This has been one of those interesting discussions that hasn't really resolved anything. At least that's the way I see it . . . but still, it's been fun to get the different viewpoints on the matter. I appreciate all of you contributing as you have. Just before leaving the topic altogether (I hope) I do have one other question and, of course, it DOES RELATE -- It is this: Does anyone in this PAF-5 users group list actually speak on behalf of the PAF-5 developers and/or the LDS Church position on these matters? That's who really needs to address us on it, don't you think? (Not that there aren't many intelligent people among our group. You've all tried very hard in your own way to explain your position, your viewpoint, and sometimes, your "explanation." Once I heard a bunch of people discussing a Bible Study group and since there was no theologian or minister among them, it was described as a group where "we just all get together and pool our ignorance." Not a good thing for Bible Study, I think. But, anyhow, maybe that's what we've been doing here -- just "pooling our ignorance" when it would be nice to get the official PAF-5 and/or LDS position. Fred, Brooklyn Center MN

HoutsRFred@aol.com wrote: > > It is this: Does anyone in this PAF-5 users group list actually speak on > behalf of the PAF-5 developers and/or the LDS Church position on these I don't, that's fer-shurr, I'm not even a member. > matters? That's who really needs to address us on it, don't you think? (Not that > there aren't many intelligent people among our group. You've all tried very > hard in your own way to explain your position, your viewpoint, and > sometimes, your "explanation." Once I heard a bunch of people discussing a Bible > Study group and since there was no theologian or minister among them, it was > described as a group where "we just all get together and pool our ignorance." > Not a good thing for Bible Study, I think. But, anyhow, maybe that's what I think I'd prefer that to having the meaning "interpreted" for me; that doesn't seem to have worked for Martin Luther either. > we've been doing here -- just "pooling our ignorance" when it would be nice to > get the official PAF-5 and/or LDS position. > Another drop in the pool then -- PAF was intended to make it easy for LDS members to get information into the Temple. The Temple is interested ONLY in husband-wife, and husband-wife-child relationships. Any function beyound that is lagniappe for the user. PAF was *NEVER* intended to be a commercially competitive product, and for much/all of V.1, wasn't even available to non-members. Cheryl

I send this, not to upset any people, but to help summarize what has been discussed and (hopefully) put the issue to rest. I'm not sure the developers and/or the LDS position matters, unless it responds to the question of "how do we accomplish that which we need/desire to accomplish." I think John Waugh's response probably states the developer and/or LDS point of view (whether or not he is in a position to officially state such). I don't think we are a group that gets together to pool our ignorance, but a group that is trying to find a way to solve a problem that we (or at least some of us) have. It's rather obvious, after all the discussion, that the PAF program design does not provide a way to record what the original questioner wants to accomplish; to have the family screen show that one party to the marriage is the natural parent of the children and the other party to the marriage is the adoptive parent or the guardian of the children. Knowing that this program limitation exists, it seems the only way to make sure this information is included is through use of the Notes. This should make the information available to others who read/use the researcher's efforts to provide relationship data. This relationship info will probably (and unfortunately) not appear when the genealogical data is presented in a book report format. Hopefully, some day someone will develop a program, as Alan Jones puts it, "to handle our modern day, mixed and matched families" and unmarried or same sex union parentage. Dick Cazier Lakewood, Colorado ----- Original Message ----- From: <HoutsRFred@aol.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Re: Biological/adoptive parents - again! > > This has been one of those interesting discussions that hasn't really > resolved anything. At least that's the way I see it . . . but still, it's > been fun > to get the different viewpoints on the matter. I appreciate all of you > contributing as you have. > > Just before leaving the topic altogether (I hope) I do have one other > question and, of course, it DOES RELATE -- > > It is this: Does anyone in this PAF-5 users group list actually speak > on > behalf of the PAF-5 developers and/or the LDS Church position on these > matters? That's who really needs to address us on it, don't you think? > (Not that > there aren't many intelligent people among our group. You've all tried > very > hard in your own way to explain your position, your viewpoint, and > sometimes, your "explanation." Once I heard a bunch of people > discussing a Bible > Study group and since there was no theologian or minister among them, it > was > described as a group where "we just all get together and pool our > ignorance." > Not a good thing for Bible Study, I think. But, anyhow, maybe that's > what > we've been doing here -- just "pooling our ignorance" when it would be > nice to > get the official PAF-5 and/or LDS position. > > Fred, Brooklyn Center MN > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > AVG Anti-Virus Users > Disable the 'Certify outgoing messages' option via the E-mail Scanner tab. > >