New Quarterly Report for 2014

I am the ward clerk and I hear a rumor that there was going to be a new quarterly report starting Q1 2014. Is this true? If so when can we have the new format?

I give my ward council a blank copy to fill out several weeks before the quarter ends. I would like to be able to do this for 2014 Q1 but I don't want to surprise them after the quarter has ended with new information they need to collect.

Thank you

Ben

bensperry wrote:I am the ward clerk and I hear a rumor that there was going to be a new quarterly report starting Q1 2014. Is this true?

It was announced in the First Presidency letter, 15 December 2013: Conversion and Church Growth. That letter stated more information about the revised reports will soon be available. I have not checked MLS for any messages on this topic recently but I suspect that would be where we can expect to get the information.

bensperry wrote:If so when can we have the new format?

A new MLS release will be out some time within the next few weeks as announced by message in MLS. I suspect any changes to the report format will be in that release.

jdlessley wrote:A new MLS release will be out some time within the next few weeks as announced by message in MLS. I suspect any changes to the report format will be in that release.

The new MLS release adds support for the new quarterly report format, but you won't see anything until the end of the first quarter. I'm guessing that there will be more information coming by letter before the end of Q1, but you won't see anything different in MLS until April.

This comment is not meant to be critical of bensperry.

I am interested in his remark about a "rumor" of a new quarterly report. Although I would not expect ward clerks to peruse the official communication library at letters.lds.org regularly, I would expect the bishops to check their incoming mail, and promptly pass such official letters on to their ward clerks. Such letters should be at least discussed in bishopric meeting, if not also filed for future reference.

drepouille wrote:I would expect the bishops to check their incoming mail, and promptly pass such official letters on to their ward clerks. Such letters should be at least discussed in bishopric meeting, if not also filed for future reference.

Some are better at this than others. We had a ward where the ward clerk checked the Official Communication Library and passed any official letters on to the bishop. The bishop never checked his email. Things really improved once the stake figured out the communication path in that particular ward.

Communication is always a challenge. I, too, am anxious to see what the new quarterly report format brings. I waffle between wanting to know a change is coming but having no information about it, and having a change arrive by surprise.

lajackson wrote:I, too, am anxious to see what the new quarterly report format brings. I waffle between wanting to know a change is coming but having no information about it, and having a change arrive by surprise.

While reading this, I realized that there will probably be at least one creative soul who gets the new version of MLS and decides to try the following sequence of steps:

• Backup
• Set the date forward to see what the quarterly report looks like
• Restore from backup

To save you the trouble, there is nothing to see here -- move along. The baseline numbers are handled differently, so you have to send/receive and get some data from headquarters before you can get into the report.

scgallafent wrote:The baseline numbers are handled differently

So the data collection and compilation is unchanged? Good to know.

scgallafent wrote:I realized that there will probably be at least one creative soul . . .

To save you the trouble, there is nothing to see here -- move along. The baseline numbers are handled differently, so you have to send/receive and get some data from headquarters before you can get into the report.

I trust you are saying that this will not work, which will save me the obligatory post most emphatically warning that to mess with the date and MLS in the same time-space continuum is a certain recipe for disaster, tragedy, and disappointment.

Hopefully, administrative computers are still locked down so that the time and date cannot easily be changed. Time travel? Why, we would not even attempt

lajackson wrote:

drepouille wrote:...I would expect the bishops to check their incoming mail, and promptly pass such official letters on to their ward clerks. Such letters should be at least discussed in bishopric meeting, if not also filed for future reference.

...Communication is always a challenge...

For what it's worth, our ward just received the "printed" announcement letter via US Mail this past week, although it was dated December 15th. I hope specific instructions arrive before the Last-Month-of-the-Quarter begins, so I know what information we are expected to gather.

That's right! Thanks for reminding me! When the stake president handed me the mail, I nearly accused him of hoarding it at his home over the holidays. I could not believe it took that long for the printed copy to be sent out.

It was great to get to view the new report form online last night. The letter says clerks will need to enter no new information as well. I'll get busy on updating my comparison sheets.

showseason wrote:It was great to get to view the new report form online last night. The letter says clerks will need to enter no new information as well. I'll get busy on updating my comparison sheets.

To clarify, there is an official letter dated 1 February 2014 (available to those with access to the Official Communication Library at https://lds.org/letters). It includes some clarifications and a sample of the actual new report.

Does the section on converts submitting names to the temple fill in itself? That seems to be a new item, but the letter claims that that a clerk doesn't need to gather additional information. The only way I can see that happening is if data from FamilySearch is automatically sent over.

russellhltn wrote:Does the section on converts submitting names to the temple fill in itself? That seems to be a new item, but the letter claims that that a clerk doesn't need to gather additional information. The only way I can see that happening is if data from FamilySearch is automatically sent over.

There's also a new item for all members submitting names to the temple (in addition to the one specific to recent converts). Both of those will require data from FamilySearch, but I'm sure that can be sent over to the appropriate ICS systems; indeed it will have to be sent (or be pulled) to fulfill the promise that clerks don't have to gather new information.

aebrown wrote:

russellhltn wrote:Does the section on converts submitting names to the temple fill in itself? That seems to be a new item, but the letter claims that that a clerk doesn't need to gather additional information. The only way I can see that happening is if data from FamilySearch is automatically sent over.

There's also a new item for all members submitting names to the temple (in addition to the one specific to recent converts). Both of those will require data from FamilySearch, but I'm sure that can be sent over to the appropriate ICS systems; indeed it will have to be sent (or be pulled) to fulfill the promise that clerks don't have to gather new information.

The plan is for that information to be sent from FamilySearch.

I also see a new section at the bottom, appearing by itself on the last page, entitled "Convert Detail" asks for the following:

• Name
• Sex
• Age
• Priesthood
• Attended sacrament meeting at least once last month
• If 12 or older, has a calling or responsibility

So, it seems that clerks may actually need to gather and enter new information, especially the last two items. Maybe the sentence, "These additions will not require that clerks gather or enter new information." only refers to sections identified on the first page?

deuel wrote:I also see a new section at the bottom, appearing by itself on the last page, entitled "Convert Detail" asks for the following:

• Name
• Sex
• Age
• Priesthood
• Attended sacrament meeting at least once last month
• If 12 or older, has a calling or responsibility

So, it seems that clerks may actually need to gather and enter new information, especially the last two items. Maybe the sentence, "These additions will not require that clerks gather or enter new information." only refers to sections identified on the first page?

Previously you did have to gather the number of converts (from the last 12 months) who attended sacrament meeting at least once and the number of with a calling. You pretty much have to gather the information on each such convert before you could calculate those numbers. So the statement is only very slightly off. You don't have to gather any new information but you do have to enter a little bit more of what you gathered than before. But difference is so minor that I think the statement is not really inaccurate.

deuel wrote:I also see a new section at the bottom, appearing by itself on the last page, entitled "Convert Detail" asks for the following:

• Name
• Sex
• Age
• Priesthood
• Attended sacrament meeting at least once last month
• If 12 or older, has a calling or responsibility

With the exception of sacrament meeting attendance, MLS should know all of that.

A new letter from the Presiding Bishopric dated February 1 at https://letters.lds.org/document/pdf?item=12084 includes the instructions for the revised Quarterly Report and a sample format.

Hope this helps.

The first quarterly report is coming due in a very few weeks. Generally the statistics for attendance and such is only reported for the last month in the quarter. I have yet to be able to find information on the youth, adults, and converts who submit names to the temples. Should we be gathering this information for the month of March? Will this information be automatically populated. I find it surprising there is so little "official" information regarding this part of the new form.

As stated earlier in the thread,

scgallafent wrote:The plan is for that information to be sent from FamilySearch.

So, if I understand correctly, clerks won't have to worry about gathering that information; it will be filled in automatically.

DennisML wrote:The first quarterly report is coming due in a very few weeks. Generally the statistics for attendance and such is only reported for the last month in the quarter. I have yet to be able to find information on the youth, adults, and converts who submit names to the temples. Should we be gathering this information for the month of March? Will this information be automatically populated.

It will be populated automatically from church and Family Search records. There is no need to gather this information from members.

DennisML wrote:I find it surprising there is so little "official" information regarding this part of the new form.

The official letter referenced in the previous post has considerable information including the statement that clerks do not have to gather or enter any new information. That seems to cover it to me.

DennisML wrote:The first quarterly report is coming due in a very few weeks. Generally the statistics for attendance and such is only reported for the last month in the quarter. I have yet to be able to find information on the youth, adults, and converts who submit names to the temples. Should we be gathering this information for the month of March? Will this information be automatically populated. I find it surprising there is so little "official" information regarding this part of the new form.

As noted a few times in this discussion, the official letter dated 1 Feb 2014 makes it quite clear that clerks don't have to collect any of this information. The information will be automatically populated. Since you were "officially" told that you don't have to do any work to gather the information, I think that explains why there are no further details -- none are needed.

I am a new clerk trying to come up to speed and learning about the new Quarterly Report. When I access our Quarterly Report, whether by MLS or on the Church website, it is not the report described by the new instructions. I do not see the "Indicators of Church Growth" section, or the "1 year" and "5 year" columns. It just looks like what must be the 'old' report. The year selection menu does not allow me to choose 2014; it only goes through 2013. Can anyone advise?

jason@millettlawoffice.com wrote:The year selection menu does not allow me to choose 2014; it only goes through 2013. Can anyone advise?

From this post, you won't see anything until April.

Is the same true for the tools on the church website?

jason@millettlawoffice.com wrote:Is the same true for the tools on the church website?

Yes. The new report will be available April 1st on Clerk Resources.

As of April 1 we were able to view the auto populated statistical report for "Adults and youth who submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances". As far as I am aware there are two ways to submit names: 1. Print name with selected ordinance(s) from Family Search and hand carry to temple then submit at temple office, or 2. Submit to temple entry system in Family Search. Are there any other ways or are these two ways the only way to submit? Is this statistic only for the last month of the quarter or the full quarter? Why do the numbers appear much lower then expected? Can anyone provide more insight into how this statistic is being recorded?

The following information must be collected by the ward clerks, and is not automatically populated:
CONVERTS (PAST 12 MONTHS)
22 Converts attending at least one sacrament meeting last month
23 Converts age 12 and older assigned a Church responsibility or calling
24 Convert males age 12 and older ordained to appropriate priesthood office
25 Converts age 12 and older who have submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances

drepouille wrote:The following information must be collected by the ward clerks, and is not automatically populated:
CONVERTS (PAST 12 MONTHS)
22 Converts attending at least one sacrament meeting last month
23 Converts age 12 and older assigned a Church responsibility or calling
24 Convert males age 12 and older ordained to appropriate priesthood office
25 Converts age 12 and older who have submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances

I thought lines 24 & 25 were completed automatically, that is what it says on LDS.org. Do you know it isn't filling those bits in?

Line 9 is automatically filled: "Adults and youth who submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances".

However, information about recent converts on lines 22, 23, and 25 must be manually collected and entered.

drepouille wrote:However, information about recent converts on lines 22, 23, and 25 must be manually collected and entered.

I don't think so. Lines 22 and 23 are taken from the check boxes below the lines, but there is no way to enter anything for line 25 (converts submitting names to the temple). That data is prefilled.

I can only comment on what I see at the stake level. After the first ward in our stake submitted its quarterly report, lines 22, 23, and 25 were populated. In all the other units, which had not yet submitted their reports, lines 22, 23, and 25 had zero values.

As each ward submitted its report, those zero values got changed to whatever the ward clerk had entered (or checked) on his end. Therefore, I have to assume those values were not automatically generated.

As of April 14th, only four of our 11 local units have submitted their reports, so I assume this extra work is quite a challenge for them. I'm sure General Conference didn't help them collect data.

drepouille wrote:As of April 14th, only four of our 11 local units have submitted their reports, so I assume this extra work is quite a challenge for them.

There is no extra data to collect as compared to before, as was stated.

drepouille wrote:I'm sure General Conference didn't help them collect data.

This is more likely a reason. I'm still waiting for the Elder's Quorum secretary to give me any numbers...

drepouille wrote:I can only comment on what I see at the stake level. After the first ward in our stake submitted its quarterly report, lines 22, 23, and 25 were populated. In all the other units, which had not yet submitted their reports, lines 22, 23, and 25 had zero values.

As each ward submitted its report, those zero values got changed to whatever the ward clerk had entered (or checked) on his end. Therefore, I have to assume those values were not automatically generated.

I wouldn't read too much into the fact that line 25 had a zero value for a ward. After all, for that value to be nonzero, the ward would have to have at least one convert in the last 12 months, and at least one of those converts would need to have submitted a name for temple work. Although I would love to think that every convert immediately starts working with a family history consultant to find and submit names for temple work, I have to think that the reality is that this combination of factors is relatively uncommon.

Now that we are measuring that number, I hope that will motivate priesthood leaders, ward mission leaders, family history consultants and others to make family history work a priority for new converts. But at this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of zeroes on line 25.

Once your wards have all submitted their quarterly reports, you'll know for sure, but my guess is that those numbers are indeed automatically populated (as we have been told in official letters), and so the numbers will still be zero after the wards submit their reports.

Our ward's line 9 had a grand total of 2 (people submitting names for temple work), so I wasn't terribly surprised that line 25 (converts submitting names for temple work) was 0. I guess we have some (temple) work to do...

It would be nice to know if this number was only for March or for the 1st quarter. <tongue in cheek> If the former, I can see the bishopric telling everyone to wait until the last month of the quarter to submit their names.

Speaking of line 25, I just looked at the letter, "Using the Revised Ward Quarterly Report" dated 1 Feb 2014. It says, "The section titled “Converts (past 12 months)” now requests information on converts age 12 and older who have submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances."

I am getting really concerned that the ward clerks in my stake are not completing the quarterly report properly, and may not even know how to do it. In the section at the bottom of the report, where new converts are each named, several highly active new converts show "No" under the columns for "Attended sacrament meeting at least once last month?" and "If 12 or older, has a calling or responsibility?"

I have sent e-mails to the clerks who submitted those reports to ask them to double-check their entries.

Now that I hover over lines 22 through 25, I see the pop-up tool-tips that say lines 22 and 23 are calculated by the clerk, and lines 24 and 25 are provided by Church headquarters.

I am looking at the covert detail section of one ward's report. There are six converts, and every one of them has "No" in both columns. However, lines 22 and 23 have non-zero numbers. How is that possible? I would have assumed that lines 22 and 23 would be populated by clicking on Yes/No for each convert. Perhaps not!

We have identified an issue where MLS is not sending the convert detail back to CMIS. The totals for those lines are bring transmitted correctly, but the yes/no detail is not. We will be releasing a patch to MLS on Friday that corrects this. It should send the corrected data automatically for reports that were sent from MLS.

drepouille wrote:Speaking of line 25, I just looked at the letter, "Using the Revised Ward Quarterly Report" dated 1 Feb 2014. It says, "The section titled “Converts (past 12 months)” now requests information on converts age 12 and older who have submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances."

Unfortunately, that wording is rather misleading. That section does not "request" information on converts -- it supplies information. As you noted, the help for line 25 makes it clear that the information is filled in by CHQ. But we should all ignore the implication of that one word "requests" from the official letter.

We have a similar question on adults and youth who submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances. We understand that we don't need to calculate the number. We would like to know, precisely, how the number is calculated so that we can better understand how to improve the number. Our first reaction was the the number is low. Does the number indicate individuals that have reserved names during the quarter only or does the number reflect those that have reserved names and had ordinance work done for any of the names. My guess is that it is for reserving names only.

gbogdan7 wrote:We have a similar question on adults and youth who submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances. We understand that we don't need to calculate the number. We would like to know, precisely, how the number is calculated so that we can better understand how to improve the number. Our first reaction was the the number is low. Does the number indicate individuals that have reserved names during the quarter only or does the number reflect those that have reserved names and had ordinance work done for any of the names. My guess is that it is for reserving names only.

It is not the act of reserving a name that counts, but the act of either creating a Family Ordinance Request for a reserved name, or sharing that name with the temple (so that others can do the ordinances).

I received the following via email to FamilySearch consultants:

A submitter is defined as someone 12 years old or older who either prints a Family Ordinance Request (FOR) or shares the ordinance request with the temple. Simply reserving a name in Family Tree is not counted as a temple submission. The submitter rate is calculated by taking the number of submitters 12 years old and older and dividing that number by the total number of ward members 12 years old and older.

There is a ward in our stake where the figure on line 9 (Adults and youth who submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances) is reported as 0. The ward clerk there has confirmed that there are several people submitting names - I believe he said he has even performed ordinances for them himself -, but the report still shows 0.

Our thoughts were that there might be some criteria, beyond simply printing/sharing an ordinance request, for having these numbers tracked, but the last post indicates otherwise. Has anyone else been experiencing this issue? Any reasons/solutions found?

mendenha wrote:The ward clerk there has confirmed that there are several people submitting names - I believe he said he has even performed ordinances for them himself -, but the report still shows 0.

Is it possible they did not do this during the first quarter? The report covers January 1 through March 31. If they submitted these names in April or May they would not be on the 1st quarter report, but you will have a head start for the 2nd quarter.

Or there may still be a glitch somewhere. Our numbers were very low compared to the activity we thought was taking place, so we are looking, too.

The other question is were the names submitted prior to Jan 1, and it was only the work that was done later?

And who summitted the name? A member in your ward, or did they get the name from a family member living in another ward?

scgallafent wrote:We have identified an issue where MLS is not sending the convert detail back to CMIS. The totals for those lines are bring transmitted correctly, but the yes/no detail is not. We will be releasing a patch to MLS on Friday that corrects this. It should send the corrected data automatically for reports that were sent from MLS.

One of the ward clerks in my stake has identified a potential issue. He completed the quarterly report on lds.org, but when he opens the report on his MLS, two yes/no columns of data are reversed in the New Convert Detail section:
- Attended sacrament meeting at least once last month?
- If 12 or older, has a calling or responsibility?

Can anyone here confirm this bug?

drepouille wrote:One of the ward clerks in my stake has identified a potential issue. He completed the quarterly report on lds.org, but when he opens the report on his MLS, two yes/no columns of data are reversed in the New Convert Detail section:

MLS 3.7.1? When you say "reversed," what do you mean? Wrong values, wrong order?

The Yes/No values in the first column are swapped with those of the second column. I have not seen this personally, but the ward clerk says they are reversed in the current version of MLS.

So, what you're saying is if they were marked as "Attending/No calling" on line, they show up as "Not attending/has calling" in MLS?

Yes, that is what the ward clerk is claiming he sees in MLS. Again, he entered the report on lds.org, but the report in MLS swaps those two columns.

drepouille wrote:Yes, that is what the ward clerk is claiming he sees in MLS. Again, he entered the report on lds.org, but the report in MLS swaps those two columns.

I'll start some poking and see if we can reproduce this.

I've also compared the LCR and MLS Quarterly Report and can confirm that all the responses have been transposed between Attending Sacrament and the Callings column.

The LCR report is the correct report, as I used that to enter the figures.

We have identified the issue and are working on a fix. Thank you for your help in finding this.

To the earlier posts on how is the number being calculated for adults and youth who have submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances, has anyone determined if indeed there is a glitch and has it been fixed. This continues to be an area that is under reporting for our stake and we would like to get it to be more reflective of how our stake is really doing, especially as we make this an increased focus for 2015.

sborgia wrote:To the earlier posts on how is the number being calculated for adults and youth who have submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances, has anyone determined if indeed there is a glitch and has it been fixed.

So far, a couple of people have said the numbers seem low. But I haven't seen anyone confirm a problem.

I can see a number of areas that could cause confusion:

• It's the number of members submitting. (Not the number of names.)
• It's only for the names where a FOR was created or the name shared with the temple. (Not names reserved.)
• It only counts in the quarter when the FOR or share was done. (Not when the work was done.)
• It only credits the ward the member who submitted the names belongs to. (Not someone who passed the names along from the "family genealogist".)

Since most people think in terms of number of names and ordinance done, that's a fair shift in thinking.

It's unclear what happens if the member moves during the quarter. Is the ward the member belongs to at the end of the quarter credited, or the ward belonged to when the name was submitted?

Whether a member of the ward submits one name or 1,000 names to the temple, the report will be expected to show a 1 in the number of members who submitted names.

And if the member submits the names in one quarter and works on them all year, the report will show a 0 for that member for the rest of the year, or until more names are submitted.

It is still a very interesting and new statistic that we are trying to get our arms around, also.

In order to determine the accuracy of the number of members who submitted temple names, we would need to be able to view the names of those people. A list of the names would be a big help.

What does it mean to submit a name? Does that mean reserve?

blamoreaux wrote:What does it mean to submit a name? Does that mean reserve?

No, a submission is definitely not counted when a name is reserved. To count as a submission, the person has to reserve a name and then do one of the following:

• Share the name with the temple
• Print a Family Ordinance Request (FOR)
• Print temple cards

QUESTION: I've been told via my regional family history and temple advisors that there is another statistic that the Church is tracking that is not #9. Does anyone here know if that statistic is only accessible by bishops (and higher)? The stat is something like "members who have submitted a temple name in the last 12 months." This stat only counts members ONCE within that 12 month period for a temple submit, even if they submitted multiple ordinances.

The result would be sort of a dot plot graph of how many members during a year at least did something with submissions.

As a family history consultant, I can only access the #9 through my husband's Elder Quorum President LCR. I do not see any other stats at his level for family history and temple work other than #9. I have been told is this "other stat" (not #9) is what the Church is tracking for us to reach 10%, the goal for our ward. I wish this other stat were put on the regular LCR. Why hide it?

I can assure you that bishops and stake presidents see exactly the same line items on the quarterly report as other members of the ward council can see. There is no hidden statistic that only bishops and stake presidents can see.
Do you routinely login to lds.org using your husband's username and password? Or did you just ask him to show you the quarterly report?

My stake high councilor says there is a key-indicator-by-month in the reports that gives us a sort of "number of members who have submitted a temple name in the last 12 months."

If we take just #9, this last quarter we were at 3%. But my stake high councilor says we are at 6.6% with the other "hidden stat." He says he confirmed it with our regional family history and temple advisors.

If there is a stat that is only seen at the stake level and higher, then we'd just like to know why? And also that would make us reliant on above-the-ward levels to regularly communicate that stat with us.

The Key Indicators report shows:
- Sacrament meeting attendance percentage
- Home teaching percentage
- Endowed adults with temple recommend percentage
- Young Men priesthood attendance percentage
- Young Women attendance percentage
- Melchizedek Priesthood attendance percentage
- Relief Society attendance percentage
- Visiting teaching percentage
- Men holding the Melchizedek Priesthood percentage

The Unit Statistics report does not address temple submissions at all.

terra100 wrote:If there is a stat that is only seen at the stake level and higher, then we'd just like to know why? And also that would make us reliant on above-the-ward levels to regularly communicate that stat with us.

I can only tell you that the stake president cannot see the annual statistic that you are asking about. I don't know what data is available at the regional or area levels.

I called the regional temple history and family advisors (who used to live in our ward) and asked them. They confirmed the stat but said they were not authorized to speak to me further to ask my stat questions ... that I had to go through my stake high councilor. So, I circled back with my stake high councilor and pressed him for a definition of the stat and how it was obtained. He said it was in key indicators and didn't understand why we couldn't see it at the ward level.

The difference is that we hover at 3-4% with the #9 quarterly report number. But with this hidden stat, we jump to 6.6% because it calculates any member (just once) who submitted during the last 12 months. Obviously we'll get to the goal of 10% faster with the hidden stat. The #9 stat is more about sustained efforts.

If we're reliant on the regional level to let us know this hidden stat, then I'll just ask my stake high councilor for new numbers every quarter -- it will be his job to contact the regional people. But, wish that number were in the LCR at the ward level since we're held accountable for it.

terra100 wrote:QUESTION: I've been told via my regional family history and temple advisors that there is another statistic that the Church is tracking that is not #9. Does anyone here know if that statistic is only accessible by bishops (and higher)? The stat is something like "members who have submitted a temple name in the last 12 months." This stat only counts members ONCE within that 12 month period for a temple submit, even if they submitted multiple ordinances.

The result would be sort of a dot plot graph of how many members during a year at least did something with submissions.

There are three different reports that people are discussing here, and the overlap and differences are causing some confusion. Let me clarify:

• The Quarterly Report is available to ward and stake leaders on LCR. It includes the item #9, "Adults and youth who submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances". Since it is a quarterly report, it is natural that it would report on the number of members submitting during the reporting quarter. FamilySearch and ICS (essentially the IT department for the Church) share data so that FamilySearch can connect its users to membership records via LDS Account, and FamilySearch can share submission data back to ICS for the quarterly report.
• Also on LCR, there is a Key Indicators report. That report has nothing to do with the topic at hand, since it has no data about temple submissions. I mention it only because people have been confused because of the similarity of its name to the next item I will discuss.
• FamilySearch generates a monthly report called the Family History Key Indicator Report. This report is generated for each ward and for each stake in the Church (and for some other units as well). It is this report that actually has the number of submitters in the ward/stake for the last 12 months. This report is not available on LCR. I don't know exactly who has access to it, but I do know that Area Family History Advisors have access, and at least some of them distribute the report to priesthood leaders (but I'm sure that others don't). Also, employees of FamilySearch have access. I'm sure there are others, but I know that stake presidents and bishops have no direct access, except as others may make that report available to them.

terra100 wrote:As a family history consultant, I can only access the #9 through my husband's Elder Quorum President LCR. I do not see any other stats at his level for family history and temple work other than #9. I have been told is this "other stat" (not #9) is what the Church is tracking for us to reach 10%, the goal for our ward. I wish this other stat were put on the regular LCR. Why hide it?

I don't think it's accurate to say that either the quarterly number or the annual number "is what the Church is tracking for us"; both numbers are being tracked, but any particular goals set within a ward or stake are simply local goals. It is just as reasonable to set goals based on quarterly numbers as it is to use annual numbers. A ward or stake just needs to be clear on which metric they choose for their goals.

I hope I've made clear that no one is hiding anything, but because of differences in distribution, it may be more difficult to gain access to the Family History Key Indicators Report. However, I'm confident that any stake president who made a specific request of his Area Family History Advisors would be able to obtain the report -- he just has to ask.

aebrown, thank you so much for your breakdown of info. Very helpful. I appreciate your time.

TWO RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) RESOLVE "SECONDARY" STAT ISSUE: I would like to suggest that these area-level-only family history / temple stats be also available to the wards and stakes as another line item in the quarterly report. Or, alternatively, I would ask that Area Family History Advisors (or whomever they report to) are not making goals for their members based on stats that wards and stakes cannot see or track ... except by stumbling upon them and making requests. Either solution would work.

2) MAKE FAMILYSEARCH STATS AVAILABLE: A second recommendation is that the FamilySearch monthly reports be made available to ward and stake leaders and also the Family History Consultants that serve in those wards and stakes. Family History Consultants have such a huge part in seeing and understanding the progress of their stewardship, not just HPGL's and other Priesthood leadership. In my case, although the ideal is that the HPGL and Bishop would drive family history and temple work in my ward, that is not the case (and this is not uncommon). My role as Family History Consultant is huge in scope with measuring progress, teaching, helping, motivating ... the list is long. Any easier access to info to carry out my calling is helpful, especially if my work is going to be measured by a regional or area Church goal.

Thank you again for all your outlining of the stats.

terra100 wrote:TWO RECOMMENDATIONS:

This is simply a community forum. So it's quite unlikely that anyone who is a decision maker will read your recommendations here. If you would like your suggestions to be heard, you would need to use the official LDS.org feedback link (found at the bottom of most pages on LDS.org) to make your suggestion regarding quarterly reports.

terra100 wrote:1) RESOLVE "SECONDARY" STAT ISSUE: I would like to suggest that these area-level-only family history / temple stats be also available to the wards and stakes as another line item in the quarterly report. Or, alternatively, I would ask that Area Family History Advisors (or whomever they report to) are not making goals for their members based on stats that wards and stakes cannot see or track ... except by stumbling upon them and making requests. Either solution would work.

First of all, although you're welcome to make this suggestion, I find it highly unlikely that an annual statistic would be added to the Quarterly Report -- it would be confusing to report on two different time periods in a single report like that.

Second, I really don't think that Area Family History Advisors are making goals for members, wards, or stakes. They are simply advisors who help to train and communicate with priesthood leaders and people with family history callings in their assigned area. I would think it's much more likely that your goals is coming from your stake president or bishop.

Your concern about having goals based on reported values that are difficult to obtain is certainly valid. I'd recommend that you find out who set this goal that you mentioned, then clarify exactly what metric it is to be measured against. It could well be that there is some confusion about which metric is to be used. It's also possible that the Family History Key Indicators Report is being received within your stake or ward, in which case you would just need to find out who could better distribute it. There are multiple possibilities you might discover.

terra100 wrote:2) MAKE FAMILYSEARCH STATS AVAILABLE: A second recommendation is that the FamilySearch monthly reports be made available to ward and stake leaders and also the Family History Consultants that serve in those wards and stakes. Family History Consultants have such a huge part in seeing and understanding the progress of their stewardship, not just HPGL's and other Priesthood leadership. In my case, although the ideal is that the HPGL and Bishop would drive family history and temple work in my ward, that is not the case (and this is not uncommon). My role as Family History Consultant is huge in scope with measuring progress, teaching, helping, motivating ... the list is long. Any easier access to info to carry out my calling is helpful, especially if my work is going to be measured by a regional or area Church goal.

If that report would be helpful to you (and I believe it would), then I would repeat what I said earlier: the stake president can almost certainly obtain this report, because the Area Family History Advisors have access, and in my experience they are very responsive to specific requests by a stake president. So you could work through your leadership channels within your stake (probably involving the high councilor over FH work) to see if your stake can be a regular recipient of this report.

Thanks, aebrown.

I have put in a feedback request at lds.org. And I have also submitted a request at FamilySearch.

At the end of 3rd quarter, I will contact my stake high councilor and have him put in a request for an Area stat update.

There are a few other reports that aren't integrated into Leader and Clerk Resources – for example, seminary attendance, institute attendance, and FamilySearch indexing statistics. It takes a lot of work to integrate the various Church departments' systems in a way that data can be securely made available in a central place. I hope it's able to all be integrated eventually.

The stake high councilor just forwarded to all wards, and then on down to family history consultants from there, the report I was looking for. It is a monthly report only accessible (currently) by Area Coordinating Councils (near as I can tell) entitled "Family History Key Indicator Report." It appears the report is generated for the area leaders within a limited-access feature of the FamilySearch platform, not LDS.org.

This indicator report is NOT the family history stats that are in your quarterly report. Instead, it lists a rolling stat from month to month of how many unique members in the last 12 months have at least submitted a name to the temple for ordinance (previous posts defined what "submission" means) -- the stats are broken out by ward and stake. The report also lists the percentage of members who have the 1st-4th generations in their Tree at FamilySearch.

Our Area Temple and Family History Advisors stated in the e-mail that contained the report: "In the United States, the average percent of the stake name submissions to the temple is 5.0%. The church goal is to increase that to 10%." And they are basing that 10% on these Area stats, not the Quarterly Report Stats.

And yet, since it's only numbers, all you can do is go out and do the best you can and hope the stats reflect that. Without names, you don't know where to concentrate the efforts. The numbers help only to the extent that you learn if new efforts/tactics are succeeding or not.

One way to raise your percentages is for all the ward clerks to find homes for all the lost sheep in the stake. Within 30 days of being set apart as ward clerk, I moved about 40 membership records out of the ward that had been languishing. I know this is an artificial method for manipulating the percentages, but every bit helps. The real goal, of course, is to increase measurable activity levels among members.

drepouille wrote:One way to raise your percentages is for all the ward clerks to find homes for all the lost sheep in the stake.

While I generally deplore artificial means of raising percentages, there's no point in hanging on to records of people who have left the ward boundaries or are not locatable.

Also, while it's within the clerks' "magnifying of calling", it shouldn't fall on their shoulders to do all the work. It's really the ward's responsibility. While the clerks may do some of the steps, others should probably be done by HT/VT and consulting with the Ward Council. (One of my minor peeves is that the ward has a priesthood quorum whose goal is to visit every household every month, and an auxiliary whose goal is to visit every sister every month - yet some people seem to expect a couple of guys to keep track of where every member is currently living all by themselves. )

If it was my call, I think one thing I'd look at is the dynamics of the work within the families. If the "family genealogist" would involve other family members, it could create an immediate uptick in participation. Of course, one needs to involve more families as well.

aebrown wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:39 pm

blamoreaux wrote:What does it mean to submit a name? Does that mean reserve?

No, a submission is definitely not counted when a name is reserved. To count as a submission, the person has to reserve a name and then do one of the following:

• Share the name with the temple
• Print a Family Ordinance Request (FOR)
• Print temple cards

Will you please explain the process of "Share the name with the temple?"

Thank you!

bangertersc wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:30 am

aebrown wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:39 pm

blamoreaux wrote:What does it mean to submit a name? Does that mean reserve?

No, a submission is definitely not counted when a name is reserved. To count as a submission, the person has to reserve a name and then do one of the following:

• Share the name with the temple
• Print a Family Ordinance Request (FOR)
• Print temple cards

Will you please explain the process of "Share the name with the temple?"

Thank you!

After reserving names on FamilySearch, you have the option to share them with the temple. They will show on your list as shared with the temple and until a temple prints them, you can unshare to do them yourself. When the temple completes the work, you will receive a FamilySearch message that the ordinances have been completed.

In family search, My Reservations:
1. Select the name(s) you want to share (click on the box next to each name)
2. Click on the share button at the top of the list

Edit: You don't have a choice which temple does the work. Sharing them with the temple puts them in the system for any temple to pick them up.

No, a submission is definitely not counted when a name is reserved. To count as a submission, the person has to reserve a name and then do one of the following:

• Share the name with the temple
  Print a Family Ordinance Request (FOR)
  Print temple cards

I know it has now been more than a decade. The question I have about this reporting item is how is this changed with the newish Ordinances Ready functionality?

There is some speculation in my Stake Council that this number counts if a member goes into Ordinances Ready, selects a name from there and then goes to the temple with them. Does this actually count as a having "submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances." or is this not the same?

... it seems like doing the genealogical work to prepare a name to be submitted to the temple and then submitting it to the temple would meet this requirement. But, is that the case?

Any updated clarification?

robmerrill wrote: Sun Mar 09, 2025 2:41 pm There is some speculation in my Stake Council that this number counts if a member goes into Ordinances Ready, selects a name from there and then goes to the temple with them. Does this actually count as a having "submitted ancestor names for temple ordinances." or is this not the same?

This article: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/he ... -get-names describes how names are selected by the Ordinances Ready tool.

I don't have any special knowledge, but if you don't have any names reserved, it appears Ordinances Ready will pull names that have been submitted to the temple and they would have already been counted in the statistics for the individual who submitted them at that time.

Edit: looking at the article again, there is a case where it will select names from your family tree that have not been reserved (6th bullet down the list). Those would likely be counted in the statistic, but there is no guarantee it will pick those name(s) over others available. Also, (if I recall correctly) the statistic doesn't count the number of names submitted - it counts number of individuals in the unit who submitted at least 1 name in the time period.