Hello Ina, Siegfried and Listers, I'd like to comment on a few of the points Siegfried made about the IGI and Patron Submissions. I've been a non-church member volunteer in an LDS library since 1992, and have been researching my own family since 1988. First of all he is quite right, not every source that has been filmed by the LDS is in the IGI. The IGI is basically an index to Parish Registers and Patron Submissions. Just go to the Locality search (place search on the net) of the Family History Library Catalogue and look for your places of origin. You will find listings of all sorts of films as well as Parish Registers ( eg. cemetery records, probate records, census records) which contain millions of names that are not indexed into the IGI. You will also find Parish Registers not yet indexed, so always check the catalogue. As I understand it there are a number of reasons why some parish registers have only been partly indexed, or not at all. For example many parishes in Devon, England have not been indexed because the Church of England would not allow them to be filmed. Ditto some Irish Catholic parishes. Many English parishes have been indexed only up to the start of Civil Registration in 1837, because it was seen as a duplication of effort. With regard to the sources of information in the IGI, its always wise to check the film number, using the IGI on CD or the Library Catalogue on CD or on the net. On the net (IGI or catalogue) just keep clicking on the links until you get a button saying "View film notes" then click on the button. The next screen will tell you what the film is, i.e. what the information source for the entry is. Many people come into the library with film numbers to order, and often when checked, to their surprise the films turn out to be Church sealing films or similar, which give no further information, or else they are church films which are simply not available for circulation, and submitters' names are also not available. I'd also like to suggest that the submitters of entries about your family aren't necessarily related to you. On a number of occasions I've sent for submission sheets and the people making the submissions were either accredited genealogists or other church members copying entries from Parish Registers, and nothing whatever to do with my families. I also have other disagreements with Siegfried's posting. My negative experiences with patron submissions start with the fact that the sources are not given. What kind of historical, or any other research, conceals its sources ? My worst experience was with a person whom I was assured was born in England in 1837, her parents having been married at Battersea in 1837. No luck with the marriage or the birth. Then I was told the birth was definitely so, "Its in the IGI". Well yes it was, on the net but not other versions. So Mary Ann Simpson, daughter of Walter Simpson and Mary Ann Scammell was recorded in the IGI as being baptised September 13 1837 UK. (Source: Temple Records for Deceased Individuals, submitters not available) ) At this point someone idly suggested I look on the Australian Vital Records CD for the marriage. Lo and behold, the parents' marriage took place in Tasmania in 1843, the child MaryAnn was born in Tasmania in 1837 to these parents. This was confirmed by viewing the films of the original Tasmanian records. From other evidence( later children's names etc) there is absolutely no doubt that this was the right family. In the light of this experience I now regard any patron entry with deep suspicion, its got a good chance of being "Family history by hearsay" (Auntie Mary told me). At a slightly less deceptive level, I recently called up 13 entries in the IGI for my Fishbourne family in Ireland, and found that only two of them were properly sourced, the other sources being sealing sheets for the dead, etc. "Not available" or "No matching film." From my own earlier research I recognised seven of the remaining eleven entries as being taken from the Marriage Licence Bonds, which have in fact been filmed by the LDS. Of the remaining four entries one is a guess and wrong, as the submitter would have found out if he had bothered to have the parish register searched, as I had. The others look like unacknowledged parish register entries, going by the level of detail given. Yes submitter entries can sometimes give you a lead, but unless you want to encourage or contribute to the "JUNK GENEALOGY" circulating in cyberspace, treat them with extreme caution and do your own investigating. Sorry to be such an old cynic, but we could all benefit from a bit more emphasis on truth and accuracy in genealogy. Regards, Kaye Cole in Melbourne InaFri@aol.com wrote: > In the Pommern list the member Siegfried Rambaum wrote a very detailed >