Temple Question about the Baptismal Font

[JAHS]

On 11/6/2019 at 7:43 PM, mfbukowski said:

On 11/6/2019 at 9:30 AM, strappinglad said:

Anyone who is aware of the process out there? I doubt that temples run at full capacity most of the time. Have there been times when patrons have been turned away because of lack of names ? 

No

I can't even conceive of that

Of course I am not in Utah where they have waiting lists of people wanting to be workers.

Correct me if I am wrong but if members come to do baptisms for the dead and there are no names that can be done, I have heard that they recycle old names that have already been done.
Is that just a rumor? It would be better to reuse names than to turn away the patrons.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

Correct me if I am wrong but if members come to do baptisms for the dead and there are no names that can be done, I have heard that they recycle old names that have already been done.
Is that just a rumor? It would be better to reuse names than to turn away the patrons.

As a temple worker I have served as a witness and recorder recently in the baptismal area.

"Temple names" are on long sheets, pink or blue,  5 names per sheet.  And then of course there are "Family names" which are printed on individual, small squares of paper, which the member has researched and printed at home.

I have observed the long sheets of 5 names in both the baptismal and confirmation areas, meaning that those sheets were printed by the temple.  I have no way of knowing if these people have been baptized more than once.

Patrons are not turned away

[Stargazer]

On 11/14/2019 at 4:44 PM, JAHS said:

Correct me if I am wrong but if members come to do baptisms for the dead and there are no names that can be done, I have heard that they recycle old names that have already been done.
Is that just a rumor? It would be better to reuse names than to turn away the patrons.

I don't think the temple system wants ANY duplication.  I think it would constitute actual mockery to proxy baptize people whose work had knowingly already been done.

But the temple / family search systems used to be rife with duplication. Back ten or fifteen years ago when I was working on a particular branch of my family, it turned out that there were three others in different areas of the US who were working the same branch, all of us completely unaware of what the others were doing.  It turned out that after I had gotten one ancestor baptized, their endowment was done by someone else, and sealings completed by another someone else.  And meanwhile, they had done a duplicate baptism, and so did the others.  By the time it was all done each of some of these ancestors had had three or four complete sets of ordinances done!  The ordinances that were performed first were the ones that the system finally gravitated to.

It's different now.  The family search system looks very capably for possible duplicates.  There's plenty of name extraction still going on, too, and thus no lack of ordinances to be performed.  

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's different now.  The family search system looks very capably for possible duplicates.  There's plenty of name extraction still going on, too, and thus no lack of ordinances to be performed.  

Sure, lots of name extraction going on but people still have to submit those names for ordinance work. Hopefully there will always be enough submitted to keep temple workers busy.

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, JAHS said:

Sure, lots of name extraction going on but people still have to submit those names for ordinance work. Hopefully there will always be enough submitted to keep temple workers busy.

I think you're mistaking name extraction with the normal personal research that individuals do.  The "name extraction" program (two different versions) have been putting names into the temple system since 1977. In 1989 they reached the milestone of 100 million names.  In a 1989 Ensign article it was stated "A few years ago, the stake record extraction program was furnishing about 85 percent of the names submitted to temples for ordinance work. But that percentage has dropped as individual members have increased their own activity in family history; individuals now furnish about one-third of the names."  That's admittedly 30 years ago, but my wife and I work regularly at the London temple, and in initiatory and sealing sessions it seems that at least half the names coming through are "temple file", from the name extraction programs.  There's plenty of work to do, no worries.

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think you're mistaking name extraction with the normal personal research that individuals do.  The "name extraction" program (two different versions) have been putting names into the temple system since 1977. In 1989 they reached the milestone of 100 million names.  In a 1989 Ensign article it was stated "A few years ago, the stake record extraction program was furnishing about 85 percent of the names submitted to temples for ordinance work. But that percentage has dropped as individual members have increased their own activity in family history; individuals now furnish about one-third of the names."  That's admittedly 30 years ago, but my wife and I work regularly at the London temple, and in initiatory and sealing sessions it seems that at least half the names coming through are "temple file", from the name extraction programs.  There's plenty of work to do, no worries.

Doesn't the "temple file" only include names that people have submitted from their own ancestors but have given them to the temple for others to do?

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Doesn't the "temple file" only include names that people have submitted from their own ancestors but have given them to the temple for others to do?

No. Temple file names do include such, but certainly not exclusively.  I believe the vast majority of those are sourced from extraction efforts.