A Flood of FamilySearch Blog Posts

For a long time, FamilySearch.org seemed to treat blogging as the last thing on their mind. When FamilySearch blog posts would come out, they came out every couple of weeks in bursts of three or four. Over time FamilySearch blogging became more regular and predictable. Well, presently, it seems like they have become entirely consumed with blog posts. Just as an example, I thought I would go back about seven days and give a list of posts I have received. Hmm. When I started to go back I cut the number of days to three. Yes, folks, this is the last three days of posts from FamilySearch. Now, there are a very few that are very specifically targeted at a very small audience that I have excluded, but here are most of the blog posts:

• More RootsTech: Family Discovery Day and Hosting a Family Discovery Day
• Laura Bush and Daughter Jenna to Keynote RootsTech 2015
• FamilySearch + YouTube + Imagination = A Sweet Love Story
• Family History Center Director’s Webinar
• Roots Tech Director’s Track
• Elder Andersen’s Youth Challenge: I Believe!
• Living Family History and Indexing
• Discovery Corner: Blessing the Lives of New Converts and Returning Members
• How to Submit Names to the Temple through Ancestry.com
• Family History Center Directors Inspire Others to Find, Take, and Teach
• Establishing family Christmas traditions
• Food is Family History
• Laura Bush and Daughter Jenna to Keynote RootsTech 2015
• Temple Snowflakes
• Make Your Own Ancestor Ornament
• National Genealogical Society’s 37th Annual Family History Conference

Mind you, I am not complaining. It is really about time FamilySearch started communicating at this level. The problem I see is that most of these blogs are "trapped" in the obscure link to the blog on the very bottom of the FamilySearch.org startup page. Here is a screenshot with an arrow pointing to the link:

Putting out that much information is not valuable if it is not getting to the target audience. I have no illusions about blog posting. I have been at this for about 8 years now and have written 3540 posts. But guess what? I can count the number of people in my own Ward that even know I write a blog on one hand, much less actually read it. I still know a lot of people who have no idea that blogs even exist. But it is comforting to know that FamilySearch is now putting forth the effort.

Is there a minimum confidence level for name submission?

I received the following comment from a reader:

I helped out with a ward youth temple trip tonight and one of the names we did was truly epic. It was: "Isabella Ann or Anne or Annie or [Other name I can't remember] [Last Name] or [Last name, different spelling] or [Last name, different spelling] or [Last name, different name]"
Born: about 1785 or 1786 or 1827 or 1840
England

I thought about this and looked at to see if there was some rule concerning name submissions that would affect this particular case. None of the words used is listed in the "Names and symbols causing Needs More Information Error." I find no other articles in the Get Help section of FamilySearch.org that would seem to address this issue.

From a very realistic standpoint, it is apparent that the person identified in the submission was certainly more than one individual in more than two generations. It is further apparent that absolutely no effort was made to verify this individual prior to submission, entries were probably just copied out of records containing the same or similar names. Why is this acceptable?

Records of Early LDS Church Membership

When I started to write this post, I had been sitting for a while trying to figure out a reason why I would need to look up early members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who joined the Church beginning in 1830. All of my own ancestors are reasonably well documented at least back to the first ones to join the Church. But I also know that my own research is an anomaly since there are a significant number of people whose families joined the Church recently, and who are surprised to find out that they have ancestors who were members of the Church many years ago. I kept thinking about this issue as I went to the Brigham Young University (BYU) Family History Library and spent some time looking at the specific resources the Library had on early Church membership. I also visited the FamilySearch.org Research Wiki and found links to significant record sources for early members. Then, I even asked my wife and some of the other missionaries on duty, why they would want to look at early Church records. A little later, one of the other missionaries came and told me a patron needed help and guess what? She had questions about early Church membership records, including the Temple Index Bureau records, much of which I had just been reviewing. It is always interesting to me how family history works.

One reason for understanding and using early Church records is that they can give additional information missing from current records. I am sure that there are also many other reasons I have not thought about. In any event, since I am serving here in the Brigham Young University Family History Library and had a little bit of time to look around at the book collections, I went ahead and wrote this post.

My initial interest in this topic came about when I found a reference to Susan Easton Black's 50 volume set of books on the early Church members. This is the citation for the set:

Black, Susan Easton. Membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1830-1848. Provo, Utah: Religious Study Center, Dept. of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 1989.

The FamilySearch Research Wiki describes the set as follows:

Susan Easton Black and associates researched LDS historical resources and compiled a 50-volume set of information on early members of the church. It is a good beginning point to identify available information and sources for an early LDS ancestor. It is available in hard copy in the Family History Library and Brigham Young University collections and available on microfiche - FHL US/CAN Fiche 6031596. The publication is also available at World Vital Records, a subscription-based website. To access the online format:

I found the set of books on the shelf and took a photo.

I also came to the realization that the World Vital Records copies of these records were being searched by MyHeritage.com for those who have entered a family tree in that program. The Record Match and Record Detective programs from MyHeritage.com have been automatically searching the Membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830 - 1848 and I guess that I did not realize that this was the set of books authored by Susan Easton Black. These books are extensively sourced. But you need to look at the individual entries in the book to see all the original sources. I also realized that I had copied entries for various of my ancestors from these books when I went to the Land and Records Office at Nauvoo, Illinois. Here are some screenshots of some of the records I got from the Land and Records Office as an example of what is in the books:

Here are the links to pages I found useful in the FamilySearch.org Research Wiki:

• Early Church Membership Records by Susan Easton Black
• Early Church Information File (ECIF)
• Guide to Mormon diaries and autobiographies
• Nauvoo Temple endowment register : 10 December 1845 to 8 February 1846
• Journal History of the LDS Church See also LDS Journal History Guide

That is enough of a sample. You can find out a lot from the resources linked in the Research Wiki. You can also find out a lot by poking around in the BYU Library. You can find out even more by helping patrons at the Library. 

Common Myths about Genealogy among Members of the LDS Church

A few of the family historians within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fall prey to all the common genealogical myths, but among the membership at large there are those that also have a few of their own unique myths to deal with. As I am using the term in this post, myths are commonly disseminated beliefs that have no basis in fact. Most of these myths arise from the culture of the Church rather than having any sort of doctrinal basis. The persistence of these myths is astounding. Unfortunately, some of these myths are powerful deterrents to the members in being actively involved in their own family history. In some cases the myths outweigh and prevent the members from following the direct teachings of the leaders of the Church.

The most persistent and pervasive myth is that family history work is for the retired old folks in the Church. If all the people who have told me they are waiting for retirement to "work on their family history" actually did so, the percentage of people contributing names to the Temple for ordinance work would increase dramatically. The truth is that retirement does not free up time for things that are not a priority. If family history work is not a priority in your life before you "retire" then it will have a low priority after retirement. The fact that old people retire from active work is one of the most dominantly pervasive myths of our whole culture. For me, retirement from one job merely meant I had time for another, even more full-time, job, that is, genealogy.

It is hard to rank myths in their degree of pervasiveness, but one right up there near the top has to be the myth that family history is something separate from and different than the other activities of the Church. Quoting from a talk given by Elder David A. Bednar in a Seminar for New Mission Presidents on June 25, 2013:

Missionary work and family history and temple work are complementary and interrelated aspects of one great work, “that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him” (Ephesians 1:10).

So, Temple and Family History work, along with Missionary work are all the same great work. If we separate and compartmentalize family history as a "separate work," we are buying into the myth.

Yet another myth is that family history is somehow just another program of the Church and that you need to be "called" to do family history like you would be called to any other calling in the Church. Quoting from the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007) at page 475:

The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead. The apostle says, ‘They without us cannot be made perfect’ [see Hebrews 11:40]; for it is necessary that the sealing power should be in our hands to seal our children and our dead for the fulness of the dispensation of times—a dispensation to meet the promises made by Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world for the salvation of man.

This is an individual responsibility, the call comes with your acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No one needs a special calling to do family history work for their own ancestors and cousins.

There is a persistent myth among some of the members of the Church that their family history work is all done. This is usually attributed to some relative that did a "lot of family history work." I have members tell me this regularly. Usually, this is in conjunction with a mention of family history work that I initiate. Simply put, this is virtually impossible. I have a standing challenge that I have been making for years, that is, that if you give me ten or fifteen minutes with your pedigree on FamilySearch Family Tree, I can find issues that will show you that the work is far from all done.

Myths continue on. It seems like the community makes up new ones despite the fact that they have a surfeit of myths already. It is common for people to claim that they don't have to do any family history because it will all be done in the "Millennium" anyway. It is a serious mistake to believe that anyone can shirk their duty by simply passing the duty on to someone in the future without suffering the consequences of their actions. At the very least, those who forego doing their family history merely because it will all be done by someone else at some time in the future will forfeit the blessings they could have received for doing the work themselves. Here is what LDS.org has to say on the subject:

During the Millennium, all people on the earth will be good and just, but many will not have received the fulness of the gospel. Consequently, members of the Church will participate in missionary work. 

Members of the Church will also participate in temple work during the Millennium. The Saints will continue to build temples and receive ordinances in behalf of their kindred dead. Guided by revelation, they will prepare records of their ancestors all the way back to Adam and Eve.

There is obviously some work that cannot be done at this time, simply because the records are missing. But I seriously doubt that anyone in the Church can so easily divest themselves of their sacred responsibility to assist in the work of redeeming their own kindred dead.

If am sure that these myths will continue to propagate through the Church. But it is my hope that by educating and teaching, their impact will become lessened.

Initial impressions of the RootsMagic - MyHeritage - FamilySearch Connection

Occasionally I break my long-standing rule to never review software products and talk about using a particular program. I am not going to "review" RootsMagic or any other software program. I have long recognized that choosing one of the commercially available software programs is a highly personal decision and my opinion is highly skewed by my years of sitting at a computer using software. I sometimes end up using one program over another for very specific reasons that usually have absolutely nothing to do with the "features" that are advertised. Additionally, I seldom, if ever, use even half of the features of many of the current programs. The fact that any particular program has a mapping feature or some other such thing, means nothing to me if I do not use that particular feature. So the common practice of listing a program's features and comparing versions of the same program or other programs from features alone, means nothing to me unless the one thing I am looking for is missing.

With this background, I approach the subject of the recent announcement by RootsMagic.com and MyHeritage.com about the fact that the newly updated RootsMagic 7 program will directly search MyHeritage.com utilizing the MyHeritage.com Record Match and Record Detective search programs. This search does not require the RootsMagic user to have a subscription to MyHeritage.com. RootsMagic will do the same thing with FamilySearch.org's records. To understand the importance of this development, it is necessary to review the status of online genealogy databases.

The ability of a program to directly search an online database is not new, but until now that ability has been essentially with tethered programs. Ancestry.com has Family Tree Maker. MyHeritage.com has Family Tree Builder. FamilySearch.org has its "compatible" products. But with the exception of RootsMagic, none of the FamilySearch Compatible products can search the Historical Record Collections directly. Some can synchronize records but the searching function is left entirely to FamilySearch.

This is the main difference between RootsMagic and the rest of the programs. In this case, RootsMagic can use the user's own records to search both FamilySearch.org and MyHeritage.com. At this point, adding the sources found to the RootsMagic database requires manually copying and pasting the entries. This is essentially the case with the tethered programs with the exception that they have a "synchronization" function. But RootsMagic also can synchronize records with FamilySearch.org. I am talking here about desktop programs that store your genealogy database, not purely online family tree programs. The difference is blurring, but the distinction is that the desktop program is available even if you are not connected to the Internet. Obviously if you want to do any searching or whatever, you need an Internet connection. The difference is where the information is stored. A desktop program stores the information on your personal computer (or other device). An on-line family tree is only online and you must connect to the Internet to see or use it.

The difference here is that RootsMagic has developed the ability to search the two online databases, not just view sources and synchronize the source entries. Previously this was a tethered program function. In other words, Ancestry.com's Family Tree Maker could use the entries on your own database to search Ancestry.com online but you needed a subscription to Ancestry.com for it to work. RootsMagic is not directly associated with either FamilySearch or MyHeritage but it can now search the online databases. Adding the sources to your desktop RootsMagic program is still a copy and paste procedure. This may not seem significant, but it is a major step towards source integration in the online genealogy database world.

Using Sources to Find More Ancestors

FamilySearch.org's blog had a recent article entitled, "Finding More Ancestors." The concepts reviewed in this post are extremely valuable. The idea is that by adding sources to existing ancestors in the FamilySearch Family Tree, you will find additional individuals who have been missed and can then extend the family tree. There is much more that can be said on this subject.

The first step that needs to be taken when approaching the FamilySearch Family Tree is to verify, through adding sources, each of the ancestors in your particular lines. Although millions of sources have been added to the Family Tree, there are still many, many ancestral lines where there are no supporting sources at all. Automatically jumping out of an end-of-line situation, i.e. where a fan chart shows a missing ancestor, often makes the unsupported assumption that all of the ancestors named on the fan chart are correct. This is very frequently not the case. Although it is possible that the names in the Family Tree are correct, it is impossible to rely on those conclusions absent some validating sources. All of the users of the Family Tree need to realize that the information in the Family Tree came from a variety of contributing databases and that none of the information has been independently verified. Entries without supporting sources are nothing more than pure speculation.

The degree of uncertainty in the Family Tree increases with each additional generation of ancestors who are not verified with sources. Adding the sources may seem to be tedious and unnecessary, but the fact is that by adding sources, you are increasing your chances of finding a person for whom the Temple ordinance work has not been done, while jumping back in time without supporting sources dramatically increases your chances of working on families that may be entirely unrelated. The incorrect link in the ancestral chain may not be evident and in fact, may have been perpetuated by a mistake in your own pedigree if you received a file from a relative.

Here is an obvious example where a portion of the Family Tree has been extended with very conflicting evidence:

The parents of Amy Huntington (or Hutton) named Mr. Hutton and Mrs. Hutton, have no sources, however, there are alternative parents listed as Simon Huntingon and Amey Standish. A quick examination of the entries in the Family Tree shows that there are obvious duplicates for William Stewart and that a search for the apparent duplicates shows no results. The duplicates, are William Stewart LZBC-JLP and William Stewart L6M4-WR3. Both of these listing for William Stewart show as husbands of Amy Huntington LZBC-JPJ. When an attempt is made to merge the two by ID number, the results is an error message that the entries have been previously identified as "not a match." The reason given was "The information is to (sic) different." Here is a screenshot of the error message:

The information for the duplicate entries show the following:

William Stewart LZBC-JLP born 14 October 1742 in Perth, Perthshire, Scotland and William Stewart L6M4-WR3, born 5 November 1740 in Lunenburg, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States (Even though there was no United States in 1740). The death dates for the two individuals are different but the death place and burial information are the same. The first entry for William Stewart shows no parents and the second one shows parents as another William Stewart LCTJ-BFD born Abt 1700 in Salem, Essex, Massachusetts, United States with a wife named Margaret Sanderson LZZX-PRK born on 20 January 1704 in Allendale, Northumberland, England and her death on 8 March 1755 in Peterborough, Hillsborough, New Hampshire. Was William Stewart born in Massachusetts or Scotland? Do we have the same person or two different people? Both are married to Amy Stewart.

Now what does the fan chart indicate?

First, a look at their descendants. Here is a screenshot of William Stewart LZBC-JLP and Amy Huntington LZBC-JPJ:

 Notice all the red warning icons.

Here is another descendancy view. This one is the William Stewart with the LCTJ-BFD identification:

This view shows the father, William Stewart LCTJ-BFD with a son named William Stewart L6M4-WR3. The William Stewart and Amy Huntington LZBC-JPJ do not have any children showing. So, depending on which of these you believe, either there will or will not be any children. Compare this screenshot showing no descendants of William and Amy to the one above.

Now to the fan chart. In this case, I started with myself and worked my way back to these people.

You can click on the images to see more detail. To add to the confusion, the William Stewart shown is LZBC-JLP who are shown in the previous views and his wife is shown as having the Mr. and Mrs. Huntingdon as parents. So let's suppose that you are seeking a person to research, given the idea that looking at the fan chart is going to help you decide. You see a lot of blank spaces on the Stewart and Huntington lines. There are a few sources listed for both William Stewart and his wife Amy Huntington, but the William Stewart listed is the one shown born in Scotland and the Amy Huntington line is shown without known parents. The Descendancy view of this couple shows none of the problems that I have reviewed above.

Because the duplicate entry for William Stewart was marked as "not a match" it does not show as a problem even though both entries have the same wife and the same burial information.

I could go on and on, this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, of the problems associated with using a fan chart as the starting point for finding new family members without working out the problems of the Family Tree leading up to those individuals showing an end-of-line.

Family History is not just a Sunday School Class

During the past few years I have frequently heard family history in the Wards I visit characterized as a "Sunday School Class." Many of the Family History Consultants I have spoken with refer to the fact that they have been "called to teach a class in Sunday School." This persistent idea has relegated most Ward Family History Consultants to inactivity during the "off periods" when no class is being taught. In fact, in one Ward, as a Family History Consultant, I was approached by the Sunday School Presidency to "teach the family history class." That never did happen because they called two of the youth in the Ward to "teach a class during Sunday School" but without the participation of the Family History Consultants. 

Historically, holding a family history class during the Sunday School time may have been a suggested policy, but according to the Leader's Guide to Temple and Family History Work, To Turn the Hearts, the official family history Guide, here is the present policy regarding a "Sunday School Class" as set forth on pages 17 and 18.

Members of the ward council help the bishop ensure that the doctrines, principles, and blessings of family history and temple work are taught regularly in ward meetings. They encourage members to receive their own temple ordinances and participate actively in family history and temple work.

Each family can receive the Member’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work to use in the home and in family history classes.

Holding a temple and family history class is a good way to increase participation and interest in family history. The class can be used to help with ward activation, retention, and missionary efforts. Anyone may be invited to attend the class. The ward council may decide to invite certain ward members.

The class is taught by an effective instructor, who may or may not be a family history consultant. The class may be taught during Sunday School or at another time that is more convenient for members. It is taught under the direction of the bishopric rather than the Sunday School president.

More importantly than just the fact that a class is held is the motivation. Note that the class, if it is held is under the direction of the Bishop and is not necessarily a "Sunday School class." The class can also "be used to help with ward activation, retention, and missionary efforts."

The Guide goes on to state at page 18:

Lessons are generally conducted as workshops in which members actually complete their own family history work, either on the computer or on paper. Where feasible, class participants should have access to computers. Many meetinghouses are currently being equipped with wireless Internet connections.

The number of class participants should be limited to the number who can be given personal help. The class can be repeated as often as necessary to accommodate all who desire to attend.

Family history consultants can provide personal help to participants during the class as well as after the class in members’ homes or family history centers.

Resources available for the class include the Instructor’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work, the accompanying Temple and Family History Course DVD, and the Member’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work. Leaders should go to the Serving in the Church section of LDS.org to find additional resources. [emphasis added]. 

We implemented this in my Ward in Mesa and it was a highly effective way to help the Ward members actually do their family history and not just sit in a class and end up making no progress. 

Where this type of class has been implemented in a Ward, the number of Temple ordinance submissions has risen. The main responsibility of the Ward Family History Consultants, according to the Guide at page 20:

Consultants take the initiative to reach out to members, especially those who are not comfortable using technology, by:

• Helping a few individuals or families at a time to work on their own family history so they can perform temple ordinances for their deceased relatives. The most effective place to do this is in members’ homes. The ward council could determine specific individuals or families for the consultant to work with. The high priests group leader assigns these families to the consultant.
• Answering family history questions from ward leaders and members.

Again, as the Ward Family History Consultants follow the guidelines of the Guide, they will have success and family history activity in the Ward will increase.