Hi everyone, I'm doing some clip and snip in the following thread, but there are some very important things for us to become aware of in our constantly changing environment. Please look for the bracket [ ] comments. Our worlds change and sometime change is driven by the inconsiderate. Then we have to have a second over the pulpit re-emphasis of the 1995 policy. David - San Diego District ---- Betty Jo and Don Colbert <[email protected]> wrote: I think you are getting the backlash of others that have not done the work as thoroughly as you have. They have had some horrendous problems . . . with people doing the work for others not related, . . . [ So, true. This is why this sentence has been added to the form letter original response: "What is your relationship to . . . " I only found out about it this morning while talking with a FamSrch Missionary about a recent case I started. It is not being published very well, but they are starting to look for the relationship as a policy compliance issue.] ----- Original Message ----- To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Fwd: Reference: ordinances (CaseID:2628538) . . . this was the FIRST time I've been asked for such detail when . . . Overkill. [Or, reaction to those who feel the rules do not apply to them?] In a message dated 6/1/2012 10:04:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: They gave examples . . .form of proof, [ The hazard of a form response to an individual question. The missionaries do what they can with the tools provided, but occasionally the tool is a chainsaw and a scalpel is needed.] ----- Original Message ----- To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 1, 2012 7:20:52 PM Subject: [LDS-WC] Fwd: Reference: ordinances (CaseID:2628538) Have you folks run into this sort of buzz saw of demands? (See below) I wrote Family Search asking them to remove the submitter "Family Search" from a name I submitted in 2007 for the sealing to parents ordinance (baptism and endowment were complete) and that had been in limbo since then. This person was born in 1862 and descends from a common ancestor of mine. Isn't it a little bit of overkill to ask for .jpgs of records . . . some of which don't even exist like birth certificates in 1862, or personal knowledge of a close family member (150 years ago?) . . . 90% of church members would walk away from this. I have asked for similar release of names so I could complete temple work and never received this kind of reply. Seems like overkill in the worst, most discouraging way. ____________________ From: [email protected] Sent: 6/1/2012 6:46:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: Reference: ordinances (CaseID:. . . ) Dear Sister , Case . . . Thank you for contacting FamilySearch. We will be happy to help you with your question regarding . . . We signed in as your helper and replicated the problem. We will need to forward your request to another department. They will require additional information. What is your relationship to . . . ? We appreciate your diligence in maintaining accurate family history records. In order to help us further assist you with your request for your ancestor, we ask that you send us official documentation or proof. Examples of documentation that proves your correction are: your personal knowledge, or the knowledge of a close family member who knew the individual, Census records that show the family over time, a birth certificate that shows a child with the correct parents, or any other record that shows the correct relationships between family members. The preferred method for sending documentation is to scan the document and attach it to your reply e-mail. Please save the image as a JPG or GIF file. To ensure it comes directly to us, please be sure to use your e-mail reply function instead of creating a new e-mail, and please include the case number . . . in the subject line. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. We will forward your case as soon as we hear from you. Sincerely, FamilySearch Patron and Partner Services [email protected]