Hi First of all,this is the answer from Salt Lake. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Frank, Thank you for your e-mail. Could you send some of the names missing from the Scottish OPR so that we can try to locate them and determine why they are not present. Family History Support [email protected] KJS ~~~~~~~~~~~ So if you could send me some instances I'll forward them, OR... forward them yourself. ~~~~~~~ Next..,we have a full set of I.G.I. Fiche at our FHC,which date from 1992,so if there are missing OPRs in the present I.G.I. they should still be in these Fiche. Check with your local FHC. ~~~~~~~~~~ We also have the OPR index on CD ROM,which SHOULD include the ones that WERE in the I.G.I, we have the OPRs on fiche as well. The reason I say 'SHOULD' is that I have found entries of my DEWAR ancestors on the CD ROM,that are not in the IGI ! All FHCs were given a copy. ~~~~~~~~~~ From what my Mormon partner tells me,the Sealings films USED to be available,but there were some problems and they stopped making the films available to FHCs. ~~~~~~~~~ For Michael Paton....Temple Recommend is a card which allows only Mormon members access to the Temple,and also allows them access to Sealings on line.( With their Mormon # and Password.) Bishops Letter I understand,is only granted to Mormons with a Temple Recommend card. Janet.....You wouldn't have permission to view the Sealings films,even if you thought that a relative was there,you'd need a Bishops Letter which is only available to members with a Temple Recommend card. BUT ........I understand that Sealings info was also included in the IGI because they had to submit a 4 generation family tree in accordance with Mormon rules. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's all very confusing ,but if you have an FHC which has the old IGI fiche,it should include the info that's maybe missing from the present IGI. In conclusion I would guess that the SEALINGS aren't a great source for using in your research,much,if not all of names etc,were put in the IGI I was told,whether they're STILL there is the question that I don't think even Salt Lake can answer at the moment. The above is my understanding of the questions raised,and the answers given,I would gladly accept any corrections and additions etc.from more knowledgeable Listers. Good Luck Frank McGonigal Ont.Canada.

Thankyou Frank My main man missing from the OPRs was John Patton b1817 in Glasgow to Samuel Paton and Mary Clarkson. John moved to Paisley about 1838. Luckily I ran a hard copy in the 1990s so I was able to convince the cousins of what I saw and we picked that family to research scotlandspeople later proved us right. Samuel was in the list of people in the Sealings. John might have been too, but I didn't check all the films that had Patons. Believe it or not the explanations do help. It's too bad I wasn't better at following up my leads in the early days. Perhaps they were more open then, but you have given me avenues to look down and Questions to ask. I'll be checking the FHL next month when I can get there. Thanks again Frank Luck to you Michael

Michael It's strange that only John is missing,all the other children are there,George,Margaret,Mary,Eliz.,James Janet and Helen. Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "michael paton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [Renfrew] OPRs > Thankyou Frank > > My main man missing from the OPRs was John Patton b1817 in Glasgow to > Samuel Paton and Mary Clarkson. John moved to Paisley about 1838. Luckily > I > ran a hard copy in the 1990s so I was able to convince the cousins of what > I > saw and we picked that family to research scotlandspeople later proved us > right. Samuel was in the list of people in the Sealings. John might have > been too, but I didn't check all the films that had Patons. > Believe it or not the explanations do help. It's too bad I wasn't > better at following up my leads in the early days. Perhaps they were more > open then, but you have given me avenues to look down and Questions to > ask. > I'll be checking the FHL next month when I can get there. > Thanks again Frank > Luck to you Michael

Frank Stranger still, I recently purchased the new British Isles vital records CD and Helen b1819 and Janet b1821 are missing, but John b1817 is there, although he is not on the IGI online and they are??? Its possible I'm not skilled enough with the CD, but I don't think so. Michael On 5/10/06, Frank McGonigal <[email protected]> wrote: > > Michael > It's strange that only John is missing,all the other children are > there,George,Margaret,Mary,Eliz.,James Janet and Helen. > Frank >

Are you referring to the LDS cd? ----- Original Message ----- From: "michael paton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:55 AM Subject: Re: [Renfrew] OPRs > Frank > Stranger still, I recently purchased the new British Isles vital records > CD and Helen b1819 and Janet b1821 are missing, but John b1817 is there, > although he is not on the IGI online and they are??? Its possible I'm not > skilled enough with the CD, but I don't think so. > Michael > > > On 5/10/06, Frank McGonigal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Michael > > It's strange that only John is missing,all the other children are > > there,George,Margaret,Mary,Eliz.,James Janet and Helen. > > Frank > > > >

Aye, the LDS cd is the one. As I explore further I find a couple of marriages in this same family missing. I haven't checked other branches. On 5/13/06, chicoyne <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are you referring to the LDS cd? ----- Original Message ----- > From: "michael paton" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:55 AM > Subject: Re: [Renfrew] OPRs > > > > Frank > > Stranger still, I recently purchased the new British Isles vital > records > > CD and Helen b1819 and Janet b1821 are missing, but John b1817 is there, > > although he is not on the IGI online and they are??? Its possible I'm > not > > skilled enough with the CD, but I don't think so. > > Michael > > > > > > On 5/10/06, Frank McGonigal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Michael > > > It's strange that only John is missing,all the other children are > > > there,George,Margaret,Mary,Eliz.,James Janet and Helen. > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > >