On 12/20/2014 11:47 AM, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: >> What are the earliest records available for Alton, Hampshire, and how >> would I access them? (I am not in the UK.) > 1615. (From Phillimore's "Atlas and Index of Parish registers", 3rd > edition, p. 155) The same says they are on IGI, nowadays FamilySearch. > > But these are not BMD but BMB - Baptisms, Marriages and Burials. Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely conjecture or hearsay. Perce

On 20/12/2014 17:32, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: > On 12/20/2014 11:47 AM, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > >>> What are the earliest records available for Alton, Hampshire, and how >>> would I access them? (I am not in the UK.) > >> 1615. (From Phillimore's "Atlas and Index of Parish registers", 3rd >> edition, p. 155) The same says they are on IGI, nowadays FamilySearch. >> >> But these are not BMD but BMB - Baptisms, Marriages and Burials. > > Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I > have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely > conjecture or hearsay. > Check it is extracted records not patron submissions, it's the latter that are dodgy. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On 20/12/2014 17:32, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: > Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I > have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely > conjecture or hearsay. Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you see. "Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs or whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can view the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. "Submnitted" records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so reliability is very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. -- Jenny M Benson

In message <[email protected]>, Jenny M Benson <[email protected]> writes: >On 20/12/2014 17:32, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: >> Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I >> have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely >> conjecture or hearsay. > >Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records >separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you see. >"Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs or >whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can view >the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. "Submnitted" >records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so reliability is >very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. > OP said not in the UK, but I don't think said where he is. Probably worth (especially if in north America) seeing if there's an LDS family history centre near you. My experience is decades out of date, but I was favourably impressed with the one I visited (in north-east London, England): what impressed me was that they did _not_ make any attempt to bring me into their church - they just took me to the machines (mostly microfilm in those days, with a few CDs) and let me get on with my research. I think they'd have been quite happy to discuss religious matters if I'd wanted to, but no pressure. (Of course, this could have just been the one centre, or one set of staff.) But anyway, I'd say worth investigating, if there's an FHC near you. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf We like to get up at the crack of noon - Kathy Lette (on her fellow Aussies), RT 2014/1/11-17