By virtue of the way PAF is configured, any time an individual has children listed, the person has to have a "spouse." If the spouse is not known and listed by name, PAF inserts the spouse as Unknown, but does not assign a RIN number to that unknown person. The only way to deal with this situation is to open the Marriage screen and, instead of entering a marriage date, enter the words "Never Married." PAF will accept this. It will tell you that you have entered a non-standard date, but will accept and record it when you save. To show that the woman did not have these children illegitimately, you can handle the parent relationship as showing the children as adopted. Adding notes to the marriage screen and the mother's individual screen should help explain the situation. From the standpoint of answering the Genealogy definitions listed below, it does nothing to clarify #s 1 & 2. These deal with the biological aspects, which it appears in you situation to not be know. But, in regards to # 3, the family history, it should fully explain how these children fit into the family. Dick Cazier Lakewood, Colorado USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Whitcomb" <alan.whitcomb@gmail.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > On 5/28/05, ETM <etm1935@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids >> back to the foundling home that got rid of them, >> but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she >> isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, >> didn't personally have these illegitimate >> children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN >> husband tag is an annoyance. >> > > So if I understand you correctly, your real problem the inability to > remove > UNKNOWN from the husband tag? I am almost 100% sure we all have UNKNOWN > family. I know that your niece´s choices in life may have caused you > heartache, and being a single mother is not an easy life choice. > > > Genealogy is by definition: > > > 1. A record or table of the descent of a person, family, or group from > an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree. > 2. Direct descent from an ancestor; lineage or pedigree. > 3. The study or investigation of ancestry and family histories. > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: > Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ > >

Elaine, Personally, I think you have it exactly right. Researching a bloodline seems to me to be pretty much for the purposes of "proving" a blood kinship, not necessarily a family relationship. We are documenting families. I've come across a few adopted ancestors in my own family. I was not adopted but was raised by foster parents. I will trace my biological line, although I can only be certain of the biological connection for a generation or two. Beyond that who really knows if ancestors are biological or adopted? But I will also trace my foster family, partly because that is the family that was really family to me, and partly because no one else has shown any interest in doing so. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > Adoptions are frequent in my family. I am not > researching a bloodline, I am documenting a > family. My niece's two sons are members of my > family. They are the children of a single parent > and that's precisely the way I want to enter it in > a genealogy program. She doesn't have an > "unknown" husband. She never had a husband. She > may or may not ever have a husband, if she does, I > will enter him in the program. She is a single > parent who applied, qualified under the rules, and > adopted two children. Is that so difficult for a > program to handle? > > Elaine > > If the police arrest a mime, do they tell > him he has the right to remain silent? > > Hello Alan > > On Saturday, May 28, 2005, you wrote > >> On 5/28/05, ETM <etm1935@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids >>> back to the foundling home that got rid of them, >>> but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she >>> isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, >>> didn't personally have these illegitimate >>> children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN >>> husband tag is an annoyance. >>> > >> So if I understand you correctly, your real >> problem the inability to remove >> UNKNOWN from the husband tag? I am almost >> 100% sure we all have UNKNOWN >> family. I know that your niece´s choices in >> life may have caused you >> heartache, and being a single mother is not an easy life choice. > > >> Genealogy is by definition: > > >> 1. A record or table of the descent of a >> person, family, or group from >> an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree. >> 2. Direct descent from an ancestor; lineage or pedigree. >> 3. The study or investigation of ancestry and family histories. > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > FreeBMD - Free Access to England and Wales Civil Registration Index > Volunteer as a Transcriber Today! > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > >

Oh, I like these suggestions much better than mine! Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Lazarus" <harryl325@sport.rr.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > Elaine. Most users are far beyond me with my straight line of about 300 > names going back to France in 1875. Ancestors came to Quebec about 1640. I > enjoy and learn from the list. How about fooling the computer for your > niece. The husband could be "I. A. Dopted." OR : Sing EL Parant" > Harry > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> > To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:58 PM > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > > >> Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids >> back to the foundling home that got rid of them, >> but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she >> isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, >> didn't personally have these illegitimate >> children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN >> husband tag is an annoyance. >> >> I am doing a "family" tree, so adoptions are in it >> big-time. I am not doing a biological *only* >> blood line hand-me-down some money or title >> inheritance tree <smile>. >> >> Linda, I did not take offense. I have NO idea how >> or if I can forcibly get rid of "unknown" when >> there are adoptions by a single parent, male or >> female. But it would be nicer than that ugly >> condemning finger that seems to point out that >> something is wrong or missing (and I suppose it is >> for the LDS). I guess I primarily think that >> precisely because I am not preparing a biological >> bloodline database. So I am frustrated and tagged >> on to this thread for that reason. >> >> Of course, as I said, she cold give the foundlings >> back and see if a traditional family picks them up >> and then I wouldn't have this problem. Ah, now, I >> am getting bitter with my frustration over the >> issue. I'll look around to see if any other >> programs accommodate these new modern parental >> associations. >> >> Elaine >> >> Research: What I'm doing, when I don't know >> what I'm doing. >> >> Hello Linda >> >> On Friday, May 27, 2005, you wrote >> >> > Elaine, >> >> > I regret that my remarks may have in some way >> > offended you. That was not my >> > intent. PAF is an excellent program, >> > although other programs have some >> > features that I wish were also incorporated >> > in PAF. There is no reason for >> > you to change your use of a genealogy program >> > simply because you are not >> > LDS. The program can be used equally well by >> > both members and non-members. >> >> > Stewart Millar in another post has some >> > excellent suggestions for dealing >> > with non-traditional genealogical issues. >> >> > Linda >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> >> > To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:45 PM >> > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay >> > marriages in PAF--LDS content >> >> >> >>I am not LDS but have always enjoyed using the >> >> program. So the question wasn't totally >> >> unreasonable since I feel certain there are many >> >> here like me and that I am not the only unchurched >> >> member on board this mailing list. >> >> >> >> I use other programs as well, but have always used >> >> PAF as my main program, perhaps I should make some >> >> adjustments. >> >> >> >> Elaine >> >> >> >> >> >> ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >> RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: >> Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time >> http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ >> > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > Having trouble with the software? Check PAF 5.x Information > http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uinfo.php > >

Elaine, I think your case is one of those extreme exceptions, perfectly legitimate but not fitting any pre-existing template. How about creating a person for the father figure, named "Not Yet Known" or some variation? The program does not care what is put in as a name. And for all we know, either in this life or the next, your niece may find an eternal companion who will be a father to her children. So his name is "not yet known", rather than the pointing finger "Unknown". Unfortunately, the term 'unknown' was probably used only to indicate that the program did not yet have the information on the person's identity, but because there are so many real life situations where the biological fathers are not known, it comes across in a more negative manner. Best wishes to your niece who has opened her heart and home to these children. Even with 2 parents it's not easy to take on the challenges often attendant with adoptions. (All 3 of my kids are adopted.) She will surely be blessed. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> To: "Linda" <geneamarm@if.rmci.net> Cc: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids > back to the foundling home that got rid of them, > but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she > isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, > didn't personally have these illegitimate > children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN > husband tag is an annoyance. > > I am doing a "family" tree, so adoptions are in it > big-time. I am not doing a biological *only* > blood line hand-me-down some money or title > inheritance tree <smile>. > > Linda, I did not take offense. I have NO idea how > or if I can forcibly get rid of "unknown" when > there are adoptions by a single parent, male or > female. But it would be nicer than that ugly > condemning finger that seems to point out that > something is wrong or missing (and I suppose it is > for the LDS). I guess I primarily think that > precisely because I am not preparing a biological > bloodline database. So I am frustrated and tagged > on to this thread for that reason. > > Of course, as I said, she cold give the foundlings > back and see if a traditional family picks them up > and then I wouldn't have this problem. Ah, now, I > am getting bitter with my frustration over the > issue. I'll look around to see if any other > programs accommodate these new modern parental > associations. > > Elaine > > Research: What I'm doing, when I don't know > what I'm doing. > > Hello Linda > > On Friday, May 27, 2005, you wrote > >> Elaine, > >> I regret that my remarks may have in some way >> offended you. That was not my >> intent. PAF is an excellent program, >> although other programs have some >> features that I wish were also incorporated >> in PAF. There is no reason for >> you to change your use of a genealogy program >> simply because you are not >> LDS. The program can be used equally well by >> both members and non-members. > >> Stewart Millar in another post has some >> excellent suggestions for dealing >> with non-traditional genealogical issues. > >> Linda > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> >> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:45 PM >> Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay >> marriages in PAF--LDS content > > >>>I am not LDS but have always enjoyed using the >>> program. So the question wasn't totally >>> unreasonable since I feel certain there are many >>> here like me and that I am not the only unchurched >>> member on board this mailing list. >>> >>> I use other programs as well, but have always used >>> PAF as my main program, perhaps I should make some >>> adjustments. >>> >>> Elaine >>> > >

Have to agree. I have been chasing details for an ancestor for a couple of years now. I find lots of references stating that he was '...born in Leeds, Main, USA' but none say where the info came from. I have since found a book that states that my ancestor '... came from Leeds...'. As far as I am concerned, 'coming from' and 'being born in' are not necessarily the same. If only people said where they got their information it could be checked for validity. Just my two bob's worth! Rollei (from Australia) Researching: LITTLE, Hibbard, Labies, Harmegnies, Gilbert, Bickford http://www.rolleilittle.com/ please sign my guestbook >From: "Helen W Hamilton" <hwhamilton2@msn.com> >To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [PAF-5] Source information in IGI >Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 17:50:50 -0400 > >Maybe I am using the term "source" loosely. I am not talking about "proof" >that the data is correct. I am just talking about where the data came >from. >When I used the IGI on microfiche I could use the Batch number to look for >other entries having the same number, it helped form a group of family >members. If that looked promising to my research I could send for the >submission form which I found very useful. It used to show the >relationship >of the submitter, and where they got the data. It frequently said personal >knowledge but that was helpful to know. Of course it had to be checked >out. >If it was a marriage or birth register that had been copied by the LDS >members, I could look that number up and find out which parish the data was >from. I call that a lot of helpful clues when you are doing research. >Helen > > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >PAF @ FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service >http://www.familysearch.org/eng/paf/ >

I am typo prone. My ancestors have been traced to 1575 in France (Not 1875) Harry

Elaine. Most users are far beyond me with my straight line of about 300 names going back to France in 1875. Ancestors came to Quebec about 1640. I enjoy and learn from the list. How about fooling the computer for your niece. The husband could be "I. A. Dopted." OR : Sing EL Parant" Harry ----- Original Message ----- From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids > back to the foundling home that got rid of them, > but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she > isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, > didn't personally have these illegitimate > children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN > husband tag is an annoyance. > > I am doing a "family" tree, so adoptions are in it > big-time. I am not doing a biological *only* > blood line hand-me-down some money or title > inheritance tree <smile>. > > Linda, I did not take offense. I have NO idea how > or if I can forcibly get rid of "unknown" when > there are adoptions by a single parent, male or > female. But it would be nicer than that ugly > condemning finger that seems to point out that > something is wrong or missing (and I suppose it is > for the LDS). I guess I primarily think that > precisely because I am not preparing a biological > bloodline database. So I am frustrated and tagged > on to this thread for that reason. > > Of course, as I said, she cold give the foundlings > back and see if a traditional family picks them up > and then I wouldn't have this problem. Ah, now, I > am getting bitter with my frustration over the > issue. I'll look around to see if any other > programs accommodate these new modern parental > associations. > > Elaine > > Research: What I'm doing, when I don't know > what I'm doing. > > Hello Linda > > On Friday, May 27, 2005, you wrote > > > Elaine, > > > I regret that my remarks may have in some way > > offended you. That was not my > > intent. PAF is an excellent program, > > although other programs have some > > features that I wish were also incorporated > > in PAF. There is no reason for > > you to change your use of a genealogy program > > simply because you are not > > LDS. The program can be used equally well by > > both members and non-members. > > > Stewart Millar in another post has some > > excellent suggestions for dealing > > with non-traditional genealogical issues. > > > Linda > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> > > To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:45 PM > > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay > > marriages in PAF--LDS content > > > >>I am not LDS but have always enjoyed using the > >> program. So the question wasn't totally > >> unreasonable since I feel certain there are many > >> here like me and that I am not the only unchurched > >> member on board this mailing list. > >> > >> I use other programs as well, but have always used > >> PAF as my main program, perhaps I should make some > >> adjustments. > >> > >> Elaine > >> > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: > Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ >

Hi there, OK, I think it is time to speak up on the subject. The PAF data format has been around for quite some time and at that time the decision was made to model a marriage record as being between a husband and a wife. While this may not suit the current state of the world in which it is legal in some countries and/or states to have a same gender marriage, it was a valid modeling decision at the time of the creation of the initial PAF data structure. Whether or not the LDS Church is going to change the program to allow same gender marriage is totally up to their discretion. It does not serve any purpose to comment on any theological reasons why the LDS Church would or would not do so. I like to read about what people are doing with the product because I really like the product itself. I am aware that it has some shortcomings and I am currently in the process of addressing those in a product that I have under development. But in the meanwhile please let us move the content of this mailing list back to its charter, discussing the PAF5 product and what we can do with it. Kind regards, Manfred Riem mriem@manorrock.org http://www.manorrock.org/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Beth Perry Johnston [mailto:bpjohnston@charter.net] > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:39 PM > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > > At 06:58 PM 5/27/2005, ETM wrote: > >Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids back to the > foundling > >home that got rid of them, but I think that's a bit harsh. However, > >she isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, didn't > personally > >have these illegitimate children, and the inability to remove that > >UNKNOWN husband tag is an annoyance. > > Elaine, > > FWIW, I have a daughter in a similar situation -- two adopted > children but no marriage. While I agree that UNKNOWN for the > father is irritating, I just ran a check and found "UNKNOWN" > doesn't show up on paper reports. > Although it doesn't solve the basic problem, that's a small > consolation for me. > > Beth > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/ > >

Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids back to the foundling home that got rid of them, but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, didn't personally have these illegitimate children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN husband tag is an annoyance. I am doing a "family" tree, so adoptions are in it big-time. I am not doing a biological *only* blood line hand-me-down some money or title inheritance tree <smile>. Linda, I did not take offense. I have NO idea how or if I can forcibly get rid of "unknown" when there are adoptions by a single parent, male or female. But it would be nicer than that ugly condemning finger that seems to point out that something is wrong or missing (and I suppose it is for the LDS). I guess I primarily think that precisely because I am not preparing a biological bloodline database. So I am frustrated and tagged on to this thread for that reason. Of course, as I said, she cold give the foundlings back and see if a traditional family picks them up and then I wouldn't have this problem. Ah, now, I am getting bitter with my frustration over the issue. I'll look around to see if any other programs accommodate these new modern parental associations. Elaine Research: What I'm doing, when I don't know what I'm doing. Hello Linda On Friday, May 27, 2005, you wrote > Elaine, > I regret that my remarks may have in some way > offended you. That was not my > intent. PAF is an excellent program, > although other programs have some > features that I wish were also incorporated > in PAF. There is no reason for > you to change your use of a genealogy program > simply because you are not > LDS. The program can be used equally well by > both members and non-members. > Stewart Millar in another post has some > excellent suggestions for dealing > with non-traditional genealogical issues. > Linda > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> > To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:45 PM > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay > marriages in PAF--LDS content >>I am not LDS but have always enjoyed using the >> program. So the question wasn't totally >> unreasonable since I feel certain there are many >> here like me and that I am not the only unchurched >> member on board this mailing list. >> >> I use other programs as well, but have always used >> PAF as my main program, perhaps I should make some >> adjustments. >> >> Elaine >>

At 06:58 PM 5/27/2005, ETM wrote: >Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids >back to the foundling home that got rid of them, >but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she >isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, >didn't personally have these illegitimate >children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN >husband tag is an annoyance. Elaine, FWIW, I have a daughter in a similar situation -- two adopted children but no marriage. While I agree that UNKNOWN for the father is irritating, I just ran a check and found "UNKNOWN" doesn't show up on paper reports. Although it doesn't solve the basic problem, that's a small consolation for me. Beth

Stewart, I haven't researched this phenomenon, nor do I know anybody who might "officially" know, but I do have some possible explanations. First of all, as far as I know, with data being submitted on disk, I can't imagine that any person has selectively looked at submissions and altered the place names. It's my understanding that most of the information gets dumped computer to computer and computers aren't going to question these things. One suggestion that occurs to me is that perhaps the field definitions only allow a certain number of spaces. I remember from my days early on with computers and designing a database that there were a finite number of spaces allowed per file, whether they were used as empty spaces or contained information. If I allowed, say, 300 spaces for a file, 50 of which were for a place name (these are random numbers BTW, so don't start doing the math), every file will take up 300 spaces even if 90% of the place names actually took up 15 spaces each. Technology may have made huge strides, I don't know, but back then, you couldn't afford to waste space. We had to juggle around the space allotted to each data field, some such as dates had to be an exact number, the rest we increased or decreased until we found a livable field size. But that did often require routinely truncating some words in order to allow for the more critical. So I'm wondering if the powers that be that handle the IGI and other databases have had to limit the number of characters in some of the fields in order to not waste a lot of empty space, and if the computer now has instructions to truncate according to certain rules. It really probably does not actually change the location--you can still find the place, it has not moved. I understand it might be annoying because that's not how you submitted it, but given the limitations in space it might be the only options available. Again, I don't know, but it seems feasible to me. Your best bet would be to write directly to the Family History Library in Salt Lake, and see if they can get your query to the person who can really answer the question. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Millar" <sm999@tiscali.co.uk> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:37 PM Subject: RE: [PAF-5] Source information in IGI >I realise I can be drummed out for continuing this variation on the above > topic as it does not directly impact on PAF - other than, for LDS members > who do submit data from PAF to the IGI (via submissions for temple work), > > I have registered an enquiry with the family search helpdesk but with no > reply yet after a couple of weeks. > > The problem is this ----- PAF recorded data with full British shire county > names (Oxfordshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire etc.) ---- when > automatically transferred from PAF to TempleReady continue to show the > full > "shire" names on printed cards for the temple --- but when the entries > appear in the IGI, the "shire" suffix has been truncated. > > Perversely, this only occurs in the shire counties that also have a county > town of the same name, creating maximum confusion in the place name as > recorded in the IGI --- for example, does the entry stating "Oxford" refer > to the city of Oxford or the county of Oxfordshire --- similar problems > for > Lincoln/Lincolnshire, Nottingham/Nottinghamshire, Pembroke/Pembrokeshire > etc. This does not happen for shire counties that do not have a similarly > named county town, for example - Hampshire, Wiltshire - which appear in > full > on the IGI. > > I have to say I have only noticed this after 20+ years of using the IGI - > I > used to think of it as merely inattention to detail on the part of mainly > submissions from the US - but this is universal editing on the IGI as far > as > I can see and has happened to my own submissions. > > Anyone got an idea why the IGI has got this apparently so wrong. > > Regards, > > Stewart > > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > FreeBMD - Free Access to England and Wales Civil Registration Index > Volunteer as a Transcriber Today! > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > >

Stewart, You've made some very good suggestions. I'll keep your response handy should I ever need to help a patron accommodate such situations. I again apologize (as I will most likely do for some time to come!) for even responding to the original question. Apparently the only acceptable response, other than no response at all, would have been to give a big cheer in favor of the Church changing the PAF program. I don't know what other response was expected by the initial question. Thanks again for your sensible resolution to the question of how to record alternative family relationships. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Millar" <sm999@tiscali.co.uk> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:14 PM Subject: RE: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > > I am astounded at the controversy generated by this topic - as most of it > completely misses the point - there is no moral code embodied in the use > of > PAF - PAF is a system for recording our genealogical history. > > I have just tried linking spouses of the same sex in Legacy - and that is > also barred - I would imagine it is a very common condition in most > genealogical software. > > Unless I am missing something - I am sure it is the same in the US as > elsewhere in the world - two people of the same sex cannot produce > children. > > > PAF essentially records our biological descendancy - parents that are male > and female whether married or unmarried - there is an "adoptive" option > for > parents that are also designated as male and female. > > There are several adoption scenarios: > > * One of the parents is a biological parent to the children and are > respectively male and female --- in such cases I believe the child can > validly research their adoptive and/or biological line depending where > they > have the greatest filial association. > > * Both of the parents are adoptive and are respectively male and > female - > similarly, the child can follow the biological or adoptive line based on > whichever line there is a close filial association with - or indeed both. > > * If in either of the two scenarios above, both adoptive parents are of > the same sex - and this can only be a most modern and current innovation > practised currently in limited jurisdictions - and the family wish to > record > the two same sex individuals as parents - bearing in mind there will be no > natural children, this is going to be a minute fraction of a percentage of > any body's genealogy and will never appear in most peoples genealogy - the > solution would be to create two separate PAF databases, one for each > adoptive "parent" with appropriate notes to record the process and linkage > between both databases. One of these databases would be designated to > continue the descendancy of the children and the other to continue the > ancestry of one of the designated adoptive parents. And of course, the > ancestry of the biological parents, if required, can continue to be > maintained on the "main" database that carries the descendancy of the > children. > > There is absolutely no link between this functionality in PAF and the > beliefs and practices of the LDS church. > > Of course, this is only my view . . . . . . . . > > Regards, > Stewart > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: > Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ > >

Elaine, I regret that my remarks may have in some way offended you. That was not my intent. PAF is an excellent program, although other programs have some features that I wish were also incorporated in PAF. There is no reason for you to change your use of a genealogy program simply because you are not LDS. The program can be used equally well by both members and non-members. Stewart Millar in another post has some excellent suggestions for dealing with non-traditional genealogical issues. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content >I am not LDS but have always enjoyed using the > program. So the question wasn't totally > unreasonable since I feel certain there are many > here like me and that I am not the only unchurched > member on board this mailing list. > > I use other programs as well, but have always used > PAF as my main program, perhaps I should make some > adjustments. > > Elaine > > Hello Kenneth > > On Friday, May 27, 2005, you wrote > >> Linda > >> When a person begins a post with - "I am not >> raising the moral or political issues of gay >> marriage, please don't address that arena." >> It seems to me that he knows exactly what he >> is attempting to have addressed and how people >> will react. > >> I'm surprised you took the bait. > >> Regards, > >> Ken Guilette >> South Barrington, IL > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Search > http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=PAF-5-USERS > >

Kenneth, I did not take any bait. I originally responded without raising any moral or polital issues that it was unlikely that the Church would re-write the PAF program. Another lister chose to see my response as LDS-biased, to which I responded with an explanation of LDS teachings that would preclude writing a less conservative genealogy program. It was basically a "this is what is taught, and this is why the program is the way it is" response. I did not attempt to moralize, nor did I try to be politically correct. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: Kenneth Guilette To: Linda ; PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content Linda When a person begins a post with - "I am not raising the moral or political issues of gay marriage, please don't address that arena." It seems to me that he knows exactly what he is attempting to have addressed and how people will react. I'm surprised you took the bait. Regards, Ken Guilette South Barrington, IL ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content Richard, I'm sorry you feel I was so "LDS-biased". In accordance with Alan's initial comments, I tried as much as possible not to give my post a moral or political twist. However, the fact is that PAF *IS* the software program the Church has created and provides free for members to gather their family history and submit names for ordinance work.

I am not LDS but have always enjoyed using the program. So the question wasn't totally unreasonable since I feel certain there are many here like me and that I am not the only unchurched member on board this mailing list. I use other programs as well, but have always used PAF as my main program, perhaps I should make some adjustments. Elaine Hello Kenneth On Friday, May 27, 2005, you wrote > Linda > When a person begins a post with - "I am not > raising the moral or political issues of gay > marriage, please don't address that arena." > It seems to me that he knows exactly what he > is attempting to have addressed and how people > will react. > I'm surprised you took the bait. > Regards, > Ken Guilette > South Barrington, IL

Linda, I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. For any other LDS who do not, I suggest you re-read The Family - A Proclamation to the World. Trudy

Maybe I am using the term "source" loosely. I am not talking about "proof" that the data is correct. I am just talking about where the data came from. When I used the IGI on microfiche I could use the Batch number to look for other entries having the same number, it helped form a group of family members. If that looked promising to my research I could send for the submission form which I found very useful. It used to show the relationship of the submitter, and where they got the data. It frequently said personal knowledge but that was helpful to know. Of course it had to be checked out. If it was a marriage or birth register that had been copied by the LDS members, I could look that number up and find out which parish the data was from. I call that a lot of helpful clues when you are doing research. Helen

Linda When a person begins a post with - "I am not raising the moral or political issues of gay marriage, please don't address that arena." It seems to me that he knows exactly what he is attempting to have addressed and how people will react. I'm surprised you took the bait. Regards, Ken Guilette South Barrington, IL ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content Richard, I'm sorry you feel I was so "LDS-biased". In accordance with Alan's initial comments, I tried as much as possible not to give my post a moral or political twist. However, the fact is that PAF *IS* the software program the Church has created and provides free for members to gather their family history and submit names for ordinance work.

Alan Jones at home wrote: > Currently PAF 5.2.18 forces a spouse to be of the opposite gender. > There is no way to force it to be both men or both women. > > Are there any plans to allow for these relationships in a future > edition of PAF ? Doubt it -- the nice man demo'ing the new concept in PAF blenched and nearly had apoplexy when I asked a question he misinterpreted as concerning gay marriage. > For those using PAF, who might have had this situation, > how do you record it? Perhaps just in the notes? Without wishing to be indelicate ... the psychological attributes of two married gays tend to more or less match those of two married heteros. Label the names to match the attributes -- IOW, _lie_ to the computer. (g) It's not particularly sensitive to the needs of the couple, but it does work. > > And then, what if they both adopt a child? If you've lied, this is a non-issue? Sorry, but it's about the best you can do using PAF. If you've moral objections to lying to your computer, you'll probably have to change programs. Cheryl

Richard, I'm sorry you feel I was so "LDS-biased". In accordance with Alan's initial comments, I tried as much as possible not to give my post a moral or political twist. However, the fact is that PAF *IS* the software program the Church has created and provides free for members to gather their family history and submit names for ordinance work. Other genealogy software does have a temple ready feature and that is fine; it makes other software available to those who like other features. However, ward consultants who help members gather their family history and submit names for ordinances are expected to use PAF (not that the members or consultants cannot buy and use other software, but are the consultants are not expected to teach any database program other than PAF). Although the Church does make PAF available free (to members as well as non-members) so that cost is as minimal as possible, I'm sure the Church really does not care what program is used for genealogy as long as names are submitted as correctly as possible and that the ordinance work is done. The Church will not change "its" position on same gender "marriages". Why? Because the Lord has already decreed that a family consists of a male father and a female mother, with whatever children may come to them in this life or the next. There is a difference from the black/priesthood issue. Although I'm not a scriptorian, nor do I have great knowledge or understanding of Church history, I'm fairly certain that the Blacks were always promised that denial of the priesthood was a temporary issue. A brother in my ward knew with a certainty during his mission in the south in the 50s, that he would live to see some of the black converts he knew then, obtain the priesthood. It was always promised. The gender issue is not the same. Regardless of what some scientists and researchers might proclaim, we as Church members are taught that gender is determined in our pre-mortal existence. Science has tried to maintain that we were evolved, not created, that alcoholism is a disease resulting from certain genetic factors, and that people are the victims of genetics rather than their own choices. I do not presume to maintain that people may or may not have genetic factors which might make resisting certain lifestyles difficult. But that is why we are here--to learn to train ourselves to do what the Lord has directed, rather than what some personal inclinations might be. Sometimes it does seem like some people's lives are smooth-sailing and that living the law seems to be very easy for them (although as I grow and mature, I've also realized that what we see from the outside is not really indicative of what they have to deal with.) Most of us have challenges that we have to overcome, whether it is alcohol, eating, drug use, smoking, sexual appetites whether for same or opposite gender, etc. If we listen to some scientists, they would have us believe that we don't have to put a halt to any of our inclinations, that we were just born that way and it's natural. They also would have us believe that there is no God, that everything just happened, that we humans are just a product of whatever scientific combination was being produced that day, and we can do what we want and at some point either by accident, disease (to which we are of course already genetically doomed to), or old age, we die. Period. End of existence. I'd like to add that my husband and I had a lengthy discussion about this last night. We both have issues such as this in our families (he has a gay female cousin) and I have a number of close relatives who apparently had issues with formal marriage. It is often painful or awkward to know how to handle these relationships. My husband's cousin had her partner included in family group picture. I'm only glad we were not around so we weren't included. But forever after, when friends are seeing the picture, and asking, "now who is this person", rather that getting "it's her husband" or "it's his wife", one has to awkwardly say "it's his/her same gender spouse/partner." Very awkward. I have other friends for whom this issue has cropped up, either a same gender partner, or unmarried but living as married with a person of the opposite sex. You cannot "regularize" it by forcing their names into unnatural placements on genealogical charts or family pictures. And I think that is what some patrons might be trying to do, in order to place these relationships in a niche where they fit. In today's society, everyone is trying to find an explanation for every behavior that is outside the norm, to the point of making it a normal behavior. The truth of the matter is that for most, the explanation is a case of choice. Murderers choose to murder--they go to prison or are executed; thieves choose to steal--they go to prison. Alcoholics ultimately choose to drink--yes, I know scientists also say they have some genetic tendency to crave alcohol. What are the results of their choice? At the least ill health. At the worst, they end up killing others because they go out in public and run down people. I have a craving for food--do I have a genetic tendency to consume more than my body can use? Maybe. But the fact remains that it is up to me to control my behavior if I want to maintain a healthy weight (or anything near it ;o)!) You are correct that a lot of errors have been made in ordinance work. We are an imperfect people which is why so many things will have to be sorted out in the millenium (and isn't it great that the Lord even allowed for that buffer zone?) As you say, if something such as gender is not apparent to temple workers, the ordinance work is done. [This is also an exercise of faith of temple workers that the submitter is being honest and has checked his work beforehand.] We know that many times we cannot tell from the name if a child is male or female, so to err on the side of being correct, we do all ordinances, so that they have been done if it turns out that the child was male. But making an error in innocence is different than deliberately trying to fool the system. If a woman is knowingly placed in the male position in order to have her appear to be the father, or in the alternative if a male is put into the mother's position, it seems to me to be an attempt to "fool" someone into getting the work done. But the only ones being "fooled" are the temporal ordinance workers and the proxy (which would really be offensive to me if I found I acted as proxy for a male being represented as a female). The Lord will not be fooled. As you say, these things will be sorted out in the millenium. Until that time, I think these issues will have to be placed in notes and let the Lord make the call at a later time. I realize this is a very LDS-biased issue. There is no way that can be avoided. If this list were about doing genealogy using Legacy, Family Tree Maker, or any of the other many genealogy programs, I would not have even poked in my 2 cents. But this is a PAF users list and PAF is the program developed by the LDS Church. And the question posed was "will the Church ever change the program" (or words to that effect) The Church is not ever going to turn around and say same gender marriages are great, women can have the priesthood, or that sexual relations are ever OK between anyone except a man and a woman married to each other. If anyone on this list who is a member of the LDS Church has a problem with this issue, I might suggest they discuss their concerns with their Bishop or Branch President. It seems to me that one deliberately submitting incorrect information in order to have sacred ordinances performed for a person of the wrong gender, would be doing so as an act of defiance not in support of the First Presidency. May I point out for non-member users of the PAF program, you can do whatever you feel comfortable with within the limits of the program itself, as long as you are not intending to submit this information to the Church with mis-representation of male/female roles. If you do plan to submit this information, whether to a Church repository or any other genealogical data file, I might suggest you make copious notes so that others retrieving the information are clear as to gender issues. Again, I'm sorry if this position offends members of the list. I did not feel in my earlier post that I presented such a strongly "LDS-biased" position. However, since PAF is an LDS product, my response was in answer to a question whether the Church would change the program to reflect a life style which the Church does not endorse. There is no way to separate the Church's teachings from this issue. I would hope that no one would deliberately misrepresent the gender of names in order that they end up in the Church's database. 'nuff said. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Rands" <rrands@cfmc.com> To: <geneamarm@if.rmci.net> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF ? > Hi Linda, > Your response to Alan's question stunned me and left me uncomfortable that > your heavily LDS-biased comments were posted on a public email list. If I > were not LDS, it would have left me feeling that PAF and the Mormon Church > are not for me. You stated that PAF is the Church's software program used > to submit names for temple ordinances. In actuality, Temple Ready is the > program used for name submission and it just happens that PAF has a built > in interface with Temple Ready to make it easier. It is possible to enter > names directly into Temple Ready and never use PAF at all. And you can > take a GEDCOM into Temple Ready from other genealogy software as well. It > would be absurd for the Church to not allow users of other software > products to submit names to the temple. > > I agree with you that the current leadership is adamant about not allowing > same-sex parents to be entered into PAF, and given the Proclimation on the > Family, there is little room for change in the near future. On the other > hand, as more and more scientific evidence is beginning to show that > same-sex attraction is not a personal choice, but driven by genetic > factors, I have a very difficult time believing that a just Heavenly > Father will deny the blessings of the family to the 10 to 15% of his > children who are born that way. While it may seem strange to you, I am > not the only member of the Church who has great expectations that the > current policies toward same-sex parents will go the same way the old ban > on blacks holding the Priesthood went. > > Your claim that when the father is unknown, the grandfather is used as > "the Priesthood connection" is new to me. In all of the sealings I have > been a proxy, I have never heard of that. Yet I have done some where Mr. > so-and-so has been used to represent the unknown father. You have raised > a question that I need to investigate. I suspect that if someone were to > submit to a temple for sealing a family where one of two female partners > was listed as the "father", especially if her given name was not obviously > a female name, the temple would not have any way to dispute the situation. > There has been so much inaccurate ordinance work done over the years, that > this would just be another one "that will be taken care of during the > millenium." In spite of the fact that you say two females cannot be > sealed as parents, I'll venture to say that it has probably happened a lot > of times without anyone knowing it. And the temples are still standing. > :) > > In actuality, there is nothing sacred about the sex field in PAF that > makes it impossible to enter same-sex marriages. Plenty of inaccurate > data is entered into any of the other PAF fields for individuals, so the > fact that someone's sex is wrong (and documented in the notes as such) > doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me. The fact that the wrong > letter is sitting in my computer for the sex field isn't any different > than if I have the wrong parents connected to someone by mistake. > > I sincerely hope you don't take my comments as questioning you or your > knowledge of the Gospel. I just felt uncomfortable that you wrote so much > of what you believe as a Mormon on a public forum and made it sound so > authoritative. > > Richard > > At 12:27 AM 5/27/2005 -0600, you wrote: >>I can't imagine that the Church would ever create a version of PAF which >>would acknowledge parents of the same gender. A family as defined by the >>Church consists of a male father and female mother and their offspring. >>Obviously there are many variations on this in real life due to deaths, >>adoptions, etc., but in our eternal lives the ultimate goal is the Church >>defined family unit. PAF is the Church's software program used to submit >>names for temple ordinances, including the priesthood ordination for men >>and sealing of the families. Without a male parent, there can be no >>sealing of the family, either now or for eternity, so there would be no >>point in creating what would amount to a "false" family in PAF. Perhaps >>other genealogy programs which aren't concerned with temple ordinances >>might attempt to create some form of a parental relationship which allows >>for same gender parents, but I don't see that ever happening with PAF. >> >>I don't think the fact that some civil jurisdictions have legalized same >>gender "marriages" has any affect on whether the Church would alter its >>program to accommodate such liaisons. Although there are a variety of >>accommodations in PAF for keeping track of today's varying lifestyles, >>multiple marriages, blended families, etc. it does have to be boiled down >>finally to a child being sealed into one family only consisting of a >>mother (female) and father (male). In situations where the father is not >>known, my understanding is that the sealing is done with the grandfather >>as the priesthood connection, although I'm not quite sure how that is >>entered. But the child has to be sealed to the priesthood also, and if >>both parents were female that could not happen. >> >>My suggestion would be copious notes. Obviously nothing is going to happen >>with these types of relationships while the parties are living, as the >>"parents" could not maintain this relationship and be members of the >>Church, nor be sealed in the temple. It's unfortunate for the child. >> >>Linda >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Jones at home" >><alanjones10@cox.net> >>To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >>Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:30 PM >>Subject: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF ? >> >> >>> >>>I am not raising the moral or political issues of gay marriage, >>>please don't address that arena. >>> >>>BUT the fact is we have people who have family members >>>who are gay. >>>AND the fact is that some jurisditions make it legal for gays to marry. >>> >>>Currently PAF 5.2.18 forces a spouse to be of the opposite gender. >>>There is no way to force it to be both men or both women. >>> >>>Are there any plans to allow for these relationships in a future >>>edition of PAF ? >>> >>>For those using PAF, who might have had this situation, >>>how do you record it? Perhaps just in the notes? >>> >>>And then, what if they both adopt a child? >>> >>>Alan >>> >>> >>>==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>>PAF-5-USERS Mailing List >>>http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php >>> >> >> >>==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: >>Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time >>http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ > > >