Mary Ann, I found some of what you found but you found more and the more is exactly what I need!! I will contact St Matthew's by snail mail tomorrow. Fingers crossed that they have the marriage records and that it lists the town in Germany my second great grandparents were from!! Thanks again, Gail ~ Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen ~ On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, <mmooney17@nyc.rr.com> wrote: > Hi Gail, I googled "CFE Stohlman minister and got: > > http://thehistorybox.com/ny_city/nycity_worship_lutheran_ > church_brief__history_article00575.htm > > When St. Matthew's Church was sold in 1826, as before stated, it was > purchased by an individual, who sold it in a few days after to the German > congregation of the "Swamp Church." Having thus two houses of worship, an > attempt was made to form as English Lutheran congregation in St. Matthew's > Church, while preaching in the German language was continued in the Swamp > Church; and to effect this, the Rev. F.W. Geissenhainer, Jr., was called to > officiate in the English language in St. Matthew's Church his father > remaining with the German congregation in the "Swamp Church." But the > experiment did not succeed well, and after about four years the Swamp > Church was sold, as before stated, and the German congregation removed to > St. Matthew's Church, the service being conducted interchangeably in German > and English. This arrangement continued a few years, when, the English > congregation dwindling away, the service in German was introduced entire. > On the death of Dr. Geissenhainer, in 1838, the Rev. C.F.E. Stohlman was > elected as his successor, to officiate in the German language, and has > continued to labor with increasing success to the present day. > > In 1842, Mr. Geissenhainer, Jr., resigned his charge in St. Matthew's > Church, and commenced a new enterprise in the Sixth Avenue. A house of > worship was erected at the corner of Fifteenth street, and a congregation > gathered there. It is styled "The Evangelical Lutheran Church." > > There are some more detailed paragraphs in this interesting internet site. > It is an old write-up and you will find more useable information from this > site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_ > of_St._Matthew_(New_York_City) {I googled St. Mathew's Church, New York > City} > > The Evangelical Lutheran Church of St. Matthew is the oldest Lutheran > congregation in North America. The congregation is a member of the Lutheran > Church–Missouri Synod. Since 2006, the congregation has been located at the > Cornerstone Center, 178 Bennett Avenue in Manhattan, New York City. The > congregation has been known by different names, only acquiring the name St. > Matthew in 1822 and using it exclusively since 1838.[ > > Gail, you can contact the current church, and if that does not get what > you want, then contact the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod directly. I > vaguely remember contacting them years and they were very helpful. Those > are truly historic old records and their Church archivist/historian will > know where they are. > Good luck, Mary Ann > > > ---- Gail Jorgensen <gailjmom@gmail.com> wrote: > > Through a New York City record I found the marriage of my second great > grandparents in 1863 in New York City performed by Rev CFE Stohlman. > > I looked on Ancestry and it does not look like church records for this > area and time period appear to be one of their holdings. > > I know how to search and find Catholic records in New York City for > marriages but have no idea how to find these German Lutheran church > records. Does anyone here have any idea about who to contact? > > Thanks and advance, > > Gail Jorgensen > > > > > > ~ Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen ~ > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NYBROOKLYN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

A General Synod minister, the Rev. C. F. E. Stohlman, of St. Matthew's Church in New York City Bob, -----Original Message----- From: Gail Jorgensen <> To: nyc-roots <nyc-roots@rootsweb.com>; nybrooklyn <nybrooklyn@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, Sep 20, 2017 4:00 pm Subject: [NYC-ROOTS] Marriages in Manhattan and Rev. C F E Stohlman Through a New York City record I found the marriage of my second great grandparents in 1863 in New York City performed by Rev CFE Stohlman. I looked on Ancestry and it does not look like church records for this area and time period appear to be one of their holdings. I know how to search and find Catholic records in New York City for marriages but have no idea how to find these German Lutheran church records. Does anyone here have any idea about who to contact? Thanks and advance, Gail Jorgensen ~ Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen ~ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYC-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Bob.....now that I have the name of the church (I was only able to find that he was with The Evangelical Lutheran Church), does anyone know where the records for this time frame and parish would be located? I have been searching but so far no luck. I wrote to archives@elca.org, which is an email address for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to see what they would say and I am waiting for a reply. I would not think that I am the first to seek out Lutheran records. There are some (multiple) church films available through familysearch but none that hit the nail on the head so I think I may have to go to my local FHC and read through (one by one) any that fit the year I am searching, 1863. Gail ~ Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen ~ On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Robert Pieterse <rdpiet@aol.com> wrote: > A General Synod minister, the *Rev. C. F. E. Stohlman*, of St. Matthew's > Church in *New York* City > > Bob, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gail Jorgensen <> > To: nyc-roots <nyc-roots@rootsweb.com>; nybrooklyn < > nybrooklyn@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wed, Sep 20, 2017 4:00 pm > Subject: [NYC-ROOTS] Marriages in Manhattan and Rev. C F E Stohlman > > Through a New York City record I found the marriage of my second great > grandparents in 1863 in New York City performed by Rev CFE Stohlman. > I looked on Ancestry and it does not look like church records for this > area and time period appear to be one of their holdings. > I know how to search and find Catholic records in New York City for > marriages but have no idea how to find these German Lutheran church > records. Does anyone here have any idea about who to contact? > Thanks and advance, > Gail Jorgensen > > > ~ Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen ~ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYC-ROOTS- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

Through a New York City record I found the marriage of my second great grandparents in 1863 in New York City performed by Rev CFE Stohlman. I looked on Ancestry and it does not look like church records for this area and time period appear to be one of their holdings. I know how to search and find Catholic records in New York City for marriages but have no idea how to find these German Lutheran church records. Does anyone here have any idea about who to contact? Thanks and advance, Gail Jorgensen ~ Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen ~

Only the 5th floor of ARPERCEN on Page Blvd. caught fire. That is the floor that digested WW2 personnel files. From what I was told they just bulldozed the whole floor into waiting dumpsters. However if a person knows of a veteran who served in the military during these periods there is the second basement under the old building and the only way to get to them is with a veteran's name so if the original file was lost the link went with it yet they have similar copies in many unexpected places. Government ease is a whole new language Dan Quoting metronycancestry@aol.com: > Someone distorted this post by saying th building was burnt to the ground. > Which is not true. Some records were destroyed in a fire > and some were reconstructed. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John <john-nospam@austin.rr.com> > > At 02:00 AM 3/17/2017, you wrote: >> I may be wrong, but I have a fuzzy recollection of St. Louis holding >> medical records for those who served in WWII. > > All records on military personnel serving from WWI and later have > been sent to the National Personnel Records Center in St Louis. > (Earlier records are held in the National Archives in Washington DC). See: > > https://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel > > Note the link on that page about the Fire of 1973, which destroyed > 80% of the records for Army soldiers discharged from 1912 through 1960. > > Regards, > John Clavin > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NYC-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

http://castlegarden.org/searcher.php -----Original Message----- From: Amre <oceanico@optonline.net> THANK YOU for the very interesting synopsis of Castle Garden! ALL 16 of my g-g-grandparents immigrated during the years of Castle Garden. Have NOT been able to successfully find records of them....so, how does one access the Castle Garden records?

Churches are listed in the front section of NYC Directories, by denomination. NYPL offers free access to them. > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:49:53 -0700 > From: Quenci Scott<quenci@sbcglobal.net> > > > I am looking for a marriage record for my g-g-g grandparents Allen C. > Reynolds and Harriet A. Baisley/Bazeley. Married in NYC Jan 1810 Does > anyone have a count as to how many churches there were in NYC at that > time? And were marriage license required at that time or if a couple > were married in the church would the minister or priest recording that > they officiated the marriage be considered a legal document for the > marriage or would a license be required by the state? > > The couple had six children four survived to be adults. All six most > likely would have been christened. Not certain of their religion, but > going with Episcopalian > > And were weddings announced in the newspaper in the 1800's as many of > them are today? > > Any help would be appreciated. > > L.Scott > > quenci@sbcglobal.net

Someone distorted this post by saying th building was burnt to the ground. Which is not true. Some records were destroyed in a fire and some were reconstructed. -----Original Message----- From: John <john-nospam@austin.rr.com> At 02:00 AM 3/17/2017, you wrote: >I may be wrong, but I have a fuzzy recollection of St. Louis holding >medical records for those who served in WWII. All records on military personnel serving from WWI and later have been sent to the National Personnel Records Center in St Louis. (Earlier records are held in the National Archives in Washington DC). See: https://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel Note the link on that page about the Fire of 1973, which destroyed 80% of the records for Army soldiers discharged from 1912 through 1960. Regards, John Clavin

A NYC Marriage License was effective for 90 days. If the marriage ceremony did occur, and the officiant did report it, it should be noted on the license. Some Catholic parishes refused to comply as they viewed nuptials as saramental, not civic records. Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 00:07:06 +0000 From: Bill Mayrose <wmayrose@hotmail.com Patrick Mundy and Nora Sullivan obtained Manhattan marriage license #542 on Jan 8, 1934. I cannot find their marriage certificate in the IGG or GGG databases. I am confident that they followed through with the marriage. Is it possible that the certificate was not filed with the city? Also, can I obtain a copy of the marriage license from the Municipal Archives or City Clerk? Thanks. Bill

Would sks please look up in the 1940 census for a Margaret Ruth Connolly who was living in Brooklyn, NY .she had a baby girl in 1938 or 1939 in Brooklyn. her baby's name was Pearl Irene Emerick. I've been searching for them for sometime now with know luck. She had the baby out of wedlock.  the father's name was Charles Emerick. I did find him in the census with his children in 1940 Brooklyn . ( Peggy, Jack, Robert) Margaret had a sister also named Pearl Connolly born in 1916. I also have not found her. Margaret and her sister were supposed to have been born in Canada. I found their parents in 1940 census living in Brooklyn. Henry or Harry and Eva Connolly. I would very much like to find    Margaret & her baby & Margaret sister Pearl. Thank youpat 

A Family History Center is owned and operated by the LDS church.  An affiliate library can be any library that requests being an affiliate and is approved.  My local public library is an affiliate and it has been so convenient to request and read microfilm right where I live.  I have been very grateful to the Family History Library for this.Virginia From: Jackie Brown <celticsearch@comcast.net>   What is the difference between Family history center and family search affiliate library?

Yikes, that's a little harsh. I was extrapolating a little, but FamilySearch is explicit about contractual agreements with record holders being responsible for at least some of their viewing restrictions and it's not hard to imagine how those contracts could affect access in different ways. I don't know if they will ever give us a list of what is restricted in what ways, but we do have a pretty good idea of *why* there are viewing restrictions. Kathleen On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:41 PM, <metronycancestry@aol.com> wrote: > More conjecturing. You know the simplified definition of "assume?" > > More gobbledy gook. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathleen Scarlett O'Hara Naylor <kathleen.scarlett.ohara@gmail.com> > > Robert, my understanding is that it has to do with the licensing agreements > originally set up with the organization or municipality who allowed the FHL > to film their records in the first place. In recent years, the FHL has > tried to license the images they create to be used online whenever > possible, but not all institutions will allow it. For records that were > filmed a long time ago, before anyone was thinking of digitization and > online access, the licensing agreement may specify (making up words here) > "We authorize the FHL to create images to be available to the public on > microfilm in Family History Centers nationwide." Those agreements will have > to be completely renegotiated to allow digital access. But there might be > others (perhaps the NYC records) that state, "We authorize the FHL to > create images to be available to the public in Family History Centers > nationwide," where a slight difference in wording means it can be read to > allow access in a variety of formats INSIDE an FHC, but does not go so far > as to allow access outside of one (i.e. online from home). Other agreements > might be less specifically worded so that renegotiation isn't necessary at > all to allow online access. > > I believe they want to allow at-home access to as many records as possible, > but would imagine they're focusing their efforts on the ones that aren't > digitally accessible at all, while making as many records as possible > available in whatever format they can, which may mean on-site only access, > whether for now or forever. Like Gail said, it's a new situation and > hopefully the trend will be towards more access as the FHL gets their ducks > in a row. > > Kathleen > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Gail Jorgensen <gailjmom@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Robert the records are online but some are restricted so that the access > > is only when you're online inside the family history center. I'm guessing > > nobody knows the why yet because this just happened. These online records > > which are online only at the family history center, are greater access > then > > we had a week ago so let's enjoy the transition and wait and see what > > happens > >

What is the difference between Family history center and family search affiliate library? Sent from my iPad

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Family Mystery From: ssd6@aol.com Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017, 1:23 PM To: ROOTS@rootsweb.com CC: To clarify: 1.  The 1939 record information is new to me.  I do not think it is the person I am looking for but I will order the certificate to rule it out.  Thanks Pat & Bill! 2.  My original request was sent to NYC Office of Vital Records and not the Archives as I had previously posted.  My faux pas! They researched the records for the years 1952 - 1959 and did not find a record. 3.  Although my gut feeling (and family stories) would indicate that Anthony died in NYC, I will now expand my search. Thanks to those of you with helpful comments. Sandy Dunleavy

More conjecturing. You know the simplified definition of "assume?" More gobbledy gook. -----Original Message----- From: Kathleen Scarlett O'Hara Naylor <kathleen.scarlett.ohara@gmail.com> Robert, my understanding is that it has to do with the licensing agreements originally set up with the organization or municipality who allowed the FHL to film their records in the first place. In recent years, the FHL has tried to license the images they create to be used online whenever possible, but not all institutions will allow it. For records that were filmed a long time ago, before anyone was thinking of digitization and online access, the licensing agreement may specify (making up words here) "We authorize the FHL to create images to be available to the public on microfilm in Family History Centers nationwide." Those agreements will have to be completely renegotiated to allow digital access. But there might be others (perhaps the NYC records) that state, "We authorize the FHL to create images to be available to the public in Family History Centers nationwide," where a slight difference in wording means it can be read to allow access in a variety of formats INSIDE an FHC, but does not go so far as to allow access outside of one (i.e. online from home). Other agreements might be less specifically worded so that renegotiation isn't necessary at all to allow online access. I believe they want to allow at-home access to as many records as possible, but would imagine they're focusing their efforts on the ones that aren't digitally accessible at all, while making as many records as possible available in whatever format they can, which may mean on-site only access, whether for now or forever. Like Gail said, it's a new situation and hopefully the trend will be towards more access as the FHL gets their ducks in a row. Kathleen On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Gail Jorgensen <gailjmom@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert the records are online but some are restricted so that the access > is only when you're online inside the family history center. I'm guessing > nobody knows the why yet because this just happened. These online records > which are online only at the family history center, are greater access then > we had a week ago so let's enjoy the transition and wait and see what > happens

Bob's right. Details not provided and assumptions don't answer the question. BUT the posts by Gail are not useless, she's stating what she experienced. It hardly explains which ones and why. Some records are limited to viewing only in a family history center From: Gail Jorgensen <gailjmom@gmail.com> Bob, I understand some of these recent posts are useless to you but there are those of us who do not mind taking some bits of information provided by others and then researching the rest on our own. If what somebody else posts is not complete information and I want more - then I have something to then further investigate on my own and then share that information with the group. It is not the groups purpose to hand feed everybody. You have been helpful to me in the past so I don't understand why you feel you need to shoot down these recent posts. Gail Sent from my AT&T iPhone. ~ Gail ~ > On Sep 10, 2017, at 12:22, Robert Pieterse <rdpiet@aol.com> wrote: > > > Quite an informative post. > > It hardly explains which ones and why > > Quote > > * Some records are limited to viewing only in a family history center

l) NYC DOH has DCs post 1948. 2) The NY State DC index is accessible online up to about 1964. This excludes NY City. 3) You can write to the Town of Orangetown NY for the DC in 1939. Best idea yet. ==================================================== From: Dora Smith <villandra@gmail.com> Not quite getting it. 1, Ancestry found that Anthony Dunleavy died in 1939. [RANSCRIPTION ERROR?] 2) . Archives don't have death certificates after 1948. So? Anthony Dunleavy died in 1939. 3. Your solution; ask NYC municipal archives to look for a death certificate from 1953 to 1958 and you're questioning why they found nothing? ?????!!!!!!!!! Yours, Dora metronycancestry@aol.com The Archives doesn't have death certificates after 1948. Going on that information, I requested a search at NYC municipal archives for a death certificate for 1953-1958. They came up with nothing. ================================= From: pcordes3 <pcordes3@gmail.com> Ancestry has a record in the New York, Death Index, 1880-1956 for an Anthony Dunleavy in Orangetown. It appears to be near Suffern.... Name: Anthony Dunleavy Death Date: 5 Aug 1939 Death Place: Orangetown, New York, USA Certificate Number: 54781 ====================================== On Behalf Of Sandra Dunleavy: My husband's grandfather, Anthony Jerome Dunleavy (b. 1884 in England) is the black sheep of the family. He left his wife and six children in 1927 in Scranton, PA. My husband's father never spoke of him. The last time he appears in the Scranton city directories is 1927. I have not been able to locate him in the 1930 or 1940 census. Family stories say he worked as a bellman at a hotel in NYC. I have never been able to confirm that. I do have his SSI application from 1937 which has his address in Suffern, N.Y. He listed his employer as Rockland Electric. I have communicated with descendants of one of his brothers over the years. They said that it was not unusual for Anthony to leave the family for periods of time and end up in NYC. The brothers would go to NYC, find him and bring him home to Scranton. The brother's theory is that Anthony died homeless in NYC. Anthony's name appears in one of his brother's obits in 1953 and states he lived in NJ. His name does not appear in another brother's obit in 1958. Going on that information, I requested a search at NYC municipal archives for a death certificate for 1953-1958. They came up with nothing. So my question is: where do I go from here? Am I missing something? Should I assume that he did indeed die homeless and there are no records? Any suggestions would be welcomed. Sandy Dunleavy

The bottom line is that a huge influx of film requests fouled up the LDS system. Finally they extended the deadline by one week to Sept 7th.

I just went online and easily could tell if a record I wanted to view necessitated me going to a FHC or familysearch affiliate library. I will explain to the best of my ability below but I must briefly say that no matter if this new process is easy or requires a little exploring, we should be celebrating this and figure out a way to make it work instead of complaining that things are not on golden platter. The Familysearch folks are making things more open and we should get online to see how it will work for each of us and stop whining! Off my soapbox!! Go to the catalog at Familysearch.org and go through the steps to find the film that contains documents that you want to see (as we had to do in the past to order films). Open the links until you see the film numbers and names. If you see a camera icon at the end of the name of the film, that indicates items that are digitally available. Click on the name of the film and if a popup appears saying the following, Images Available To view these images you must do one of the following: Access the site at a family history center. Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library then they are not available from the traditional way viewing from home has allowed. If the records are available online from home, once you click on the name of the film, there is a statement saying that they can be viewed online and if you click the link it will take you to them FamilySearch has listed the reasons for this: Reasons why microfilms may not yet be available digitally on FamilySearch.org include: The microfilm may be scheduled for future scanning. The microfilm may have been scanned, but have a contractual, data privacy, or other restriction preventing access. FamilySearch makes every effort to enable access dependent on decisions of record custodians and applicable laws.you go to the catalog at Familysearch.org and find the film that contains documents that you want to see. ​Remember that this is not a complete and detailed list of how to navigate the familysearch site, this is answering how to see if the film can be viewed at home or in ​a family history center ​ or​ FamilySearch affiliate library ​. Gail​ On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:38 PM, <metronycancestry@aol.com> wrote: > Bob's right. Details not provided and assumptions don't answer the > question. BUT the posts by Gail are not useless, she's stating what she > experienced. > > > > > It hardly explains which ones and why. Some records are limited to > viewing only in a family history center > > > > From: Gail Jorgensen <gailjmom@gmail.com> > > Bob, I understand some of these recent posts are useless to you but there > are those of us who do not mind taking some bits of information provided by > others and then researching the rest on our own. > If what somebody else posts is not complete information and I want more - > then I have something to then further investigate on my own and then share > that information with the group. > It is not the groups purpose to hand feed everybody. > You have been helpful to me in the past so I don't understand why you feel > you need to shoot down these recent posts. > Gail > > Sent from my AT&T iPhone. > ~ Gail ~ > > > On Sep 10, 2017, at 12:22, Robert Pieterse <rdpiet@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > Quite an informative post. > > > > It hardly explains which ones and why > > > > Quote > > > > * Some records are limited to viewing only in a family history center > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NYC-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Robert, my understanding is that it has to do with the licensing agreements originally set up with the organization or municipality who allowed the FHL to film their records in the first place. In recent years, the FHL has tried to license the images they create to be used online whenever possible, but not all institutions will allow it. For records that were filmed a long time ago, before anyone was thinking of digitization and online access, the licensing agreement may specify (making up words here) "We authorize the FHL to create images to be available to the public on microfilm in Family History Centers nationwide." Those agreements will have to be completely renegotiated to allow digital access. But there might be others (perhaps the NYC records) that state, "We authorize the FHL to create images to be available to the public in Family History Centers nationwide," where a slight difference in wording means it can be read to allow access in a variety of formats INSIDE an FHC, but does not go so far as to allow access outside of one (i.e. online from home). Other agreements might be less specifically worded so that renegotiation isn't necessary at all to allow online access. I believe they want to allow at-home access to as many records as possible, but would imagine they're focusing their efforts on the ones that aren't digitally accessible at all, while making as many records as possible available in whatever format they can, which may mean on-site only access, whether for now or forever. Like Gail said, it's a new situation and hopefully the trend will be towards more access as the FHL gets their ducks in a row. Kathleen On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Gail Jorgensen <gailjmom@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert the records are online but some are restricted so that the access > is only when you're online inside the family history center. I'm guessing > nobody knows the why yet because this just happened. These online records > which are online only at the family history center, are greater access then > we had a week ago so let's enjoy the transition and wait and see what > happens > > Sent from my AT&T iPhone. > ~ Gail ~ > > > On Sep 8, 2017, at 18:36, Robert Pieterse <rdpiet@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > No one has answered the question > > > > > > If the records are digitized why are they not available by > LDS via the internet > > > > Do you really think a center would get digitized records from > SLC and they are not available > > > > on line. . I hardly think so > > >