Any of you on this list that know if this above mentioned center still is in operation and how I get in touch with the owner? (Finn A. Thomsen) I have continuously over the last few moths sought for an e-mail address or other means of contacting him, but do not know if he still has the shop. I need some info about some of the books he has published earlier. Thanks Str. Helle Hirschmann Slagelse ward Denmark Copenhagen stake

Karen, There are really two items in your question. The first, the difference between contributing genealogical information and the submission for temple ordinances, and secondly the notation of who does both. FamilySearch does track who the submitter of temple ordinances is separately from contributors of genealogical data. And that submitter should abide by the instructions just republished by the First Presidency, regardless of who contributed the data. The non-listing of submitters is a matter of policy at present, and has its roots in the previous temple systems. Contributors of genealogical data "agree", by virtue of abiding by the terms and conditions of FamilySearch, that their personal information can be shared, and have done so since the days of Ancestral File. This is necessary under rights of privacy current statutes in US, Canada and EU Nations at present. Therefore, the Church is free to share their personal information publicly. Temple Ordinance information, including the submitter information, has had no such agreement in a long-standing fashion. Therefore, since the temple submission information could theoretically stretch back to the days of Nauvoo, it has only been recently that the terms and conditions would allow such treatment of the data, if at all. Therefore the past policy of not sharing the info is still in force and will be until it is determined how to better address that issue. While it inhibits potential research ability and even correction of issues with ordinances, the current rights of privacy laws trumps that. Additionally, there is also the matter of those who don't want their information shared, regardless, and still want to participate in ordinance work, which must be respected. The issues are known and are being work on actively. There should be NO assumption, only the possibility, that the contributor of genealogical information is also the submitter of the temple ordinance work. I hope that helps explain why things are the way they are. Best regards, Randy Bryson Area Family History Adviser Utah South Area -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen Jorgensen Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [LDS-WC] contributing information / submitting temple ordinances An issue that I have not seen addressed is one about contributing an individual and their info, but not submitting the individual for temple ordinances. If I contribute an individual into NFS because I am connected to them, (not related by blood) and I don't submit them for ordinances, someone else can come along and submit them (on-line) but the submitter is not listed in NFS, just the contributor of the info. So after the ordinances are completed, it *appears* as though I not only contributed information about that individual, but since there is no submitter listed, it looks like I had the ordinances completed. I don't understand why NFS doesn't list who actually submitted the names for temple work, and only lists contributors. Is NFS just assuming that if you contribute a name with the info necessary to perform the work, that you are the one who also submitted the name for the temple work? Karen Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

I have found similar situations, though at the time I managed to identify one of my wife's ancestors correctly since I had a lot of information on him. Someone had estimated his birth date as 1800 (25 years before his marriage date), which was estimated as 1825 because that was one year before the birth of a daughter of his in 1826. Apparently fine, only that daughter was the 7th child from his second marriage. He was actually born in 1763... Some gap! -----Mensagem Original----- From: Nancy Scott Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 1:57 PM To: 'Mary S. Scott (Michigan)' ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] figuring our sources for extracted records in nFS Karen mentioned that you need to be careful to not combine persons in nFS who are born with wide birth dates in nFS but with similar names. I totally agree with that but the opposite of that can also be true. I duplicated my husband's maternal grandmother's ordinance work before nFS was available because it had been done and all the birth dates for the children were about 30 years off. So even though I had searched to be sure I would not be duplicating, I did not give a wide enough range of years and so the work was redone. I found the duplication in nFS because of the family relationships and knew that it was her but the dates were so incorrect that without the family relationships, it was almost impossible to find previously. All of this points to the fact that we should enter as much data as possible about the person so that they can be uniquely identified. Things that this would include, in my opinion, are: alternate names and "about dates" if you do not know the exact date. A member of my ward did work for a family member with very minimum information on the card. Thre was no date of birth and the place name was not standard. I was with her and glanced over the card. When I asked her about it in a nice way. She said that that was all that was known. When I got home, I looked in Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org and came up with census records that would give about dates and emailed the documents to her. The next day at church when I talked to her about my finds for her, she said that she already had that information. I encouraged her to contribute any data that she did have so that the person would be uniquely identified including an about date. Writing this makes me think that it would be good to make some sort of handout on a person being uniquely identified to remind members how important this can be to reduce duplication. Nancy Scott Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Karen mentioned that you need to be careful to not combine persons in nFS who are born with wide birth dates in nFS but with similar names. I totally agree with that but the opposite of that can also be true. I duplicated my husband's maternal grandmother's ordinance work before nFS was available because it had been done and all the birth dates for the children were about 30 years off. So even though I had searched to be sure I would not be duplicating, I did not give a wide enough range of years and so the work was redone. I found the duplication in nFS because of the family relationships and knew that it was her but the dates were so incorrect that without the family relationships, it was almost impossible to find previously. All of this points to the fact that we should enter as much data as possible about the person so that they can be uniquely identified. Things that this would include, in my opinion, are: alternate names and "about dates" if you do not know the exact date. A member of my ward did work for a family member with very minimum information on the card. Thre was no date of birth and the place name was not standard. I was with her and glanced over the card. When I asked her about it in a nice way. She said that that was all that was known. When I got home, I looked in Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org and came up with census records that would give about dates and emailed the documents to her. The next day at church when I talked to her about my finds for her, she said that she already had that information. I encouraged her to contribute any data that she did have so that the person would be uniquely identified including an about date. Writing this makes me think that it would be good to make some sort of handout on a person being uniquely identified to remind members how important this can be to reduce duplication. Nancy Scott

Mary Scott, thanks for telling me about this because I have German cousins who were killed in World War II. I know who they are. Will add to notes for them when they are ready for temple ordinances. On 5/24/2012 10:41 PM, Mary S. Scott (Michigan) wrote: > I have also had submissions of Dutch relatives who died in World War II and the support staff thought they were Jewish. They removed the ordinance information for the two men but never contacted me. One man was part of the Dutch Resistance. The other relative was a career army officer for the Netherlands and died in a prison of war camp near Berlin. When I noticed what had happened and explained that these men were not Jewish but patriots fighting for the Netherlands (with documentation to prove it), the support staff revealed the ordinance dates on NFS again. They also told me that they would add an "internal note" to the records for each man to explain that they were not Jewish but Christian.

Sometimes children's births & parents' sealings are not shown as links in NFS because there are records that still need to be combined within the system. It would have been submitted to the system in two categories to get parents sealed & child sealed to parents, so there may be some combining work to be done on the part of patrons. People do need to be careful though with combining records: two people in the same place with the same name do not necessarily mean they are the same person. I've seen folks combined that were born sixty or seventy years apart, just because their names were similar and in the same place. Karen On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Dan Taysom <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Mary & Cindy, > > My initial thought when I saw the batch number in the source info was that > it was for a birth/christening record, but I (apparently) erroneously set > that assumption aside because in nFS there is just the man & the woman with > a relationship of spouse. There is NO child linked to them in nSF, nor > parents linked to the couple, nor marriage info, just the relationship of > spouse. > > After receiving your suggestions I went into the IGI and tried searching by > one of their names & the batch number & up popped an extracted birth record > complete with child. Curious. > > Well immediate problem solved even if there are lingering questions about > why the child wasn't linked to them in nFS since that was the basis for the > extraction record. > > thanks, > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Mary S. Scott (Michigan) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > The Batch number beginning with the letter "C" means the extraction is > > from a birth and/or christening record. I have seen many christening > > dates with the batch numbers begin with "C" or "A". Other letters and > > series of numbers mean different things. > > > > Here is a link to a document which explains the various batch numbers: > > https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/IGI_Batch_Number_Descriptions > > > > The document is entitled 'IGI Batch Number Definitions' (pretty straight > > forward I guess -- :>) > > > > An individual family file submission by a patron used to have a batch > > number attached to them as well. This was from the days when we sent the > > various forms to Salt Lake for clearance. There was a way to figure out > the > > day and year that the batch was processed just by looking at the batch > > number. (For instance, some of my submissions were 7920812. I was told > that > > 79 would refer to the year; 208 refers to the day of the year and > > 12 indicates that it was the 12th batch on that particular day.) > > > > Anyway the reason that there is no marriage date or place for the couple > > in question is that it was from a birth record for their child. Always > look > > at the child's information just in case you receive more explanation on a > > specific source. > > > > Also send an email to the staff at the family history library and copy > > down the source information. Ask them how to find out what source to > > examine to see that birth/christening record. > > > > > > Mary Scott > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > > [email protected] > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > -- > Dan Taysom > [email protected] > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Finding ancestors is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one!

I agree with Karen's suggestion that the records probably need to be combined and that we need to be careful when combining records.   Search for the child found in the IGI on New FamilySearch. See if you can then combine the parents when the other record you found.   I would also do a search on NFS with just the parents' names -- nothing else. It is possible that other children's birth information was extracted as well. These records can then be combined too.   Mary Scott ________________________________ From: Karen Tippets <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 7:12 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] figuring our sources for extracted records in nFS Sometimes children's births & parents' sealings are not shown as links in NFS because there are records that still need to be combined within the system.  It would have been submitted to the system in two categories to get parents sealed & child sealed to parents, so there may be some combining work to be done on the part of patrons. People do need to be careful though with combining records: two people in the same place with the same name do not necessarily mean they are the same person.  I've seen folks combined that were born sixty or seventy years apart, just because their names were similar and in the same place. Karen On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Dan Taysom <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Mary & Cindy, > > My initial thought when I saw the batch number in the source info was that > it was for a birth/christening record, but I (apparently) erroneously set > that assumption aside because in nFS there is just the man & the woman with > a relationship of spouse.  There is NO child linked to them in nSF, nor > parents linked to the couple, nor marriage info, just the relationship of > spouse. > > After receiving your suggestions I went into the IGI and tried searching by > one of their names & the batch number & up popped an extracted birth record > complete with child.  Curious. > > Well immediate problem solved even if there are lingering questions about > why the child wasn't linked to them in nFS since that was the basis for the > extraction record. > > thanks, > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Mary S. Scott (Michigan) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > The Batch number beginning with the letter "C" means the extraction is > > from a birth and/or christening record. I have seen many christening > > dates with the batch numbers begin with "C" or "A". Other letters and > > series of numbers mean different things. > > > > Here is a link to a document which explains the various batch numbers: > > https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/IGI_Batch_Number_Descriptions > > > > The document is entitled 'IGI Batch Number Definitions' (pretty straight > > forward I guess -- :>) > > > > An individual family file submission by a patron used to have a batch > > number attached to them as well. This was from the days when we sent the > > various forms to Salt Lake for clearance. There was a way to figure out > the > > day and year that the batch was processed just by looking at the batch > > number. (For instance, some of my submissions were 7920812. I was told > that > > 79 would refer to the year; 208 refers to the day of the year and > > 12 indicates that it was the 12th batch on that particular day.) > > > > Anyway the reason that there is no marriage date or place for the couple > > in question is that it was from a birth record for their child. Always > look > > at the child's information just in case you receive more explanation on a > > specific source. > > > > Also send an email to the staff at the family history library and copy > > down the source information. Ask them how to find out what source to > > examine to see that birth/christening record. > > > > > > Mary Scott > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > > [email protected] > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > -- > Dan Taysom > [email protected] > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Finding ancestors is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one! Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Karen brings up a very interesting topic. I have organized a couple of lines that are related only by marriage that FS extracted and had multiple errors in addition not being connected as a family. Since I have not felt impressed to go ahead and reserve the ordinances, it will likely appear that I actually did but have not. I guess, though, that it does not really matter as I still have the source information that someone would be looking for in a contact. Nancy Scott

Thank you Mary & Cindy, My initial thought when I saw the batch number in the source info was that it was for a birth/christening record, but I (apparently) erroneously set that assumption aside because in nFS there is just the man & the woman with a relationship of spouse. There is NO child linked to them in nSF, nor parents linked to the couple, nor marriage info, just the relationship of spouse. After receiving your suggestions I went into the IGI and tried searching by one of their names & the batch number & up popped an extracted birth record complete with child. Curious. Well immediate problem solved even if there are lingering questions about why the child wasn't linked to them in nFS since that was the basis for the extraction record. thanks, On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Mary S. Scott (Michigan) < [email protected]> wrote: > The Batch number beginning with the letter "C" means the extraction is > from a birth and/or christening record. I have seen many christening > dates with the batch numbers begin with "C" or "A". Other letters and > series of numbers mean different things. > > Here is a link to a document which explains the various batch numbers: > https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/IGI_Batch_Number_Descriptions > > The document is entitled 'IGI Batch Number Definitions' (pretty straight > forward I guess -- :>) > > An individual family file submission by a patron used to have a batch > number attached to them as well. This was from the days when we sent the > various forms to Salt Lake for clearance. There was a way to figure out the > day and year that the batch was processed just by looking at the batch > number. (For instance, some of my submissions were 7920812. I was told that > 79 would refer to the year; 208 refers to the day of the year and > 12 indicates that it was the 12th batch on that particular day.) > > Anyway the reason that there is no marriage date or place for the couple > in question is that it was from a birth record for their child. Always look > at the child's information just in case you receive more explanation on a > specific source. > > Also send an email to the staff at the family history library and copy > down the source information. Ask them how to find out what source to > examine to see that birth/christening record. > > > Mary Scott > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Dan Taysom [email protected]

I believe that the temple can look at their own database and know exactly who did the original submission. A few years ago I wanted to know who did the submission for someone and they looked it up. Unfortunately the person did not want to be contacted so they could not share any contact information with me.   The support staff for NFS has told me that they doubt the submitters information would ever be permanently attached to the temple ordinances on NFS for everyone other user to see. As was mentioned, the researcher who reserves the name has their contact name attached to the ordinance until it is completed and then it is dropped.   Still, never doubt that the Church knows (or can find out) who is submitting and clearing individuals and families for temple ordinances. They know far more than we may ever realize.   When New FamilySearch was first introduced, I noticed that some contributors had added the fictitious sibling characters from "Little House on the Prairie" as though they were actual people. The temple work was then completed for these fictitious individuals. I added notes and disputes and explained that these people had never lived but were merely creations for the television series.   I bring this up because there are a lot of situations which we might never consider but that the support staff has to deal with regularly. The fictitious characters are only one example.   The support staff told me that they would not remove the information for the "Little House" characters from New FamilySearch because they feared someone else would just come along and put it back on the system in order to clear the ordinances again.   I have also had submissions of Dutch relatives who died in World War II and the support staff thought they were Jewish. They removed the ordinance information for the two men but never contacted me. One man was part of the Dutch Resistance. The other relative was a career army officer for the Netherlands and died in a prison of war camp near Berlin. When I noticed what had happened and explained that these men were not Jewish but patriots fighting for the Netherlands (with documentation to prove it), the support staff revealed the ordinance dates on NFS again. They also told me that they would add an "internal note" to the records for each man to explain that they were not Jewish but Christian.   At the same time I added notes to the individual detail screens for the two individuals so that it was visible for other researchers to see.   It helped that I was able to document their direct ancestors were ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church and also that there were many christening records available for the older family members in the Netherlands.   These are some of the situations which I have experienced. I probably have shared some of these situations previously but our list always has new people so I thought I would share it again. Please pardon me if you feel I am repeating myself.   Mary Scott  

The Batch number beginning with the letter "C" means the extraction is from a birth and/or christening record. I have seen many christening dates with the batch numbers begin with "C" or "A". Other letters and series of numbers mean different things.   Here is a link to a document which explains the various batch numbers: https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/IGI_Batch_Number_Descriptions   The document is entitled 'IGI Batch Number Definitions' (pretty straight forward I guess -- :>)   An individual family file submission by a patron used to have a batch number attached to them as well. This was from the days when we sent the various forms to Salt Lake for clearance. There was a way to figure out the day and year that the batch was processed just by looking at the batch number. (For instance, some of my submissions were 7920812. I was told that 79 would refer to the year; 208 refers to the day of the year and 12 indicates that it was the 12th batch on that particular day.) Anyway the reason that there is no marriage date or place for the couple in question is that it was from a birth record for their child. Always look at the child's information just in case you receive more explanation on a specific source.   Also send an email to the staff at the family history library and copy down the source information. Ask them how to find out what source to examine to see that birth/christening record.     Mary Scott

An issue that I have not seen addressed is one about contributing an individual and their info, but not submitting the individual for temple ordinances. If I contribute an individual into NFS because I am connected to them, (not related by blood) and I don't submit them for ordinances, someone else can come along and submit them (on-line) but the submitter is not listed in NFS, just the contributor of the info. So after the ordinances are completed, it *appears* as though I not only contributed information about that individual, but since there is no submitter listed, it looks like I had the ordinances completed. I don't understand why NFS doesn't list who actually submitted the names for temple work, and only lists contributors. Is NFS just assuming that if you contribute a name with the info necessary to perform the work, that you are the one who also submitted the name for the temple work? Karen

Hi Dan, Here is what I would do: Take the batch number C05335-4, copy it and then go to www.familysearch.org. Click the search by, "batch number" and paste the number in the there. Then put in the name in the name search area. Click search. Sometimes the image is right there ready to view. Other times you have to look near bottom of the page on the search result. you will see the source film number. Then you go back to familysearch and search the catalog with that film number. I hope that helps you. Cindy Price p.s. Here is the search result I found. * https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XRBS-NZW*<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XRBS-NZW> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Dan Taysom <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm looking at a nFS record (*Person identifier:* L4PB-48J) that has the > below source info. Anyone know how to figure out what the source document > was that was extracted? Presumably since it was extracted there is a film > (hopefully imaged) out there. I would like to look at it. I'm guessing it > was probably a marriage record from the amount of info that was extracted > and the fact that her only link is to a husband (although there is no > marriage data included) . > > > *Sources about the Name* Name: May Elizabeth IndiestContributorFamilySearch > Source Source type: Other, Image number: 229, Record number: 32, Batch > number: C05335-4, Location in source: vol 2, p425A, no1198, Source > template: IBIR, Locality: Iowa, Wisconsin, United States, Language: English > - Repaging, Contributor: EXTRACTION > thanks, > -- > Dan Taysom > [email protected] > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I'm looking at a nFS record (*Person identifier:* L4PB-48J) that has the below source info. Anyone know how to figure out what the source document was that was extracted? Presumably since it was extracted there is a film (hopefully imaged) out there. I would like to look at it. I'm guessing it was probably a marriage record from the amount of info that was extracted and the fact that her only link is to a husband (although there is no marriage data included) . *Sources about the Name* Name: May Elizabeth IndiestContributorFamilySearch Source Source type: Other, Image number: 229, Record number: 32, Batch number: C05335-4, Location in source: vol 2, p425A, no1198, Source template: IBIR, Locality: Iowa, Wisconsin, United States, Language: English - Repaging, Contributor: EXTRACTION thanks, -- Dan Taysom [email protected]

Very good explanations Jill. Joseph Smith.... Concerning government: Some years ago, in Nauvoo, a gentleman in my hearing, a member of the Legislature, asked Joseph Smith how it was that he was enabled to govern so many people, and to preserve such perfect order; remarking at the same time that it was impossible for them to do it anywhere else. Mr. Smith remarked that it was very easy to do that. "How?" responded the gentleman; "to us it is very difficult." Mr. Smith replied, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." Shanna Jones -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jill N. Crandell Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [LDS-WC] Temple Ordinance Guidelines I have been in touch with the leadership of FamilySearch today, and we discussed the current confusion and various interpretations that are being placed on the First Presidency's statement that we must be "related" to the people we submit for temple ordinance work. They stated that the Brethren will not be giving any further clarification on this terminology, because it is up to the members of the Church to seek personal inspiration as to how that statement applies to them. The desire is to preserve the members' agency and personal accountability. As consultants and those who teach the guidelines, we need to be careful not to put our personal interpretation "in force" on others. Having said that, here are some statements to consider: 1. First, we need to obey all of the permission rules for the past 110 years. 2. We can perform ordinances for ourselves and all of our direct line ancestors on our pedigree (including adoptive, sealing, and step pedigrees). 3. We can perform ordinances for the children on all of the family group sheets of the ancestors on those pedigrees, including their spouses so that marriage sealings can be performed. 4. We can perform ordinances for descendants of all of our direct line ancestors, which would include ordinances for descendants of siblings, because they would all be descendants of the next generation back. 5. We can assist our spouses in the work for their families, especially if the spouse is living or previously gave permission for us to continue. Here are some of the "gray areas" to consider and seek personal guidance of the Spirit: 1. As mentioned in #3 above, the spouses of children on our family group sheets become part of our related family because of their marriage to a family member. We can submit them for personal ordinances and the marriage sealing. Where this starts to go into a gray area would be work for the in-law's parents, siblings, and ancestors. Those individuals are not usually considered related, but if the Spirit directs, we can move forward. 2. Work for the family of a deceased spouse where permission was not given before death, is a gray area, but not usually a problem. Seek inspiration. Are there other family members more closely related and involved in the work who should have that opportunity and privilege? 3. Be extremely careful in extended lines where famous people or Jewish Holocaust victims are involved. In these areas, think much more strongly about blood relations, be SURE to follow the 110 year rules, and obtain all appropriate permissions. You may be asked to document your blood relation. Let me repeat that the Brethren have declined to define their instruction beyond the concept that we must be related to those whom we submit. The statements I have made above are given with the knowledge and agreement of the FamilySearch leadership, but ANY "clarification" of the Prophet's statement in the recent letter is a personal opinion-including mine. The vagueness of the statement is to allow for appropriate agency. We should not be involved in allowing others to remove our responsibility to seek the guidance of the Spirit, and we should not remove the responsibility of those whom we counsel in our stewardship. I hope this is helpful, Jill Crandell Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks for your help in answering these questions, Jill. Your thoughts as well ring true to my heart. Doris Bateman > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 23:46:59 -0600 > Subject: [LDS-WC] Temple Ordinance Guidelines > > I have been in touch with the leadership of FamilySearch today, and we > discussed the current confusion and various interpretations that are being > placed on the First Presidency's statement that we must be "related" to the > people we submit for temple ordinance work. They stated that the Brethren > will not be giving any further clarification on this terminology, because it > is up to the members of the Church to seek personal inspiration as to how > that statement applies to them. The desire is to preserve the members' > agency and personal accountability. As consultants and those who teach the > guidelines, we need to be careful not to put our personal interpretation "in > force" on others. > > > > Having said that, here are some statements to consider: > > 1. First, we need to obey all of the permission rules for the past 110 > years. > > 2. We can perform ordinances for ourselves and all of our direct line > ancestors on our pedigree (including adoptive, sealing, and step pedigrees). > > 3. We can perform ordinances for the children on all of the family group > sheets of the ancestors on those pedigrees, including their spouses so that > marriage sealings can be performed. > > 4. We can perform ordinances for descendants of all of our direct line > ancestors, which would include ordinances for descendants of siblings, > because they would all be descendants of the next generation back. > > 5. We can assist our spouses in the work for their families, especially if > the spouse is living or previously gave permission for us to continue. > > > > Here are some of the "gray areas" to consider and seek personal guidance of > the Spirit: > > 1. As mentioned in #3 above, the spouses of children on our family group > sheets become part of our related family because of their marriage to a > family member. We can submit them for personal ordinances and the marriage > sealing. Where this starts to go into a gray area would be work for the > in-law's parents, siblings, and ancestors. Those individuals are not usually > considered related, but if the Spirit directs, we can move forward. > > 2. Work for the family of a deceased spouse where permission was not given > before death, is a gray area, but not usually a problem. Seek inspiration. > Are there other family members more closely related and involved in the work > who should have that opportunity and privilege? > > 3. Be extremely careful in extended lines where famous people or Jewish > Holocaust victims are involved. In these areas, think much more strongly > about blood relations, be SURE to follow the 110 year rules, and obtain all > appropriate permissions. You may be asked to document your blood relation. > > > > Let me repeat that the Brethren have declined to define their instruction > beyond the concept that we must be related to those whom we submit. The > statements I have made above are given with the knowledge and agreement of > the FamilySearch leadership, but ANY "clarification" of the Prophet's > statement in the recent letter is a personal opinion-including mine. The > vagueness of the statement is to allow for appropriate agency. We should not > be involved in allowing others to remove our responsibility to seek the > guidance of the Spirit, and we should not remove the responsibility of those > whom we counsel in our stewardship. > > > > I hope this is helpful, > > Jill Crandell > > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you. I think it's pretty easy to decide to do the work for a deceased spouse's family if there children from your marriage. You are assisting your mutual children to be sealed to all their ancestors. It is also a great blessing, if you have the skill, and with the permission of your children's spouses, to assist them in researching their family history and performing ordinances. I had a great experience in the temple with my son in law's family who performed endowments and sealings for about 100 family names I researched for them. We all have different skills...if we've learned how to do research and use NFS, we have skills many others lack and would be grateful for our help. I never hesitate to offer my research experience to others. It is satisfying to all involved. I might add that we create a NFS account for these folks and submit the names through their personal accounts so my account isn't overloaded and they can track on their own. Michele In a message dated 5/23/2012 10:48:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: I have been in touch with the leadership of FamilySearch today, and we discussed the current confusion and various interpretations that are being placed on the First Presidency's statement that we must be "related" to the people we submit for temple ordinance work. They stated that the Brethren will not be giving any further clarification on this terminology, because it is up to the members of the Church to seek personal inspiration as to how that statement applies to them. The desire is to preserve the members' agency and personal accountability. As consultants and those who teach the guidelines, we need to be careful not to put our personal interpretation "in force" on others. Having said that, here are some statements to consider: 1. First, we need to obey all of the permission rules for the past 110 years. 2. We can perform ordinances for ourselves and all of our direct line ancestors on our pedigree (including adoptive, sealing, and step pedigrees). 3. We can perform ordinances for the children on all of the family group sheets of the ancestors on those pedigrees, including their spouses so that marriage sealings can be performed. 4. We can perform ordinances for descendants of all of our direct line ancestors, which would include ordinances for descendants of siblings, because they would all be descendants of the next generation back. 5. We can assist our spouses in the work for their families, especially if the spouse is living or previously gave permission for us to continue. Here are some of the "gray areas" to consider and seek personal guidance of the Spirit: 1. As mentioned in #3 above, the spouses of children on our family group sheets become part of our related family because of their marriage to a family member. We can submit them for personal ordinances and the marriage sealing. Where this starts to go into a gray area would be work for the in-law's parents, siblings, and ancestors. Those individuals are not usually considered related, but if the Spirit directs, we can move forward. 2. Work for the family of a deceased spouse where permission was not given before death, is a gray area, but not usually a problem. Seek inspiration. Are there other family members more closely related and involved in the work who should have that opportunity and privilege? 3. Be extremely careful in extended lines where famous people or Jewish Holocaust victims are involved. In these areas, think much more strongly about blood relations, be SURE to follow the 110 year rules, and obtain all appropriate permissions. You may be asked to document your blood relation. Let me repeat that the Brethren have declined to define their instruction beyond the concept that we must be related to those whom we submit. The statements I have made above are given with the knowledge and agreement of the FamilySearch leadership, but ANY "clarification" of the Prophet's statement in the recent letter is a personal opinion-including mine. The vagueness of the statement is to allow for appropriate agency. We should not be involved in allowing others to remove our responsibility to seek the guidance of the Spirit, and we should not remove the responsibility of those whom we counsel in our stewardship. I hope this is helpful, Jill Crandell Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have been in touch with the leadership of FamilySearch today, and we discussed the current confusion and various interpretations that are being placed on the First Presidency's statement that we must be "related" to the people we submit for temple ordinance work. They stated that the Brethren will not be giving any further clarification on this terminology, because it is up to the members of the Church to seek personal inspiration as to how that statement applies to them. The desire is to preserve the members' agency and personal accountability. As consultants and those who teach the guidelines, we need to be careful not to put our personal interpretation "in force" on others. Having said that, here are some statements to consider: 1. First, we need to obey all of the permission rules for the past 110 years. 2. We can perform ordinances for ourselves and all of our direct line ancestors on our pedigree (including adoptive, sealing, and step pedigrees). 3. We can perform ordinances for the children on all of the family group sheets of the ancestors on those pedigrees, including their spouses so that marriage sealings can be performed. 4. We can perform ordinances for descendants of all of our direct line ancestors, which would include ordinances for descendants of siblings, because they would all be descendants of the next generation back. 5. We can assist our spouses in the work for their families, especially if the spouse is living or previously gave permission for us to continue. Here are some of the "gray areas" to consider and seek personal guidance of the Spirit: 1. As mentioned in #3 above, the spouses of children on our family group sheets become part of our related family because of their marriage to a family member. We can submit them for personal ordinances and the marriage sealing. Where this starts to go into a gray area would be work for the in-law's parents, siblings, and ancestors. Those individuals are not usually considered related, but if the Spirit directs, we can move forward. 2. Work for the family of a deceased spouse where permission was not given before death, is a gray area, but not usually a problem. Seek inspiration. Are there other family members more closely related and involved in the work who should have that opportunity and privilege? 3. Be extremely careful in extended lines where famous people or Jewish Holocaust victims are involved. In these areas, think much more strongly about blood relations, be SURE to follow the 110 year rules, and obtain all appropriate permissions. You may be asked to document your blood relation. Let me repeat that the Brethren have declined to define their instruction beyond the concept that we must be related to those whom we submit. The statements I have made above are given with the knowledge and agreement of the FamilySearch leadership, but ANY "clarification" of the Prophet's statement in the recent letter is a personal opinion-including mine. The vagueness of the statement is to allow for appropriate agency. We should not be involved in allowing others to remove our responsibility to seek the guidance of the Spirit, and we should not remove the responsibility of those whom we counsel in our stewardship. I hope this is helpful, Jill Crandell

I can see the pumpkin splattering every which way when you hit the first of anything with it. But then we can make pumpkin pie, pumpkin bread, pumpkin soup, and a host of other pumpkin foods for dinner. Knots of any kind are hard to split in wood, making a clean split next to impossible, as they tend to split to one side or another. Karen W David Samuelsen [email protected] via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182> rootsweb.com 4:43 PM (1 hour ago) to lds-ward-consu. if you google "hemlock knots" , you will find a lot of sites mention this observation. hemlock knots are very hard wood, like a burl corn dodger is corn cob try this concept in your mind.... use pumpkin as sledgehammer, using corn cob as a wedge in hardened knot wood. -- Finding ancestors is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one!

if you google "hemlock knots" , you will find a lot of sites mention this observation. hemlock knots are very hard wood, like a burl corn dodger is corn cob try this concept in your mind.... use pumpkin as sledgehammer, using corn cob as a wedge in hardened knot wood. David Samuelsen On 5/23/2012 2:46 PM, Debbie Bailey Conger wrote: >> Yet, in his anxiety the Prophet once observed, "but there has been a great >> difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has >> been like splitting hemlock knots with a corndodger for a wedge, and a >> pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand" (Teachings, >> p. 331). >> >> I really do not know about hemlock knots, corndodgers, and the pumpkin for a >> beetle but I can imagine it.