling that had to do with vicarious ordinances (sorry, don't remember her calling) came to our ward and presented during the second hour. The only thing I remember from it was that she said we've used up over 90% of the names we have (as a church), and that names do get recycled through endowments and baptisms because there are not enough "fresh" names. Which is why there was (and continues to be) a push for more names. Take that fuzzy memory with a grain of salt. But it would explain the big push for more indexing. Edited September 27, 2016 by Gray 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 52 minutes ago, cinepro said: Well, there is this anecdote. Has anyone else had a similar observation? https://wheatandtares.org/2016/07/10/running-out-of-temple-names/ So according to this link, then, the problem -- if there is one -- is that individuals are going on FamilySearch.org and reserving huge lists of names and then not following through and doing the temple work for them. So the Family History Department has begun "unreserving" names that have been reserved for longer than two years. That's not quite the same thing as the Church "running out of names" for temple work. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 23 minutes ago, Gray said: Several years ago someone local in a stake calling that had to do with vicarious ordinances (sorry, don't remember her calling) came to our ward and presented during the second hour. The only thing I remember from it was that she said we've used up over 90% of the names we have (as a church), and that names do get recycled through endowments and baptisms because there are not enough "fresh" names. Which is why there was (and continues to be) a push for more names. Take that fuzzy memory with a grain of salt. But it would explain the big push for more indexing. The "big push for more indexing" is to facilitate users of FamilySearch.org going on line and establishing their family tree, with ancestors flagged who need their temple work done. It has nothing to do with a panic over there not being "enough 'fresh' names" or with duplicate ordinances having to be done as busy work. 2
notHagoth7 Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, cinepro said: The idea that there are hard and fast rules on this is absurd. Not sure what hard and fast rules you're referring to. 2 hours ago, cinepro said: We're talking about "proxy" ordinances. The person isn't even physically there. There is no metaphysical reason that one person couldn't be baptized on behalf of a billion people all at once. The important part of the process is that the disembodied spirit "accepts" that baptism. Understood. We're completely on the same page there. 2 hours ago, cinepro said: Obviously, vicarious Temple work has a huge component that involves the living. So I can see the current system...But we don't need to overstretch in justifying the current system beyond what it obviously is. Key point being the "current" system. My point was that such a state *is* transitory. ? And if you feel I was attempting to overstretch/justify certain things in this thread, perhaps my meaning was completely misunderstood. Edited September 28, 2016 by notHagoth7
mfbukowski Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, notHagoth7 said: Atonement for all who believe/accept/repent ...what then? It's not atonement for none. Apostolic blessing conferred upon all present...what then? It's not a blessing for none. So while I agree with your initial assertion about individual commitments, I don't believe your closing assertion necessarily follows. Sigh. Notice you yourself limited the set to "not all" by further defining the expression. Atonement- "for those who repent". Limited set Apostolic blessing - "for those present". Limited set You need not be so feisty- I am on your side. One must define classes for any sentence to be sensible. Imagine algebra- dividing both sides of an equation by the same number does not affect the equality of the expression. Saying that "ordinances apply to all" is like multiplying the expression by 1. Same difference. It's like saying "All reality is made of substance" or "God is everything" The statements are so general as to be meaningless. If God is everything then God is nothing. So go worship a chair or the sun or a tree or your neighbor- it makes no difference. In effect there is no God on that assumption because who or what he is is not differentiated from anything else. Following that logic, there is only one person, Hagoth7 who IS Hagoth7 and all others are also not Hagoth7. I am as much notHagoth7 as you are. Edited September 28, 2016 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I suspect the "bottleneck" is not nearly as great -- or as constrictive -- as you imagine it to be. Have you gone on the FamilySearch.org website recently and seen how easy it is, first to identify ancestors (or cousins) needing temple work and, second, how expeditiously the names can be readied for temple work? Did you know you can print out an ordinance card on your own computer at home and take it directly to the temple? Come into the 21st century, man! Furthermore, did you know that millions of volunteers around the world, Mormons and non-Mormons, working at their own computers, are indexing names and vital information from digitized images of records so that these can show up on the ancestral family trees of FamilySearch users and, in cases where temple work is needed, be readily flagged for it? There's no mystery. Nor is there a conspiracy or coverup. The Church is not "running out of names." That's mere fanciful and ill-informed conjecture. I suspect if they were running out of names in the temple, they would be assigning more couple and even young adult missionaires to processing names to be made temple ready. Edited September 28, 2016 by Calm 2
mfbukowski Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 3 hours ago, cinepro said: We're talking about "proxy" ordinances. The person isn't even physically there. There is no metaphysical reason that one person couldn't be baptized on behalf of a billion people all at once. The important part of the process is that the disembodied spirit "accepts" that baptism. I would encourage you to think less in terms of a magic spell in your "metaphysics" and look at the overall experience of what is actually happening on both sides of the veil. For me the "most important part" is attending the temple and having individual x think about individual y who is dead, who is still a real person, not a name or a date on a tombstone, assuming the metaphysics is correct. That individual has not heard his name pronounced for perhaps hundreds of years and may be totally forgotten. But for today, another human being has taken the time to go to the temple and help a random soul as an act of service, and the dead individual is the beneficiary of that service, and I am certain he feels a great feeling of gratitude. Besides that, the living individual has the opportunity to perform service for someone who is the "least of these, thy brethren", a person who cannot do this for himself any longer. The living individual, assuming he is actually thinking about it, which if this thread is any indication, is not the case, BUT that living individual has the opportunity to 1- review his own covenants and re-live that experience, 2- understand more about what a "vicarious sacrifice is", and therefore understand the savior's atonement better, and 3- have the opportunity to review the symbolism of the ordinance and learn much more about the mysteries of God. But of course, to some, all that matters is the most efficient way to "get the work done" God does not expect us to be efficiency experts, he expects us to be his sons and daughters who contemplate the great plan of salvation, take the opportunity to be "saviors on Mt. Zion", love one another- even those who are dead- actually take time to think these things through, and "turn our hearts" to the fathers. Heck we could just run all the digitized names through a computer with the ordinances in text with blanks for the names and dates and finish the work in seconds! The confusion of internal spiritual understanding with "getting things done in the world" is the great bane of western civilization, and is not present in eastern religious philosophy. The kingdom of God is within, and is not to be found in the great and spacious building no matter how focused the search. Those searchers are looking in the wrong place- they could look forever and not find it- it is not there. The worldly attitude of "getting the work done" as if it is physical work, leads to other errors, like thinking that scripture is about scientific facts and not spiritual truths, the belief that historical "anachronisms" are relevant to spiritual truth, and a generalized literalism that could eventually lead to the downfall of religion as a whole in the west. But what the heck. It is more efficient to misunderstand religion and therefore "finish it off" quickly than actually trying to find the richness of religious experience and the benefit to our lives. Heck I could be playing candy crush with all that time! 1
notHagoth7 Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Sigh. Notice you yourself limited the set to "not all" by further defining the expression. Atonement- "for those who repent". Limited set Apostolic blessing - "for those present". Limited set ? There are exceptions to almost any generalized statement. 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You need not be so feisty- I am on your side. But feisty? Although I come by that trait rightfully, I have yet begun to fight. Edited September 28, 2016 by notHagoth7 fixed grammar from earlier rushed post
notHagoth7 Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Saying that "ordinances apply to all" is like multiplying the expression by 1. ? Have I said such a thing? Following that logic, there is only one person, Hagoth7 who IS Hagoth7 and all others are also not Hagoth7. I am as much notHagoth7 as you are. Oh? On *that* issue, "you can't [yet] handle the truth!"
Kenngo1969 Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 Personally, I like the idea that God, even though He (being omniscient and omnipotent and all) doesn't need my help, still allows me, in my imperfection and inadequacy and comparative nothingness, to help Him do His work. Could He do most everything He asks/invites me to do better and more efficiently if He were to do it Himself, or if He were to do it some other way than involving me? Without question. But He still allows me to help Him for what that does for me. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: ... God does not expect us to be efficiency experts, he expects us to be his sons and daughters who contemplate the great plan of salvation, take the opportunity to be "saviors on Mt. Zion", love one another- even those who are dead- actually take time to think these things through, and "turn our hearts" to the fathers. ... Quoted for truth. Also, consider this: https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/you-breathed-my-name-aloud/. 3
smac97 Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, cinepro said: While the numbers in the post look impressive, I suspect the biggest issue is a massive bottleneck getting available names into the proper systems and format for use in the Temple. The stupid thing about this is that it doesn't have to be a mystery. The Church knows whether or not it is running out of names, and whether or not they are circulating duplicating names. But if that ever were the case, it could never be acknowledged, since it would devastate Temple attendance throughout the Church. So in your book this "mystery" is either false, in which case you think the Church is being "stupid" for not publicly correcting it, or else this "mystery" is true, in which case the Church is being dishonest for covering it up out of fear of "devastat{ing}" temple attendance. So the Church is darned if it does, darned if doesn't? Thanks, -Smac Edited September 28, 2016 by smac97
stemelbow Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 21 hours ago, smac97 said: I am open to information on this point. I have not heard of there being a constraint on temple work arising from a lack of names. I'm not sure you are correct about that. Let me lay out my thinking on this issue: 10,000 Sessions / 670,000 Endowments: Consider the Provo Temple, which I understand is the busiest temple in the Church (certainly one of the busiest). There is an endowment session that begins every 20 minutes from 5:40 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Mondays, from 5:40 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, and from 7:00 a.m to 8:00 p.m. on Wednesdays through Saturdays. That works out to 212 sessions per week, or a bit over 10,000 sessions per year (212 X 48 weeks). While evening endowment sessions are full, I think many morning and afternoon sessions are considerably more sparse (my neighbors, who work at the Provo Temple, mentioned that the temple has had to cancel a few endowment sessions for the first time in the history of the temple, likely owing to the opening of the Payson and Provo City Center temples). So let's guesstimate an average of 70% capacity per session (that's probably a bit much, but let's run with it). IIRC, there are about 96 or so seats in the endowment rooms in the temple (7 rows of 7 seats on each side, minus one space each side for wheelchairs). So 70% capacity would put us at about 67 names per session. With 10,000 sessions, that would put us at about 670,000 endowments per year. This is pretty good thinking Smac. As of may 2016 FamilySearch reported having 5.39 billion names searchable through digital records. The problem there is, of course, there are likely many names duplicated in that 5.39 billion. The tree has 1.1 billion names in it, as of end of 2015. How many temples would it take at Provo's capacity to do 1.1 billion names in one year? 1,642. How many temples would it take, at Provo's capacity to do that 1.1 Billion in 10 years? 164, of course. Simple enough math, right? How about in 20 years? 82. That means if we've had 82 temples operating since 1996 at a rate somewhere near Provo's, we'd have expired all the names for endowments alone. But we know a couple things that'd derail this. First, we've had more than 82 temples operating since 1996. Second, we know not all the temples in operation have been as busy as Provo's temple, although Jordan River and other's are at least close in business, I hear. Third, we know temple work has been going for longer than 20 years (I know because I was endowed in June 1995). Fourth, not all the names found on FamilySearch at the end of 2015 were available for the past 20 years. It could be that 20 years ago, we had but a third of that. This all very well could suggest the Church gets real short on names for the temple. And we know the easy way to get names these days, the simplicity of it suggests easy continued duplication. We don't know, for instance, how many endowments done are duplicates, nor how many names in the tree are duplicates as well. If 5.39 billion record names results in 1.1 billion names in the tree, if 1.1 billion names in the tree, results in (lets say 95% of that has been endowed to date) 1.04 billion, that'd leave us with 50-60 million names left to do. In 150 temples. In one year that'd be 400,000 endowments in one year per temple. We already have estimated 1 temple to have accomplished more than that in one year. We already assume many of the 150 temples will do less than that. So let's say in 5 years time...where would that put us? How exhausted will our temple names submission source be? FamilySearch is working hard to alleviate that issue, no doubt. And some drastic strides might be made, but there really is only a finite number of names ever recorded to deal with. It's like the vast majority of actual people who have lived were never recorded. At some point, we'll reach an end to finding names because of that. https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/FamilySearch.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FamilySearch 21 hours ago, smac97 said: Considerably Fewer Endowments Overall: Keep in mind that the Provo Temple is the busiest one in the Church. There are many others which can also handle substantial numbers of sessions/patrons (the ones that come to mind are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boise, Rexburg, Mesa, Portland, Seattle, Logan, Brigham City, Ogden, Bountiful, Draper, Oquirrh Mountin, Jordan River, Mount Timpanogos, Payson, Manti, St. George, Denver, Washington D.C.). However, of the 152 currently operating temples, many dozens of them are "smaller" temples, designed for only a few endowment sessions each week. For example, the Colonia Juarez temple in Mexico conducts five sessions per week. Aba Nigeria conducts 11 sessions. Adelaide, Australia: 7. Anchorage Alaska: 13. Taipei, Taiwan: 20. These smaller temples also have considerably fewer seats in the endowment room (as compared to the Provo Temple), and hence fewer patrons per session, and hence fewer names for whom temple work is performed per session. Good point. some temples do very little in comparison. Some do something comparable, likely. 21 hours ago, smac97 said: Spitballing - Ten Million Endowments Per Year: So let's spitball and guesstimate that the with the Provo and other larger/busier temples on one end of the spectrum, and the smaller temples on the other end, we end up with an average of five million names per year. That would be five million people for whom temple work is performed. Since we're spitballing, let's double that amount to ten million names per year. Big Numbers, Many Years: There have been about 107 billion people who have ever lived on the earth. At the present rate of ten million endowments per year, it would take the LDS Church over 10,000 years to complete the temple work for everyone who has ever lived as of 2016. Also, 55.3 million people die each year at present, which would obviously lengthen out the 10,000-year project by a considerable margin. We're talking about whether the Church will have enough names to continue apace. I like the estimated 100 billion people who have lived number. Do you realize familysearch at 1/100th of those names? When will familysearch have 2/100th of those names? Likely in many years. At least 5. I can't imagine the work be sustained over the next 5 years in these temples. The Church is pushing real hard to get temples to be self-sufficient for the area they are in--meaingin the local people bring the names. Familysearch is working hard to expand it's records to other areas of the world--as of now, the vast majority of records are from the US and Europe. 21 hours ago, smac97 said: Sparse Records, Still Big Numbers: Of course, we don't have records for the vast majority of those 107 billion people. Far from it. Record-keeping was sparse for the vast majority of human history. Nevertheless, census records, tax records, etc. have been around and preserved in many countries for many decades now. And if there are 55 or so million people presently dying each year, it seems like there will be records for quite a few of them from here on out. (However, we should also keep in mind that, apart from direct ancestors, temple work may not be performed for an individual until 95 years after that person's death.) The policy is we can't just do ordinances for everyone who dies every year. They have to be in our trees and have to have been dead for 110 years if they are not in our direct family lines. Meaning most of those 55 million will not be submitted to the temple. Probably a very tiny fraction of those 55 million, in fact. The vast majority of submissions now, are from people hwo were born more than 110 years ago. I don't think that trend will change. And to note, many of the people in our day are still not getting recorded. As much as we are proud of our ability to record everything. We're still missing people. 21 hours ago, smac97 said: Where Do We Stand Now?: In 2013, the LDS Church announced a milestone of "{having} attained one billion searchable records added to the Church’s FamilySearch website in less than seven years." I have no idea how many names (for whom temple work has not been performed) can be gleaned from these billion records, but I suspect there are quite a few. Freedmen's Bureau Project: Notwithstanding the above milestone, I don't think we are running out of names. For example, a few months ago the Church announced the completion of the Freedmen's Bureau Project, in which 19,000 volunteers spent two years indexing 1.76 million records, from which "nearly 1.8 million names of former slaves and immigrants from Civil War-era records." Extrapolating from the Freedmen's Bureau Project: Wow! 1.8 million names from 1.76 million records? That's nearly a 1:1 ratio! So let's take a look at the Church's FamilySearch website. Let's be conservative and say that their billion records is not nearly as efficient in terms of name extraction as the Freedmen's Bureau Project. Let's assume a 4:1 ratio (one name for every four records). That would mean the FamilySearch database has about 250 million names available in these billion searchable records. Now let's also say that of these 250 million, 20% of them (50 million) have already had their temple work done (or else the 95 year hold has not yet lapsed). That leaves 200 million names left for temple work. At 10 million endowments a year, it would take the Church 20 years to complete just these names. This is wishful thinking, Smac. One has to do the research into the records to find those who have not been added to the tree. Once in the tree, then submissions are possible. Of the records gathered? many are records fo those who are already in the tree and many have already had their ordinances done. Does that make sense? Most of the records gathered are not new names, per se, but added instances where we can support the tree conclusions. Just to be clear on this, the 1.1 billion added since 2007--that's the total in the tree. The tree was started then. That does not mean there will be 1.1 billion in the next 9 years--although there could and that would be great. 21 hours ago, smac97 said: Many a Mile Yet to Travel: But how much further can the Church go? How many more records are out there? How many more names? Well, this 2014 article gives us some idea: How many names will be gleaned from the "5 billion genealogical records ... captured by teams from the church"? How many from the "10 billion more records remain{ing} to be captured" in North/South America and Western Europe? How many from the "some 60 billion records" not yet accessed in the rest of the world? Also, what do you think of the 200-300 year backlog of indexing work referenced in the article? Might this be a significant bottleneck in terms of slowing down temple work? The Saints Need to Improve: How many people in the Church have done their Four Generations chart? Not as many as you'd think. I have ancestors in the Church going back many generations on both sides, ancestors with large numbers of descendants in the Church, and yet we are still finding ancestors for who temple work has not been performed. The same goes for my wife's family. In sum, I don't think a lack of names is a material problem. Rather, I think the bigger problem is getting the Saints to the temple on a regular basis, and also to do genealogy work on a regular basis. I am not aware of any competent evidence indicating that the Church is running out of names of deceased persons for whom temple work can be performed. Does anyone have any information on this point (besides conjecture, I mean)? I suspect the Church is getting substantially better and reducing errors relating to duplicate names, particularly with the advent of interconnected databases. I am quite serene about this topic. If and when the Church manages to outstrip the pool of names of deceased persons for whom temple work is possible, I think the Lord will open up new resources for us, perhaps even including amazing/miraculous ones. Thanks, -Smac I appreciate this, Smac. As it is, as my link above shows, there are 5.39 billion names already recorded through indexing. yet those 5.39 billion have resulted in 1.1 billion names in the tree. If 5 billion records are yet to be indexed, I'm curious how much that will add to the tree. But as it is, the problem is not that they are held by Familysearch, but that at the current rate we'll never get them all indexed--well ok in a couple hundred years we will. They won't get online for use and we'll not be able to supply the names to the temple. There should be or could be names available, sure. But that doesn't mean there are. It's possible we could continue apace for 1000 years, but as it is we don't have the names.
ksfisher Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I appreciate this, Smac. As it is, as my link above shows, there are 5.39 billion names already recorded through indexing. yet those 5.39 billion have resulted in 1.1 billion names in the tree. If 5 billion records are yet to be indexed, I'm curious how much that will add to the tree. But as it is, the problem is not that they are held by Familysearch, but that at the current rate we'll never get them all indexed--well ok in a couple hundred years we will. They won't get online for use and we'll not be able to supply the names to the temple. You can always do family history the old fashioned way and look right at the microfilm itself. No need to wait for records to be indexed. And I'm not sure the idea is to do family history and temple work quickly (perhaps you're not saying that either). Rather, I believe that it is something that should be worked on, but not to the exclusion of other areas of the gospel. The race isn't always to the swiftest as the scripture goes.
stemelbow Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: You can always do family history the old fashioned way and look right at the microfilm itself. No need to wait for records to be indexed. And I'm not sure the idea is to do family history and temple work quickly (perhaps you're not saying that either). Rather, I believe that it is something that should be worked on, but not to the exclusion of other areas of the gospel. The race isn't always to the swiftest as the scripture goes. Sure I agree. You can even travel to various parts of the earth to find obscure records. It's just that such research represents the tiniest fraction in our day. I haven't said anything about doing it quickly. But hastening the work directives is the Church's stance. I'd rather see the Church slow down then do temple ordinances that have already been accomplished, just because I hate to see messiness in data.
bluebell Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 14 minutes ago, ksfisher said: You can always do family history the old fashioned way and look right at the microfilm itself. No need to wait for records to be indexed. You can also index from your computer. It's really easy (except that reading names and places of those from other countries, hand written, can seem like trying to decipher Egyptian sometimes).
Recommended Posts