universal ordinances?

[cdowis]

I do indexing and watch when they open up records from my home state.  They are now doing marriage records from all over, and I'm doing them for Georgia, hoping they have names for some of my ancestors.  The other day I ran across the name "Tumlin" which is on my line.  I'm sure they are related since that is an unusual name, so that was very exciting.

[cdowis]

23 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:

Actually it now becomes a problem, since there is a 2 year limit on how long a name can be submitted and the work is done.  After that time, it is released to temple patrons in general.

So, if these names are in the temple file for a long time, the work may get duplicated.

[cdowis]

On 9/26/2016 at 10:38 PM, Duncan said:

I know all that that but you indicated visions and that stuff and i'm saying why don't they happen to me, as we don't even know the basics about grandparents

With the new census records available, this information becomes easier to find for these "near" relatives when you have the surname.  

If you don't have the surname of the wife, one trick is to go to the complete census record for the target area, and look for the neighbors for a known ancestor.  It is not uncommon to find the wife's relations living in the same neighborhood as her husband's relatives.

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

On 9/26/2016 at 3:59 PM, notHagoth7 said:

If I may, I'd like to riff on a few potentially-related things: 

1. Anciently, every faithful Israelite attended their temple regularly to provide offerings and sacrifices. Then, in the meridian of time, a one-time Offering made such recurring foreshadowing moot, offered redemption/cleansing to all who accept Jesus of Nazareth as Savior, a different kind of offering/sacrifice of each believer was then required, and the temple was subsequently removed. 
2. As another illustration, when an apostle bestows an apostolic blessing upon an audience, that one blessing applies instantly to everyone who faithfully receives it. (That blessing does *not* have to be individually pronounced upon every listener, one at a time.)
3. What do the sweeping efficacy of such umbrella dispensations of priesthood blessings at least offer?
4. Since the millennium (a thousand years) is but a day for God (2 Peter 3:8), what if he or his servants opted to complete a thousand years of sweeping work in a single day, as in the examples provided above, and leveraged the rest of that millennial peace towards greater things? 

 

Here is the flaw.  Baptism, endowment, etc is where we personally make covenants to the Lord == it requires active acknowledgement  from the receiver to the giver.  In each of your cases, there is no covenant being made, no acknowledgement.

That is why I called it Satan's plan.  you get exaltation whether you want it or not.

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[Scott Lloyd]

22 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. 

 

 

21 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.

 

20 hours 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/

 

 

 

 

20 hours 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.

 

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

So I showed cinepro's blog post to my contact at FamilySearch International. His response essentially confirmed what I've said here.

Here is what I wrote to him:

Quote

 

Someone showed me this internet blog post:

 

https://familysearch.org/blog/en/releasing-reservations-years/

 

I find it hard to believe that the temples are running out of names, given how the work has been streamlined in recent years with the ability to print out one's own ordinance cards to take to the temple and with the acceleration of the work in general with worldwide indexing and such.

 

But I thought I would check it out with you to see if it is a rumor that needs to be laid to rest.

 

Here is his response:
 

Quote

 

Thanks for your inquiry.  The blog post makes absolutely no mention of running out of names. The blog post message is all about getting the temple work done for the individuals quicker. That is the message we wanted to come through. There are some members who reserve a large number of family names for temple ordinances—far more than they can possibly complete in a reasonable amount of time. That means a large number of reserved ancestral names can be sitting idle and inaccessible for a very long time from other family members who could otherwise help perform the ordinances. This is an opportunity for more members to act as saviors on Mt. Zion in providing ordinances on behalf of their kindred dead and participating in the hastening of the work of salvation in a timely manner.

 

I would add that releasing the names in this instance does not send them to the temple as the Church does NOT scan Family Tree for ordinances and send them to the temple. Releasing a name will only make it available for another to reserve.

 

Make sense?

 

 

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

 

So I showed cinepro's blog post to my contact at FamilySearch International. His response essentially confirmed what I've said here.

Here is what I wrote to him:

Here is his response:
 

 

Who is your contact? 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

No, the stupid thing is that we are trying to deduce the reality when someone actually does know the answer. 

It's like a game of "guess how many jelly beans are in a jar" at the county fair.  We're like a group of people standing around talking about how many jelly beans might be in the jar, using math, intuition and any other data we can muster to try and guess how many jelly beans are in the jar.  The Church is like the guy sitting at the table, listening to us trying to figure it out, all the while having the exact number written on a piece of paper in his pocket.

In the case of the jelly beans, there is a good reason for that info to remain secret (that's the whole point of the game).  In the case of how many vicarious Temple ordinances are done each year, and how many names are in the queue, I'm not sure why the Church doesn't make that info public. 

So it's the situation that's "stupid" (i.e. illogical and unnecessary), not the Church itself.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

No, the stupid thing is that we are trying to deduce the reality when someone actually does know the answer. 

It's like a game of "guess how many jelly beans are in a jar" at the county fair.  We're like a group of people standing around talking about how many jelly beans might be in the jar, using math, intuition and any other data we can muster to try and guess how many jelly beans are in the jar.  The Church is like the guy sitting at the table, listening to us trying to figure it out, all the while having the exact number written on a piece of paper in his pocket.

In the case of the jelly beans, there is a good reason for that info to remain secret (that's the whole point of the game).  In the case of how many vicarious Temple ordinances are done each year, and how many names are in the queue, I'm not sure why the Church doesn't make that info public. 

So it's the situation that's "stupid" (i.e. illogical and unnecessary), not the Church itself.

Okay.  Thank you for the clarification.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

 

So I showed cinepro's blog post to my contact at FamilySearch International. His response essentially confirmed what I've said here.

Here is what I wrote to him:

Here is his response:
 

 

This does make me realize that I have no idea what the process is for putting names in the queue for Temple work.  When you go to the Temple and don't bring a name with you and they give you one, where does that come from?    Smac's equation seems to assume that every name that is indexed or otherwise known in a genealogical record is automatically available for Temple work, but the email from the FamilySearch guy seems to indicate that it isn't the case.

But it occurs to me that there is a very easy way to test the hypothesis of Temples running out of names.  We just need people to go into the Temples at times when they're not usually busy and (sincerely) offer to do a couple hundred baptisms.  If the offer is accepted, then go ahead and do them.  If not, try to find out if the reason is logistics or availability of names.

We can also have people who are given a name at the Temple for vicarious work check afterward to see if the work for that name had already been done.

Edited September 28, 2016 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Who is your contact? 

I didn't ask if I could post his name here.

But he has a PR role with FamilySearch, so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it will be OK. He is Paul G. Nauta, public affairs manager with FamilySearch and with the Church Family History Department.

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, cinepro said:

No, the stupid thing is that we are trying to deduce the reality when someone actually does know the answer. 

It's like a game of "guess how many jelly beans are in a jar" at the county fair.  We're like a group of people standing around talking about how many jelly beans might be in the jar, using math, intuition and any other data we can muster to try and guess how many jelly beans are in the jar.  The Church is like the guy sitting at the table, listening to us trying to figure it out, all the while having the exact number written on a piece of paper in his pocket.

In the case of the jelly beans, there is a good reason for that info to remain secret (that's the whole point of the game).  In the case of how many vicarious Temple ordinances are done each year, and how many names are in the queue, I'm not sure why the Church doesn't make that info public. 

So it's the situation that's "stupid" (i.e. illogical and unnecessary), not the Church itself.

At one point, I thought a number came out saying it was at 1 billion.  That would have been years ago though.  And now we know the Church is just reporting 1.1 billion unique names in the tree, and some person's in the tree might need work done as yet.  But alas, I can't find any source for the 1 billion my memory holds. 

This is the reason why I remain a bit skeptical about running out of names, though.  Also, as I recall, I've heard stories like it appears others here have, that names have been recycled now and then.  But I can't confirm that outside of memory and people saying it. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, cinepro said:

This does make me realize that I have no idea what the process is for putting names in the queue for Temple work.  When you go to the Temple and don't bring a name with you and they give you one, where does that come from?    Smac's equation seems to assume that every name that is indexed or otherwise known in a genealogical record is automatically available for Temple work, but the email from the FamilySearch guy seems to indicate that it isn't the case.

But it occurs to me that there is a very easy way to test the hypothesis of Temples running out of names.  We just need people to go into the Temples at times when they're not usually busy and (sincerely) offer to do a couple hundred baptisms.  If the offer is accepted, then go ahead and do them.  If not, try to find out if the reason is logistics or availability of names.

We can also have people who are given a name at the Temple for vicarious work check afterward to see if the work for that name had already been done.

I don't know all details. 

There are a couple of ways, though.  if you find a person in the tree on familysearch that does not have it's ordinances done.  You can reserve that name and then share it with the temple.  I think I've waited a year or so before a person I've shared with the temple got anything done on it.  I've heard of something that was called extraction.  I'm not sure how it works exactly, but persons are derived from a familysearch database that don't have ordinances done.  This is done outside of patrons locating these, and I think outside of the database that makes up the family tree.  I'm not sure how that works exactly because it seems like that means a person could also print out the name and take ti to the temple in the meantime. 

As far as I understand this is at least part ot it.  I'm guessing there's moer to it though. 

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

At one point, I thought a number came out saying it was at 1 billion.  That would have been years ago though.  And now we know the Church is just reporting 1.1 billion unique names in the tree, and some person's in the tree might need work done as yet.  But alas, I can't find any source for the 1 billion my memory holds. 

 

According to what I reported back in 2013 (in a Church News story that Smac linked to in a post on this thread), it's far more than a billion. It's at least twice that many. A billion was the milestone that volunteer indexers reached through their collective efforts over the previous seven years, which was the time period in which the Family History Department had carried out "a major innovation inviting virtually anyone anywhere to log on to the site and sign up to participate in the indexing project. The intent [was] to create computer-searchable indexes for scanned images of historical documents that are viewable on the website."

I further wrote in that piece:
 

Quote

 

Of course, indexing of genealogical records by the Church began much earlier than 2006.

“Extraction or indexing of records sponsored by the Genealogical Society of Utah (now FamilySearch) began in earnest in 1978,” Brother Nauta said. “Various methods were employed over the succeeding years involving paper and then CD-based copies of records. The work was slow, but by 2005 many diligent volunteers managed to digitize roughly 1 billion records.”

The launch of Internet-based indexing seven years ago gradually has replaced the previous extraction methods and has involved the work of hundreds of thousands of more volunteers since it is so convenient to become involved.

For example, last year’s 1940 U.S. Census Community Project, a joint effort between FamilySearch and several commercial and noncommercial entities to index the newly released census, marshaled an army of more than 184,000 volunteers who indexed and arbitrated (checked for accuracy) 132 million records in just more than four months.

“This project demonstrated not only the power of the crowd but also the level of interest that exists for being able to search and make discoveries from historical records,” Brother Nauta observed. “The project set numerous records, including most records indexed in a day (more than 7 million), most records arbitrated in a day (3 million), and most volunteers contributing in a day (49,000).

 

Back to you:

Quote

This is the reason why I remain a bit skeptical about running out of names, though.  Also, as I recall, I've heard stories like it appears others here have, that names have been recycled now and then.  But I can't confirm that outside of memory and people saying it. 

I fear that, regardless of how reasonable or convincing the arguments are to the contrary, there will still be those who insist that the earth is flat or that the Apollo moon landings were faked or that Elvis is still alive or that Paul McCartney really did die in 1966 -- or that the Church really is "running out of names" for doing temple work and is deluding the people by having them do ordinances for names that have already been done, this to keep the temple patrons busy and quiet and to sustain the coverup.

In short, the conspiracy theorists -- like the poor -- will always be with us.

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

According to what I reported back in 2013 (in a Church News story that Smac linked to in a post on this thread), it's far more than a billion. It's at least twice that many. A billion was the milestone that volunteer indexers reached through their collective efforts over the previous seven years, which was the time period in which the Family History Department had carried out "a major innovation inviting virtually anyone anywhere to log on to the site and sign up to participate in the indexing project. The intent [was] to create computer-searchable indexes for scanned images of historical documents that are viewable on the website."

If you're talking about digital records (as in indexed), I've already linked it where in as recent as May 2016 the number of names from the digital records is at 5.39 billion.  But that's not unique names.  The number of images on familysearch is at 1.2 billion.  Not all images online have been indexed though.   And as of the same date there were 1.1 billion names in the global family tree.  Thus 5.39 billion searchable names as resulted in, at least to date, 1.1 billion person's. 

Here's the link again, in case you missed it:

https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/FamilySearch.org

.  I'm talking about, or I thought we were, how many unique names have had ordinances accomplished.  That's the 1 billion I had in mind.

But if there are 1.1 billion names in the tree and there are far more than 1 billion person's with their ordinances done, I'm curious who these people are.  How could we possibly get more names to the temple if the whole database of names is smaller than the number of person's who have their ordinances accomplished?

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I further wrote in that piece:
 

Back to you:

I fear that, regardless of how reasonable or convincing the arguments are to the contrary, there will still be those who insist that the earth is flat or that the Apollo moon landings were faked or that Elvis is still alive or that Paul McCartney really did die in 1966 -- or that the that Church really is "running out of names" for doing temple work and is deluding the people by having them do ordinances for names that have already been done, this to keep the temple patrons busy and quiet and to sustaining the coverup.

In short, the conspiracy theorists -- like the poor -- will always be with us.

 

I've made my case.  I don't know anyone will address what I said.  I'm happy you disagree but to consider me a crackpot because of the disagreement seems a bit extreme. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

This does make me realize that I have no idea what the process is for putting names in the queue for Temple work.  When you go to the Temple and don't bring a name with you and they give you one, where does that come from?    Smac's equation seems to assume that every name that is indexed or otherwise known in a genealogical record is automatically available for Temple work, but the email from the FamilySearch guy seems to indicate that it isn't the case.

But it occurs to me that there is a very easy way to test the hypothesis of Temples running out of names.  We just need people to go into the Temples at times when they're not usually busy and (sincerely) offer to do a couple hundred baptisms.  If the offer is accepted, then go ahead and do them.  If not, try to find out if the reason is logistics or availability of names.

We can also have people who are given a name at the Temple for vicarious work check afterward to see if the work for that name had already been done.

We did sealings last friday and the temple sealer used to work in the Washington DC temple as the assistant recorder.  He told us that each temple get's a pre-decided number of names sent to them each morning from SLC, and the number is determined by how many ordinances of each kind was done the day before on average (for smaller temples they average based on the busiest day i think he said).  So if a temple usually only does 50 names, they might not have 200 available to do.

So it sounds like the availability of names is at least partly due to the church's policy on providing them.  It also means that an individual temple can run out of names and it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not names are available.  It just meant they had a really busy day that was not expected and SLC didn't send enough that day.

Edited September 28, 2016 by bluebell

[cinepro]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We did sealings last friday and the temple sealer used to work in the Washington DC temple as the assistant recorder.  He told us that each temple get's a pre-decided number of names sent to them each morning from SLC, and the number is determined by how many ordinances of each kind was done the day before on average (for smaller temples they average based on the busiest day i think he said).  So if a temple usually only does 50 names, they might not have 200 available to do.

So it sounds like the availability of names is at least partly due to the church's policy on providing them.  It also means that an individual temple can run out of names and it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not names are available.  It just meant they had a really busy day that was not expected and SLC didn't send enough that day.

Interesting.  Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If you're talking about digital records (as in indexed), I've already linked it where in as recent as May 2016 the number of names from the digital records is at 5.39 billion.  But that's not unique names.  The number of images on familysearch is at 1.2 billion.  Not all images online have been indexed though.   And as of the same date there were 1.1 billion names in the global family tree.  Thus 5.39 billion searchable names as resulted in, at least to date, 1.1 billion person's. 

Here's the link again, in case you missed it:

https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/FamilySearch.org

.  I'm talking about, or I thought we were, how many unique names have had ordinances accomplished.  That's the 1 billion I had in mind.

But if there are 1.1 billion names in the tree and there are far more than 1 billion person's with their ordinances done, I'm curious who these people are.  How could we possibly get more names to the temple if the whole database of names is smaller than the number of person's who have their ordinances accomplished?

I've made my case.  I don't know anyone will address what I said.  I'm happy you disagree but to consider me a crackpot because of the disagreement seems a bit extreme. 

I need to know your source on a billion persons with ordinances done. I'm not seeing that in the FamilySearch wiki entry. I haven't read this entire thread from the first; perhaps it was in an earlier post.

Edited to add:

I went back and scanned through this thread from the beginning. I'm still not seeing a citation on "1 billion persons with their ordinances done."

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

We did sealings last friday and the temple sealer used to work in the Washington DC temple as the assistant recorder.  He told us that each temple get's a pre-decided number of names sent to them each morning from SLC, and the number is determined by how many ordinances of each kind was done the day before on average (for smaller temples they average based on the busiest day i think he said).  So if a temple usually only does 50 names, they might not have 200 available to do.

So it sounds like the availability of names is at least partly due to the church's policy on providing them.  It also means that an individual temple can run out of names and it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not names are available.  It just meant they had a really busy day that was not expected and SLC didn't send enough that day.

I wonder why it's not set up in this computer age so that each temple could pluck the names needing ordinance work from a common database as needed on any given day. It would be like an online reservation system for seats in a movie theater: Once a name is selected, it becomes unavailable to other users of the database.

Somebody smarter than I could probably explain why that wouldn't work.

 

[Calm]

Scott, could be a security issue as they have been more cautious these days due to complaints.  It may allow for a stronger defense against hacking or mistakes.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Scott, could be a security issue as they have been more cautious these days due to complaints.  It may allow for a stronger defense against hacking or mistakes.

Perhaps. 

[notHagoth7]

11 hours ago, cdowis said:

Here is the flaw.  Baptism, endowment, etc is where we personally make covenants to the Lord == it requires active acknowledgement  from the receiver to the giver.  In each of your cases, there is no covenant being made, no acknowledgement.

That is why I called it Satan's plan.  you get exaltation whether you want it or not.

You have fully *and completely* misunderstood my meaning.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I need to know your source on a billion persons with ordinances done. I'm not seeing that in the FamilySearch wiki entry. I haven't read this entire thread from the first; perhaps it was in an earlier post.

Edited to add:

I went back and scanned through this thread from the beginning. I'm still not seeing a citation on "1 billion persons with their ordinances done."

 

I've said that number was from memory and I haven't had a source.  But I could be off.  The problem is, of course, your claim of being far more than 1 billion names with ordinances done when familysearch boasts only 1.1 billion names in the tree, and not all in the tree have their ordinances done, presumably.  If I'm off, then how in the world can there be far more than a billion names having their ordinance done, as was your claim? 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I've said that number was from memory and I haven't had a source.  But I could be off. 

I can't accept a vague and unsubstantiated memory as a valid reason for concluding or suspecting that the Church is "running out of names" or is deliberately fooling people into doing ordinances for names that have already been done just to keep them quiet and the temples busy.

Quote

The problem is, of course, your claim of being far more than 1 billion names with ordinances done when familysearch boasts only 1.1 billion names in the tree, and not all in the tree have their ordinances done, presumably.  If I'm off, then how in the world can there be far more than a billion names having their ordinance done, as was your claim?

Not what I said.

I said that a billion records had been indexed in the seven years following the Church's introduction of the new program whereby virtually anyone anywhere can participate as a volunteer indexer, and that prior to that period, approximately a billion had been indexed  through record extraction programs undertaken since 1978. I don't know how many names from these indexed records have had ordinance work done; I never said I did.

[stemelbow]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can't accept a vague and unsubstantiated memory as a valid reason for concluding or suspecting that the Church is "running out of names" or is deliberately fooling people into doing ordinances for names that have already been done just to keep them quiet and the temples busy.

that's not what I said, Scott.  I laid out my reasoning as to why it's likely names could run short from time to time.  I certainly did not say that my memory of a 1 billion number from years ago says anything about deliberately fooling people.  You don't have to accept anything anyone says, Scott. 

My only point was, my explanation is out there, and it doesn't seem like anyone wants to address it. 

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not what I said.

I said that a billion records had been indexed in the seven years following the Church's introduction of the new program whereby virtually anyone anywhere can participate as a volunteer indexer, and that prior to that period, approximately a billion had been indexed  through record extraction programs undertaken since 1978. I don't know how many names from these indexed records have had ordinance work done; I never said I did.

Then there was some confusion.  When I said 1 billion, you said it was far more than that.  I guess you misunderstood what was being talked about. 

The numbers are out there.  We have only 1.1 billion unique names available to do ordinances for, at this point.  Its likely most of those unique names have had ordinance work done.  According to Smac's estimations above, you'd think we'd have far more than 1.1 billion unique names for which ordinance work has been done, at this point.  Just extrapolating it out a bit.  But, that'd be impossible if our whole set is 1.1 billion at this point.  So it seems we're short on names already. 

There's been some rumor out there that names have been recycled.  But I don't know that there's any confirmation on that.  We also can be sure that duplication happens today--meaning people are taking names that have already had ordinance work done.  The Church's policy on that is the earliest recorded ordinance done should be the one we consider good.  I don't think the policy would exist if duplication wasn't happening.