My husband & I did sealings last night at the Portland Temple, and there were some strange names, possibly done through extraction. There were several who just had a last name of "O" or another letter, although the first and/or middle names were there. The officiator didn't explain it, but perhaps the name was ilegible in the records. Another one, the officiator spelled out the first & middle name, then said the last name. He explained that the first name had several dots preceding it, with the rest spelled out as "fred." The middle name was spelled "Chas." He explained that because of the dots, the name might not have been complete, and "Chas" could have stood for Charles, or something else. So they were told to spell out the names in cases like this. Of course, nothing tops sealing a daughter, "Killer" to her parents "Crowman & Blackeyes." Born in the 1880's in Montana, apparent Native Americans. All in all, it was an interesting night. Alice Allen Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant Vancouver WA Stake Portland OR Temple District *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 6/10/2009 at 7:52 AM nascott@cinci.rr.com wrote: >David, > >I am curious where you received the Rule #4 from as you don't list any >source. > >What exactly does it mean that the name is not valid? Does that mean that >one cannot perform temple ordinances for the individual? > >If this is a directive from NFS, they should update their User Guide and >give a new rule of how one submits a married woman's name if you do not >know >the given name and maiden name are not known OR state that they are not >allowing us to enter the data in this format. > >I feel that taking away the possibility for women to have their ordinance >work done with Mrs. is unfair. In the past, a woman was so dependent on >her >husband for her identity that there are many instances where one can find >data on the husband to have work done but not the wife. If one uses common >sense and links this individual to another person who does have sufficient >data, then you can have enough information to make the wife unique. > >One of my biggest gripes about junk data is the church extraction programs. >They list a couple with the marriage date and place but no other >information >when you know that they have it on microfilm somewhere. The other >extraction problem is that they will just list the individual's name and it >comes up as a possible match but there is not date and no date can be found >at FamilySearch.org or on the IIGI. I have complained about this that it >is >a waste of bytes and User time but they have just said that the projects >vary in what data they record. I have found for almost every extraction >entry that I come across that it is incomplete. > >Nancy Scott >Cincinnati, Ohio > >