reply to this Jorge Todeschini wrote: > This is very interesting. Once I found a _civil_ birth record, which > detailed the names of parents and grandparents with their origins... But the > newborn was not named! I assume this happened because the boy would only get > a name at baptism -- and he was baptized only a few days later. > > Brother Samuelsen, may I suggest you enter "unnamed child" as a name -- only > to get around the system. not acceptable form. I enter what it says on the record. "unnamed child" imply no sex is known. The record specificially said son or daughter. > > Of course, if my suggestion becomes standard practice, the system may start > suggesting that all the "unnamed children" be merged together. That is why it is not acceptable. David Samuelsen > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "W. David Samuelsen" <dsam52@sampubco.com> > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:10 AM > To: "LDS Ward Consultant" <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> > Subject: [LDS-WC] Rejected un-named children! > >> What I sent to Feedback..... >> >> I am seeing a few rejects because of the program glitch NOT recognizing >> unnamed sons and daughters >> >> "Needs More Information" >> >> Good grief! The only reason they did not get any given name is because >> the families were CATHOLIC. >> >> When a child die BEFORE they get the Catholic baptisms, they do NOT get >> given names, period. >> >> Please fix the glitch so I can seal those "rejected" children in my >> large German Catholic family. >> >> W. David Samuelsen