Thanks to everyone who's responded so far. We certainly have it easier now. I've seen entries in old temple records that say "friend" for relationship as someone else mentioned, and thought that that was odd. So would someone in SLC have been checking these against the Temple Index Bureau to get them approved? Thanks, Paula On May 6, 2009, at 8:16 PM, W. David Samuelsen wrote: > Procedures changed in 1969 then again in 1974. > > I remembered more of 1974 procedures... > > 1. Individuals were submitted on the purple sheets, up to 5 per > sheet, 3 > front and 2 back > 2. Race was required to be listed, white, Polynesian, black > 3. Wait 2 to 5 months for approval > > Eventually the process got perfected toward 1988 with waiting time > reduced from 2 months to mere 2 weeks for family files. > > David Samuelsen > > Stephen J. Kelsey wrote: >> 1)There was a period where ward genealogical reps did review >> submissions. >> 2)Most of my early work was submitted on family group sheets. Work >> was >> Done as a family and the sealings were done using the family group >> sheet >> And rather than seal one child to parents at a time, numerous >> children >> Were sealed at once if there were enough people to do it. Usually >> for >> A family sealing session, I spent a lot of time planning who was >> going >> To be proxy for each individual and seeing that there were enough >> people. >> 3)Very early on when the FHL was in the basement of the building >> that was >> Where the Relief Society Building is now, patrons were not allowed >> behind >> The counter and the worker had to get everything for them and they >> had to >> Sign it out==one thing at a time. Later they moved to a building >> on Main >> Street where Montgomery Wards used to be==I spent many hours >> searching films >> In the basement there. >> 4) Later the library was housed in the west wing of the church office >> building >> England was still in the basement as it is now in the FHL. >> 5) I still have some very early sheets which were submitted for >> temple work >> In the early 1900's===quite different. I have some problems there >> as many >> times the relationship was shown as friend. >> >> Steve Kelsey > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

Paula Goodfellow wrote: > Thanks to everyone who's responded so far. We certainly have it easier > now. > > I've seen entries in old temple records that say "friend" for > relationship as someone else mentioned, and thought that that was odd. > > So would someone in SLC have been checking these against the Temple > Index Bureau to get them approved? Thanks, Paula that was the procedure until 1988. Then things went wild when a lot sent in for ordinances direct to Temples, resulting in large scale duplications. The entire TIB is converted and is in nFS now. David Samuelsen