Terri, Please understand that some of us are receiving this list in Digest Mode, and don't know of any other responses made until ours is also posted and sent back to us, usually the next day. Had I known so many people had responded to the inquiries, I would have replied privately to the inquiry. As far as a genealogical source for LDS ancestors, temple sealings are great for tracking migration, setting your ancestors in a specific time period (pre-exodus Nauvoo), or giving you a time frame in LDS history to work around and search the proper records for genealogical information. Yes, the information may not be relevant to people who's ancestors were not LDS, but for those of us whose are (all of my 5th great-grandparents were LDS pioneers) it is pertinant information. At some point I may need to know the doctrine and ordinance practices surrounding Church of England christenings, and would hope someone (or many someones) would answer any query I may post to understand more about it. I may need to know that the god-parents and witnesses were usually relatives, etc. Yes, the discussion was getting into doctrinal specifics, but someone out there may need those specifics to understand what they are looking at or looking for. I believe it helps to understand how an ancestor can be married to one spouse one way, and to another spouse a different way. Hope I didn't offend anyone, Andy E. Wold -- E-mail: wold.andy@usa.net Homepage: http://www.inovion.com/~aewold/index.html

HI, I am looking for information on the Haworth family from England who were the millers in Franklin, Ida. James Henry Haworth once in Utah was sent back to get a mill stone before settling in Franklin. Would have been around 1870 or so. Other families are the Ivies, Robins, Allred, Folkman and many other Sweds who or elusive. Anyone with info on these families please contact me. Sheri Gallagher sprock@msn.com

Dear Terri, I noticed that there was a http:// number where I could find more information on ancestors. I put it to one side then by mistake must have deleted. Can you resend please Marie Auckland NZ

Terri ~ Sorry to have offended you. Certainly didn't mean to cause any problems. Just trying to answer a few questions and not get too heavy. Most likely, if you had ancestors come acrossed the plains with the Mormon Pioneers, this is their history. To me part of knowing their history is more than dates and names. I am curious as to their beliefes and what was in their hearts. It can really reflect on what kind of lives they lived and how their beliefes affected them in their everyday exsistence. Thanks for being tolerant and I, for one, appreciate your point of view. Have a good Tuesday! Holly Carmichael May P.S. that delete button can do wonders for the nerves! I tend to delete a great many things that don't appeal to me. HCM ---------- > From: Eldon & Terri Jensen <jensenet@vii.com> > To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [HANDCART-L] Temple marriage discussion > Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 12:32 AM > > Hi Listmembers > > I hate to be a wet blanket here, but there are members of our list that are > not interested in the theology being discussed. If possible, could > everyone take this to each individual who requests the answers? I don't > want to discourage information exchange, but this has become too deep a > topic for this list that is to help us find the histories of our ancestors. > > Certainly, these LDS pioneer ancestors of our believed deeply in this topic > of temple sealings, but some of their descendants don't. I hope I haven't > offended anyone by asking that this discussion be made a private discussion. > > Don't hesitate to ask questions! If the answer should be given privately, > then it really should just go to the individual seeking the answers. > > Being impartial when I believe strongly in the subject is hard. But, for > those that just do not want to hear theology, they need to have their voice > heard, too. > > If the question deals with ships, trails, trials, immigration, histories, > settling of towns, a testimony from your ancestor, stories of building the > temples, pioneer stories, that's different. Post away! > > Let's lighten up the discussion just a bit ;) > > Terri >

Hi Listmembers I hate to be a wet blanket here, but there are members of our list that are not interested in the theology being discussed. If possible, could everyone take this to each individual who requests the answers? I don't want to discourage information exchange, but this has become too deep a topic for this list that is to help us find the histories of our ancestors. Certainly, these LDS pioneer ancestors of our believed deeply in this topic of temple sealings, but some of their descendants don't. I hope I haven't offended anyone by asking that this discussion be made a private discussion. Don't hesitate to ask questions! If the answer should be given privately, then it really should just go to the individual seeking the answers. Being impartial when I believe strongly in the subject is hard. But, for those that just do not want to hear theology, they need to have their voice heard, too. If the question deals with ships, trails, trials, immigration, histories, settling of towns, a testimony from your ancestor, stories of building the temples, pioneer stories, that's different. Post away! Let's lighten up the discussion just a bit ;) Terri

Durfee_Lynda@tmac.com wrote: > I hope this information below is correct, based on my experience working with > pioneer records and temple work. I'm sure someone will let me know if it isn't. > > The terms "time only" and "time and all eternity" refer to temple > marriages/sealings. Latter-day Saints believe that temple ordinances will > insure that family members will be reunited in Paradise (heaven). I believe that the temple ordinances "can help" insure that family members "can" be reunited in Paradise,as with all blessings from the Lord they are subject to our individual faithfulness, please may I quote D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated-- And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. I also believe that our families can be reunited in the Celestial Kingdom only, which is Exhalation. Any other comments are appreciated. Patrick LeMmon I saw a T shirt the other day that said " I started this life with nothing and so far I still have most of it." Rings true for me!!!

JCBrooks@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 98-06-15 10:06:56 EDT, tazzy@enol.com > writes: > > << > You are right i every thing you said except that the rules > have changed now a > woman > can now be sealed to more thatn one husband. In my case my > grand mother was > sealed > to my grand fateher at the insistance of my mother and her > sisters, but she > wanted > to be sealed to her 3rd husband whom she loved dearly and now > is dead. So > now she > can go get sealed to him. I hope this is a helpful. > Jackie >> > > According the the General Handbook, this is incorrect......a > LIVING woman may > be sealed to only one husband during her lifetime (unless a > sealiang > cancellation occurs.). A DECEASED woman may be sealed to all > of her husbands. > The reasoning is that we do not have the right to choose among > a person's > spouses for them. Only one relationship will be truly > eternal...ratified by > both marital parties and the Lord. This is correct. I work at the Mount Timpanogos Temple Family File. LaurieCastillo > > > If, in life, a woman is sealed, and then is divorced, she must > obtain a > sealing cancellation before being sealed to another man. If > she is widowed, > unless the sealing is cancelled, she may be married for time > only. I > personally believe that the Lord will sort out all these > relationships > (including marriages where people stuck together for the sake > of the family > and weren't very happy) in the millenium and that his desire is > for each of us > to have a happy eternal relationship.....that there will be > time to make > adjustments before the judgement day. We will not be required > to maintain > covenants that we cannot currently support. > > Michele Brooks

Scott, I'd like to refer you to my web page: http://www.inovion.com/~aewold/frame_Current.html Click on "Pioneer Handcart Company Lists" project, then click on "Handcart Company Index" this is a listing of all handcart company members according to the Deseret News articles of the time that listed their names. If you know what year they came in, you can simply click on each of the handcart companies from the "Pioneer Handcart Company Lists" page. Hope that helps, Andy E. Wold -- E-mail: wold.andy@usa.net Homepage: http://www.inovion.com/~aewold/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Subject: [HANDCART-L] Help with Handcart Rosters > Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 12:12:04 -0700 > From: "Scott Erickson" <sferick.manteca@worldnet.att.net> > To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com > > I have participated in the Handcart list for a while now but have not posted anything for some time. I am now focusing on trying to find > emigration information on several branches of my family tree, particularly which handcart(s) they might have traveled on to Utah after arriving > from Europe. Can anyone help with look-ups or advice on references I might consult? Some basic information is listed below. I am not > sure if they all came across in handcarts since some came in later years. I appreciate any and all help. Thank you in advance. > > Scott Erickson / California >

Donald & Linda, The phrase "married for time only" refers to a marriage that ends "til death do you part" -- it may take place inside the temple, or outside of a temple (as a civil marriage). People who are married this way are generally already "married for eternity" to another spouse (who may have already passed on) that they wish to remain married to through the eternities. It sounds like your family member either wasn't baptized before their first marriage, or weren't worthy to enter the temple at that time. The phrase "married for eternity" (or "sealed to spouse" or "sealed for eternity") refers to a worthy LDS couple married for all of eternity inside a temple -- not just "til death do you part". Their living children can then be "sealed to parents" to remain as a family through the eternities, or children yet to be born are "born into the covenant" (BIC) of eternal marriage. Since your family members were sealed before the Salt Lake Temple was completed, they were probably sealed together in the Endowment House in Salt Lake City. Hope that helps, Andy E. Wold -- E-mail: wold.andy@usa.net Homepage: http://www.inovion.com/~aewold/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > In some information I recently received it stated that someone in my family > had been "married for time only" to her first husband, but married "for > eternity only" to her second. (The second marriage was in 1855 in Salt > Lake City) > > Can anyone explain this? > > Thanks > > Donald & Janice >

My genealogy instructor ( the one at church ) put it best, " Seal 'em all and cover your bases! Let them sort it out! I littel light hearted for such a serious subject, but I thought it to be good sound advice! Holly ---------- > From: JCBrooks@aol.com > To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [HANDCART-L] Married for time only vs. Married for eterni > Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 11:11 AM > > In a message dated 98-06-15 10:06:56 EDT, tazzy@enol.com writes: > > << > You are right i every thing you said except that the rules have changed now a > woman > can now be sealed to more thatn one husband. In my case my grand mother was > sealed > to my grand fateher at the insistance of my mother and her sisters, but she > wanted > to be sealed to her 3rd husband whom she loved dearly and now is dead. So > now she > can go get sealed to him. I hope this is a helpful. > Jackie >> > > According the the General Handbook, this is incorrect......a LIVING woman may > be sealed to only one husband during her lifetime (unless a sealiang > cancellation occurs.). A DECEASED woman may be sealed to all of her husbands. > The reasoning is that we do not have the right to choose among a person's > spouses for them. Only one relationship will be truly eternal...ratified by > both marital parties and the Lord. > > If, in life, a woman is sealed, and then is divorced, she must obtain a > sealing cancellation before being sealed to another man. If she is widowed, > unless the sealing is cancelled, she may be married for time only. I > personally believe that the Lord will sort out all these relationships > (including marriages where people stuck together for the sake of the family > and weren't very happy) in the millenium and that his desire is for each of us > to have a happy eternal relationship.....that there will be time to make > adjustments before the judgement day. We will not be required to maintain > covenants that we cannot currently support. > > Michele Brooks >

Unfortunatly, (actually it depends on the situation, I guess, sometimes it may a fortunate) the Church is granting more "Temple Divorces" It isn't as un-heard-of as it once was. The Temple work for those of us living (to do for ourselves) and those anscestors that have passed is a corner stone of the LDS Church . To simplify it, what we are encouraged to do is create a chain unbroken throughout our families. In the perfect world, when we get our lineage all the way back to Adam and Eve and so has everyone else we have a complete family of the world that is bonded together for eternity. I love that thought! The whole "name of the game" is to let no link go unhooked, or it is not a complete chain. Members of the Church are also encouraged to keep personal and family journals to pass on to our children and their children. It is a record of our time here on Earth. I enjoy putting together not only the cold, hard facts of my anscestors, but their lives and experiences as much as possible. Holly in SLC, Ut ---------- > From: Durfee_Lynda@tmac.com > To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re:[HANDCART-L] Married for time only vs. Married for eterni > Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 7:32 AM > > I hope this information below is correct, based on my experience working with > pioneer records and temple work. I'm sure someone will let me know if it isn't. > > The terms "time only" and "time and all eternity" refer to temple > marriages/sealings. Latter-day Saints believe that temple ordinances will > insure that family members will be reunited in Paradise (heaven). One of these > is the "sealing" ordinance, where children are joined to parents and husbands to > wives. When an LDS couple is married in the temple, they are sealed to each > other for "time and all eternity," not "till death do us part." While a > husband can be sealed for all eternity to more than one wife, a woman can be > sealed for all eternity to only one husband (during her lifetime). If she > remarries after death or divorce of the first husband and was sealed to that > husband, she can be sealed for "time only" to the second husband ( i.e., for > their lifetime, like "till death do us part"). This is quite common among > elderly Mormons who remarry after the first spouse dies. There are exceptions > when there were children in a marriage, and there are some temple "divorces" to > break the seal (very rare). > > Now, to the specific example of your ancestors. The wife's first husband > probably died, and wasn't a church member or died before they could be sealed > together while he was living. Assuming the second husband was LDS, it would > have been logical for her to be sealed to the second husband. The date of the > second marriage/sealing was 1855. This marriage/sealing would have taken place > in the Endowment House in Salt Lake City (the SL temple wasn't completed until > 1893). At some time, the wife was sealed to her first husband for "time," > possibly much later by proxy. Were there children in the first marriage? The > parents would have to have been sealed to each other for the children to have > been sealed to the parents. Sometimes, a woman's children by a first marriage > were sealed to her and the second husband. This required special permission. > > Nowadays, when ordinances are done by proxy (for deceased individuals), the > families are sealed naturally (i.e., husbands and wives to each other, children > to natural parents), even when the parents divorced. It's up to the individuals > to work it out on the other side. When we perform ordinances for deceased > persons, we don't always know if there was a divorce, or whether the couples > want to be together in the hereafter!! But it's their choice. > > I have a female ancestor (not LDS) who was sealed to both her first and second > husbands by proxy. As her surname on the second marriage record is that of her > first husband, it is not immediately obvious she is the same person. I have > recently discovered that the "several children who died young" by the first > husband have names, recorded on a tombstone next to the wife's parents, so now I > will perform the "sealings" for these babies. My ancestor is the only child by > her second marriage. > > It was very common for families to take out their ordinances (endowments and > sealings) within a year of reaching the SL valley. Although these sealings are > recorded in the IGI as marriages (off the EH rolls), they often "ratified" > marriages that had already occurred. This is particularly true of British and > Scandavian Saints. So, if any of you are puzzled at a marriage that occurred in > SL after several children were born, now you know why! > > I hope this has answered your question. > > ____________________Reply Separator____________________ > Subject: [HANDCART-L] Married for time only vs. Married for eternity > Author: genealogy@v-wave.com > Date: 6/15/98 6:46 AM > > In some information I recently received it stated that someone in my family > had been "married for time only" to her first husband, but married "for > eternity only" to her second. (The second marriage was in 1855 in Salt > Lake City) > > Can anyone explain this? > > Thanks > > Donald & Janice > > Searching for: JESSOP, SANDERS, CROUCHER, BOND, > GOODFELLOW, STABLES, LEES, STEWART >

You are right i every thing you said except that the rules have changed now a woman can now be sealed to more thatn one husband. In my case my grand mother was sealed to my grand fateher at the insistance of my mother and her sisters, but she wanted to be sealed to her 3rd husband whom she loved dearly and now is dead. So now she can go get sealed to him. I hope this is a helpful. Jackie Durfee_Lynda@tmac.com wrote: > I hope this information below is correct, based on my experience working with > pioneer records and temple work. I'm sure someone will let me know if it isn't. > > The terms "time only" and "time and all eternity" refer to temple > marriages/sealings. Latter-day Saints believe that temple ordinances will > insure that family members will be reunited in Paradise (heaven). One of these > is the "sealing" ordinance, where children are joined to parents and husbands to > wives. When an LDS couple is married in the temple, they are sealed to each > other for "time and all eternity," not "till death do us part." While a > husband can be sealed for all eternity to more than one wife, a woman can be > sealed for all eternity to only one husband (during her lifetime). If she > remarries after death or divorce of the first husband and was sealed to that > husband, she can be sealed for "time only" to the second husband ( i.e., for > their lifetime, like "till death do us part"). This is quite common among > elderly Mormons who remarry after the first spouse dies. There are exceptions > when there were children in a marriage, and there are some temple "divorces" to > break the seal (very rare). > > Now, to the specific example of your ancestors. The wife's first husband > probably died, and wasn't a church member or died before they could be sealed > together while he was living. Assuming the second husband was LDS, it would > have been logical for her to be sealed to the second husband. The date of the > second marriage/sealing was 1855. This marriage/sealing would have taken place > in the Endowment House in Salt Lake City (the SL temple wasn't completed until > 1893). At some time, the wife was sealed to her first husband for "time," > possibly much later by proxy. Were there children in the first marriage? The > parents would have to have been sealed to each other for the children to have > been sealed to the parents. Sometimes, a woman's children by a first marriage > were sealed to her and the second husband. This required special permission. > > Nowadays, when ordinances are done by proxy (for deceased individuals), the > families are sealed naturally (i.e., husbands and wives to each other, children > to natural parents), even when the parents divorced. It's up to the individuals > to work it out on the other side. When we perform ordinances for deceased > persons, we don't always know if there was a divorce, or whether the couples > want to be together in the hereafter!! But it's their choice. > > I have a female ancestor (not LDS) who was sealed to both her first and second > husbands by proxy. As her surname on the second marriage record is that of her > first husband, it is not immediately obvious she is the same person. I have > recently discovered that the "several children who died young" by the first > husband have names, recorded on a tombstone next to the wife's parents, so now I > will perform the "sealings" for these babies. My ancestor is the only child by > her second marriage. > > It was very common for families to take out their ordinances (endowments and > sealings) within a year of reaching the SL valley. Although these sealings are > recorded in the IGI as marriages (off the EH rolls), they often "ratified" > marriages that had already occurred. This is particularly true of British and > Scandavian Saints. So, if any of you are puzzled at a marriage that occurred in > SL after several children were born, now you know why! > > I hope this has answered your question. > > ____________________Reply Separator____________________ > Subject: [HANDCART-L] Married for time only vs. Married for eternity > Author: genealogy@v-wave.com > Date: 6/15/98 6:46 AM > > In some information I recently received it stated that someone in my family > had been "married for time only" to her first husband, but married "for > eternity only" to her second. (The second marriage was in 1855 in Salt > Lake City) > > Can anyone explain this? > > Thanks > > Donald & Janice > > Searching for: JESSOP, SANDERS, CROUCHER, BOND, > GOODFELLOW, STABLES, LEES, STEWART

I hope this information below is correct, based on my experience working with pioneer records and temple work. I'm sure someone will let me know if it isn't. The terms "time only" and "time and all eternity" refer to temple marriages/sealings. Latter-day Saints believe that temple ordinances will insure that family members will be reunited in Paradise (heaven). One of these is the "sealing" ordinance, where children are joined to parents and husbands to wives. When an LDS couple is married in the temple, they are sealed to each other for "time and all eternity," not "till death do us part." While a husband can be sealed for all eternity to more than one wife, a woman can be sealed for all eternity to only one husband (during her lifetime). If she remarries after death or divorce of the first husband and was sealed to that husband, she can be sealed for "time only" to the second husband ( i.e., for their lifetime, like "till death do us part"). This is quite common among elderly Mormons who remarry after the first spouse dies. There are exceptions when there were children in a marriage, and there are some temple "divorces" to break the seal (very rare). Now, to the specific example of your ancestors. The wife's first husband probably died, and wasn't a church member or died before they could be sealed together while he was living. Assuming the second husband was LDS, it would have been logical for her to be sealed to the second husband. The date of the second marriage/sealing was 1855. This marriage/sealing would have taken place in the Endowment House in Salt Lake City (the SL temple wasn't completed until 1893). At some time, the wife was sealed to her first husband for "time," possibly much later by proxy. Were there children in the first marriage? The parents would have to have been sealed to each other for the children to have been sealed to the parents. Sometimes, a woman's children by a first marriage were sealed to her and the second husband. This required special permission. Nowadays, when ordinances are done by proxy (for deceased individuals), the families are sealed naturally (i.e., husbands and wives to each other, children to natural parents), even when the parents divorced. It's up to the individuals to work it out on the other side. When we perform ordinances for deceased persons, we don't always know if there was a divorce, or whether the couples want to be together in the hereafter!! But it's their choice. I have a female ancestor (not LDS) who was sealed to both her first and second husbands by proxy. As her surname on the second marriage record is that of her first husband, it is not immediately obvious she is the same person. I have recently discovered that the "several children who died young" by the first husband have names, recorded on a tombstone next to the wife's parents, so now I will perform the "sealings" for these babies. My ancestor is the only child by her second marriage. It was very common for families to take out their ordinances (endowments and sealings) within a year of reaching the SL valley. Although these sealings are recorded in the IGI as marriages (off the EH rolls), they often "ratified" marriages that had already occurred. This is particularly true of British and Scandavian Saints. So, if any of you are puzzled at a marriage that occurred in SL after several children were born, now you know why! I hope this has answered your question. ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: [HANDCART-L] Married for time only vs. Married for eternity Author: genealogy@v-wave.com Date: 6/15/98 6:46 AM In some information I recently received it stated that someone in my family had been "married for time only" to her first husband, but married "for eternity only" to her second. (The second marriage was in 1855 in Salt Lake City) Can anyone explain this? Thanks Donald & Janice Searching for: JESSOP, SANDERS, CROUCHER, BOND, GOODFELLOW, STABLES, LEES, STEWART

In a message dated 98-06-15 10:06:56 EDT, tazzy@enol.com writes: << You are right i every thing you said except that the rules have changed now a woman can now be sealed to more thatn one husband. In my case my grand mother was sealed to my grand fateher at the insistance of my mother and her sisters, but she wanted to be sealed to her 3rd husband whom she loved dearly and now is dead. So now she can go get sealed to him. I hope this is a helpful. Jackie >> According the the General Handbook, this is incorrect......a LIVING woman may be sealed to only one husband during her lifetime (unless a sealiang cancellation occurs.). A DECEASED woman may be sealed to all of her husbands. The reasoning is that we do not have the right to choose among a person's spouses for them. Only one relationship will be truly eternal...ratified by both marital parties and the Lord. If, in life, a woman is sealed, and then is divorced, she must obtain a sealing cancellation before being sealed to another man. If she is widowed, unless the sealing is cancelled, she may be married for time only. I personally believe that the Lord will sort out all these relationships (including marriages where people stuck together for the sake of the family and weren't very happy) in the millenium and that his desire is for each of us to have a happy eternal relationship.....that there will be time to make adjustments before the judgement day. We will not be required to maintain covenants that we cannot currently support. Michele Brooks

In some information I recently received it stated that someone in my family had been "married for time only" to her first husband, but married "for eternity only" to her second. (The second marriage was in 1855 in Salt Lake City) Can anyone explain this? Thanks Donald & Janice Searching for: JESSOP, SANDERS, CROUCHER, BOND, GOODFELLOW, STABLES, LEES, STEWART

I have participated in the Handcart list for a while now but have not posted anything for some time. I am now focusing on trying to find emigration information on several branches of my family tree, particularly which handcart(s) they might have traveled on to Utah after arriving from Europe. Can anyone help with look-ups or advice on references I might consult? Some basic information is listed below. I am not sure if they all came across in handcarts since some came in later years. I appreciate any and all help. Thank you in advance. Scott Erickson / California WALES: Daniel JONES (father of Walter); b. 9/1805; Aberdare, Glarmorgan, Wales Mary JENKINS (mother of Walter); b. Abt. 1811; Merthyr Tydfil, Glarmorgan, Wales William JONES (grandfather of Walter); b. Abt. 1789 ; Wales Walter JONES (husband); b. February 03, 1838; Merthyr Tydfil, Glarmorgan, Wales Catharine JONES (wife); b. June 13, 1843; Merthyr Tydfil, Glarmorgan, Wales I believe that this group (Walter, his wife Catharine, his parents Daniel and Mary, and his grandfather William) emigrated from Wales in 1856, travelling on the S. Curling. They probably made their way to Utah shortly thereafter. My records show that Daniel and Mary died in Connectionville, Iowa, in 1889 and 1895, resprectively (they might ahve stayed there and did not travel on to Utah with the rest). SWITZERLAND: Dorothea RICKENBACH (mother); b. October 17, 1818; Salenstein, Thurgau, Switzerland Rudolph Rickenbach DORFLINGER (son of Dorothea); b. September 4, 1853; Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Magdalena HURNI (future wife of Rudolph); b. March 19, 1858; Fräschels, Fribourg, Switzerland Rudolph emigrated to the U.S. about June 1877. His mother Dorothea and future wife Magdalena emigrated about a year later in June 1878. They probably came immediately to Utah. Dorothea's surname could be shown as either Rickenbach or Dorflinger. NORWAY: Olena Olsen ERICKSON/ERIKSEN (mother); b. August 13, 1829; Mobek, Nes Akershus, Norway Fernando ERICKSON (son); b. March 09, 1862; Christiania, Oslo, Norway My great-grandfather Fernando, his mother Olena, and his siblings left Norway, I believe via Denmark, around 1865-66. They traveled to Utah on a wagon via Council Bluff in 1866. SWEDEN: Peter Axel ANDERSON (father); b. June 13, 1853; Hjerperud, Gunnarskog, Varmland, Sweden Johanna ANDERSON (mother); b. June 15, 1858; Gusselby, Lindesberg, Orebro, Sweden Axel ANDERSON (son); May 16, 1881; Lindesberg, Orebro, Sweden Johanna and Peter Anderson emigrated to America from Sweden in 1891 with their (6?) children, including my great-grandfather Axel. After arriving in Utah, they settled in Fairview, Sanpete County. DENMARK: Karen Marie MICHELSEN (mother of Niels); b. May 13, 1825; Langballe, Maarslet, Aarhus, Denmark Niels MICHELSEN (husband of Charlotte); b. April 18, 1859; Sleth, Aarhus, Denmark Charlotte Amalia JEPPESEN (wife of Niels); b. March 05, 1860; Vraa, Hjörring, Denmark Pederise Jensine SORENSEN (daugher of Charlotte); b. October 02, 1880; Hestrup, Hjörring, Denmark My great-grandmother Pederise (Rhesa) came to America in 1895 from Denmark. I believed she traveled with her mother, Charlotte Amalia Jeppesen Michelsen, step-father, Niels Michelsen, and her half-brother, Olof Michelsen (b. abt. 1884). DENMARK: Soren MADSEN (son); b. March 25, 1850; Rastved, Randers, Denmark Mads SORENSEN (father); b. December 1, 1820; Rastved, Randers, Denmark Anna Johanna CHRISTENSEN (mother); b. April 25, 1823; Rastved, Randers, Denmark My great-great-grandfather Soren Madsen came to America from Denmark. He probably traveled with his parents, but I do not know the year in which they emigrated (it must have been after 1850 and before 1874).

Thank you for giving me correct information. I hope I did not mislead, but I was just making a comment about a treasure that has been preserved. Im glad I gave out the wrong info.,because now I can go and have fun, learn something new and read my gg-greatfather's journal! Thanks for the the info everybody! Holly ---------- > From: AEParshall@aol.com > To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [HANDCART-L] Deseret Alphabet in ancestors' journals > Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 5:35 PM > > > In a message dated 06/12/98 1:12:36 PM, hulaboy@sprintmail.com wrote: > > >It didn't do me a bit of good to read it due to > >the fact that it is written n the secretive DESERET ALPHABET. > > The Deseret Alphabet is very, very easy to read (assuming your grandfather had > reasonably decent handwriting) after only a half hour or so of study. You > won't read it fast at first, but it will come quite easily. > > There's nothing at all secretive about it. It is quite easy to find material > about it on the internet, for example, and I even found a DA font for my > Macintosh in the AOL library. Try: > > http://people.delphi.com/deseret/home/homealph.htm > > for starters. You can find the alphabet, with sample paragraphs, in quite a > few readily available places, including the materials that are distributed to > seminary students during their year on church history. Since you live in > Utah, you have easy access to microfilmed copies of the Deseret News -- scan > the films, especially for the weekly edition of the paper, for the right years > and you will find the DA/romanization table frequently and sample articles > every few days. > > If you're really interested in reading your ancestor's journal, you can do it > with very little preparation and only moderate effort. Wasn't secret then, > and isn't secret now. > > Ardis Parshall > AEParshall@aol.com >

There is copies of this Alphabet and some school books printed using same at the Daughter of Utah Pioneers museum here in Salt Lake City. "There's a mighty big difference between good, sound facts and facts that sound good." Ronald Colby rmcolby@micro-net.com Salt Lake City, Utah Researching the descendants and ancestors of Ezekiel Colby 1739-1791 and Sarah/Sally Fowler 1742-? Visit us at: http://www.parsonstech.com/genealogy/trees/rcolby/colby_ft.htm ---------- > This is getting fun! I was misinformed about this! I am going to research > this and get some fun info! Thanks to all for the pointers! > Holly > > ---------- > > From: AEParshall@aol.com > > To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [HANDCART-L] Deseret Alphabet in ancestors' journals > > Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 5:35 PM > > > > > > In a message dated 06/12/98 1:12:36 PM, hulaboy@sprintmail.com wrote: > > > > >It didn't do me a bit of good to read it due to > > >the fact that it is written n the secretive DESERET ALPHABET. > > > > The Deseret Alphabet is very, very easy to read (assuming your > grandfather had > > reasonably decent handwriting) after only a half hour or so of study. > You > > won't read it fast at first, but it will come quite easily. > > > > There's nothing at all secretive about it. It is quite easy to find > material > > about it on the internet, for example, and I even found a DA font for my > > Macintosh in the AOL library. Try: > > > > http://people.delphi.com/deseret/home/homealph.htm > > > > for starters. You can find the alphabet, with sample paragraphs, in > quite a > > few readily available places, including the materials that are > distributed to > > seminary students during their year on church history. Since you live in > > Utah, you have easy access to microfilmed copies of the Deseret News -- > scan > > the films, especially for the weekly edition of the paper, for the right > years > > and you will find the DA/romanization table frequently and sample > articles > > every few days. > > > > If you're really interested in reading your ancestor's journal, you can > do it > > with very little preparation and only moderate effort. Wasn't secret > then, > > and isn't secret now. > > > > Ardis Parshall > > AEParshall@aol.com > > >

Thank you for your wonderful response. Now would some kind person please again post the link to the Deseret site. Best, Elaine Snow, Donald R. wrote: > Just a quick note about the Deseret alphabet. As pointed out already, it > wasn't secret at all. In fact it was very public since it was an attempt > by early Mormon leaders to help people learn to read and speak English. > There were lots of converts coming to Utah from Scandanavia and elsewhere > who didn't speak much English. As I remember it, Orson Pratt, one of the > Mormon apostles was involved in developing it. They took all the sounds of > the English language and made symbols to represent them so they could spell > a word the way it actually sounded in English. If it was a sound that was > always spelled the same way in English, they used a symbol that was like > that spelling so people would recognize it. So English speakers can read > most of it without much trouble. They had to make special type for the > characters to be able to print it and they printed several readers and the > Book or Mormon in it. I've got a couple of copies of Deseret alphabet > books in my collection. > > Don Snow > >

Just a quick note about the Deseret alphabet. As pointed out already, it wasn't secret at all. In fact it was very public since it was an attempt by early Mormon leaders to help people learn to read and speak English. There were lots of converts coming to Utah from Scandanavia and elsewhere who didn't speak much English. As I remember it, Orson Pratt, one of the Mormon apostles was involved in developing it. They took all the sounds of the English language and made symbols to represent them so they could spell a word the way it actually sounded in English. If it was a sound that was always spelled the same way in English, they used a symbol that was like that spelling so people would recognize it. So English speakers can read most of it without much trouble. They had to make special type for the characters to be able to print it and they printed several readers and the Book or Mormon in it. I've got a couple of copies of Deseret alphabet books in my collection. Don Snow At 08:21 PM 6/12/98 , hulaboy wrote: >I was misinformed about the alphabet. It is not as secretive as I thought. > Can anyone give more info on this so I don't give out the wrong >definition. I want to be sure, too. > >Holly > > >---------- >From: diane epperson <editorz@inreach.com> >To: hulaboy@sprintmail.com; HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: secret Deseret alphabet >Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 5:17 PM > >Hi Holly, > >Now you've peaked my interest. Tell me about the secret Deseret alphabet! >Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but I'm not an LDS church member. > >Tschüss >__________________________________________________________ >Diane Epperson >--from sunny Ocotillo in the flaming Yuha Desert of Southern California >editorz@inreach.com > >"Eala Fria Fresena!" -- "Lever Dod As Slaav!" > >Researching . . . >FLESNER, EBER, BUSS, ELLERMEIER of Illinois aus Deutschland >LEWIS, COLEMAN, HART of New Jersey >ANDERSEN, EDMISTON, SNOW of Utah >. . . und mein rottweiler WORF (canis klingon) > >---------- >: From: hulaboy <hulaboy@sprintmail.com> >: To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com >: Subject: Re: Re:[HANDCART-L] Re: HANDCART-D Digest V98 #104 >: Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 1:03 PM >: >: My gg-grandfather's journal was donated to the archives (don't know who >: donated it) and I was able to hold it in my hands and feel the buck skin >: cover. It was wonderful. It didn't do me a bit of good to read it due >to >: the fact that it is written n the secretive DESERET ALPHABET. He is a >bit >: of a mystery, anyway, so no one is surprised. I had to prove descendancy >: before they would let me see it, which was fine with me. >: >: Guess what, I happen to live in SLC. I will be more than happy to take >: some time and do some lookups or go to the archives for anybody. It may >: take me a week or two to get it all together, you know how it goes...the >: son's baseball games, part-time job, house, the other two kids, etc... so >: just let me know. I plan to go and request a few patriarchal blessings >: myself. I've really learned a lot from you wonderful friends! >: >: Holly Carmichael May >: >: ---------- >: > From: Durfee_Lynda@tmac.com >: > To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com >: > Subject: Re:[HANDCART-L] Re: HANDCART-D Digest V98 #104 >: > Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 6:44 AM >: > >: > The Church Archives are in the Church Office Building off Temple >Square. >: It is >: > behind the Joseph Smith Building (old Hotel Utah). I THINK the hours >are >: 8:30 - >: > 4:30 M-F. I know for sure they close at 4:30, and pretty sure they >open >: at >: > 8:30. Definitely NOT open evenings and weekends. The church history >: library is >: > on the first floor right as you enter from the plaza. The archives are >: on the >: > second floor. I'll summarize some of the resources I've used at the >: archives >: > below, but my experience consists of a few days worth, scattered over >: three >: > visits on trips to Utah. >: > >: > The archives does have a computerized catalog, available ONLY at the >: archives. >: > HOWEVER, this does not include every item. You can search by subject, >: author, >: > surname, etc., but you don't always find something you know to be >there. >: Most >: > of the computerized catalog is on microfilm. >: > >: > There is a separate index on microfiche for ward and branch records. >You >: look >: > up the name of the ward/branch, then get a number which refers to a >: series. Then >: > you need to ask what records are available for that ward/branch (relief >: society, >: > priesthood quorums, etc.). >: > >: > There also is a missionary index to find information on the dates and >: place of >: > service of missionaries, going way back. This is on both film and >fiche. >: >: > >: > When you go to the archives, you need to have a clear idea of what you >: are >: > looking for. You definitely need to know to ask the right question. >The >: staff >: > are very helpful, but if your don't find something, you should ask if >: there are >: > records not in the catalog in your area of search. You might call >first >: to ask >: > about records and sources. Well worth the cost of a long-distance >phone >: call. >: > >: > Good luck. >: > >: > ____________________Reply Separator____________________ >: > Subject: [HANDCART-L] Re: HANDCART-D Digest V98 #104 >: > Author: Cballd@aol.com >: > Date: 6/11/98 7:49 PM >: > >: > Could someone please tell me about the church archives. A lot of my >Great >: > grandfather's papers were donated there years ago. Would I be able to >: access >: > these? Where are the archives? What hours? What's available? etc. etc. >I >: hope >: > to get down there again this summer. I spent a full hour at the FHL >last >: month >: > while my daughter-in-law walked around temple square, then we got back >in >: the >: > car and continued toward home (Seattle.) >: > Thanks for your help, >: > Cindy Alldredge >: > >: > Received: from valhalla.tmac.com (192.206.250.2) by ccmail.tmac.com >with >: SMTP >: > (IMA Internet Exchange 2.12 Enterprise) id 000099BF; Thu, 11 Jun 98 >: 19:52:36 >: > -0400 >: > Received: from fp-1.rootsweb.com (fp-1.rootsweb.com [207.113.233.233]) >by >: > valhalla.tmac.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA21707 for >: > <Durfee_Lynda@tmac.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:59:37 -0400 >: > Received: (from slist@localhost) >: > by fp-1.rootsweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA17578; >: > Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:55:41 -0700 (PDT) >: > Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:55:41 -0700 (PDT) >: > From: Cballd@aol.com >: > Message-ID: <84b46864.35806d0c@aol.com> >: > Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:49:31 EDT >: > Old-To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com >: > Mime-Version: 1.0 >: > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >: > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >: > X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 52 >: > Subject: [HANDCART-L] Re: HANDCART-D Digest V98 #104 >: > Resent-Message-ID: <"1DeECD.A.CJE.n5Gg1"@fp-1.rootsweb.com> >: > To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com >: > Resent-From: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com >: > X-Mailing-List: <HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/741 >: > X-Loop: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com >: > Precedence: list >: > Resent-Sender: HANDCART-L-request@rootsweb.com >: > >: >---------- > Dr. Donald R. Snow, Dept of Math, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602 (801) 378-2366, snowd@math.byu.edu