The Invisible Man

I am certifiably old. In fact, I was born during World War II and I am not even classified as a Baby Boomer. I have also been old for long enough to acquire some considerable experience at being old. I am also old enough that young women open doors for me and occasionally, people offer me their seat on buses and trains.

Now being old not necessarily all bad. One thing that I have noticed however is that when I am in a mixed age group, I am almost universally ignored to the point of being invisible to younger people. For example, at church in my Ward back in Provo, when I walk down the hallways between meetings, I may as well be invisible to anyone who is under the age of 40. Really. If I happen to catch an eye or say hello, it is almost like they are suddenly being addressed by a chair or the wall. The only exceptions are those people that I am officially assigned to say hello to, such as the families I used to home teach.

There are those who would say, as I was told over and again as a youth if you want friends you have to be a friend. I am sure that is true, but it is also true that before you can be a friend, the potential friend has to acknowledge your existence. I am not a shy person. If I were shy and old, it would be an even more difficult situation.

Being ignored is not all bad. But being consistently ignored as a consequence of age is a real problem. I mostly feel sorry for the other old people around me who I know are really lonely and would appreciate a smile or a hello. I can say hello to all of them, but it is not a substitute for being noticed by younger people also.

Another consequence of being old is that the leaders of the Ward do not know what to do with you. They are so anxious to make sure everyone has a "calling" in the Ward, that they often put older people into the last in/ first out category. I have solved that problem by being a Church Service or Full-time Missionary for many years. In the middle of serving almost constantly as a missionary, my wife and I also served at the Mesa, Arizona Temple for five and half years. If we keep volunteering for church service related callings, then we solve the leaders' dilemma of what to do with us old folks.

As I continue to get older I understand why they call these the "Golden Years." This is because it takes a lot of gold to get through the expense of being old.

For some time now, I have been writing almost exclusively about being a genealogist. I finally realized that the other topic I have extensive experience in is being old. So, you can expect more commentary on that subject in the future.

More Thoughts on Correcting the Church's Name

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide

I received the following comment to my previous post about the announcement made by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning the use of the name of the Church.

I read the original article that was published and I noticed that in subsequent citations you can refer to it as “THE Church” (emphasis mine). For Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, the LDS church is certainly not THE church. I think that you will find that those outside of the church will not change their nomenclature much.

The response to this comment is two-fold. The Style Guide from the official Church Newsroom states  in part the following:

The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838. 

In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." 

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged. The "restored Church of Jesus Christ" is also accurate and encouraged.

The official name of the Church starts with the word "The" capitalized. The name of the Church is exactly as it is stated. Subsequent references to the Church can use the shortened versions of the name. 

On August 16, 2018, President Russell M. Nelson released a statement concerning avoiding the use of nicknames, Abbreviations, and incorrect names referring to the Church and its members. On August 20, 2018, President Nelson is quoted as follows in an article in the Church News entitled, "President Nelson in Montreal: We’re Correcting—Not Changing—the Church’s Name."

President Russell M. Nelson’s call to identify the Church by its full, formal name—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—doesn’t constitute a name change but rather corrects misnomers that have persisted since the Church’s early history. The effort follows the Savior’s own scriptural directive and allows member and nonmember alike to acknowledge His role. 

“The name of the Church is not negotiable, because the Lord has told us what His Church shall be called,” said President Nelson. “So, we’re not changing names. We’re correcting a name—that’s important to note.” 

On August 16, President Nelson released a statement asking for a stop to the use of nicknames, abbreviations, and incorrect names—such as Mormon and LDS—that have overtaken and overshadowed the Church’s appropriate name.

In further response to the comment above, I would quote the Eleventh Article of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. 

However, I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is THE Church of Jesus Christ on the earth today.  

Thoughts on the Name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

During the entire time I have been writing my blogs, I have always tried to follow the guidelines outlined in the Style Guide - The Name of the Church located on the website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Recently, due to an official statement from the Church, the guidelines have changed, but the changes do not affect my personal usage at all. However, there are still a number of questions, particularly concerning existing organizations and websites.

Getting the name to be consistently used is a complicated and lengthy process especially in this instance when the usage of the terms is ingrained in both the culture and history of the Church. The use of the term "Mormon" is particularly well established in a variety of contexts from its use as the title of The Book of Mormon, and in association with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

During the past years, the term "political correctness" has come into wider usage. According to an article in the Washington Times entitled, "A little history of 'politically correct' '" the term was coined in the late 1920s by the Soviets and their ideological allies around the world "to describe why the views of certain of the party faithful needed correction to the party line." See The Washington Times, Sunday, November 15, 2015. In the United States, the term has come to be applied to attempts to change word usage when referring to certain groups or organizations. The irony of the adoption of some of these terms is that the adopted "politically correct" terminology does not always reflect the way the people in the group or organization refer to themselves. For example, here is a quote from an article in The New York Times back in 1993 entitled, "Navajos Weigh Return to Old Name: Dine." The article observes the following:

The Navajo Nation, the largest Indian tribe in the United States, is considering a proposal to go back to its original name, Dine, which means "the people." 

Opponents say a change would cost taxpayers the expense of changing legal documents, stationery, flags, the tribal seal and maps and express concern about the confusion a name would cause after 300 years of using "Navajo." 

Those who support the name change say Navajo was a name outsiders gave the tribe. 

"There is pride in Navajo Nation, but this is a subject that is in our hearts, our spirit," said Duane Beyal, assistant to Peterson Zah, the Navajo Tribal President. "Whether we use the name outsiders gave us or the name the Great Spirit gave us."

Does that sound familiar? Personally, I have never liked the use of the name "Mormon" to refer to myself or to other members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I have been correcting people's use of the term for years. By the way, the Diné are still the Navajo Nation.

But they consistently refer to themselves as "The Diné."

In short, this new emphasis will not change anything that I am not already doing and practicing. In fact, I welcome the emphasis and will promote it as much as I am able. Also, the change has nothing to do with the concept of "political correctness," I believe all classes and groups of people should be able to denominate themselves in the way they think is appropriate. But likewise, no one outside of the group should be able to use terms and words that are hurtful or inappropriate while referring to the group or organization. Personally, I do not classify people based on any physical, social or economic criteria and I expect people to treat me the same way.

Changes Made to the FamilySearch.org Family Tree: The Good and the Bad

I had the opportunity to teach a class this week at the Washington, D.C. Family History Center to the Eastern European Focus Group. It was a very pleasant class. However, every time I bring up the subject of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, someone, and in this case several people, expressed concerns about the accuracy of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree and the changes made to the information they contributed. I fully realize that I have written about this subject many times and even recently, but here I go again. By the way, the operative word in the image above from the FamilySearch.org Family Tree website is the work "shared."

First of all, not all "changes" to the Family Tree are bad. 

About three years ago, I did a video entitled, "Family Tree-Why it works and why it doesn't" Since then, I have written about the subject and made additional videos. In my opinion, during the past few years, overall, the Family Tree has made considerable progress both with the accuracy of the information and with issues of stability, i.e. changes. However, as more people get involved with the Family Tree, there is always a "battlefront" of change going on at different places as people try to reconcile their own records and inherited research with what is currently in the Family Tree.

From listening to concerns and complaints, I find that most of those who are upset relate issues with near relatives such as parents or grandparents. There is also a very vocal minority of users who are upset about remote ancestors who usually lived hundreds of years ago. Almost uniformly, those who are upset about "changes" to their near relatives have little or no idea that they can fix or correct the changes. It is also important to realize that some users of the Family Tree who have no genealogically active relatives see almost no changes to their entries until they get back into the "change zone."

What is the "Change Zone?" This is the part of the Family Tree where there is a general lack of consensus about the names, dates, places, and relationships represented in the Family Tree. This fluctuating zone of the Family Tree is the home of the "Revolving Door Ancestors." Those are people who have so many descendants in the Family Tree that it seems like their entries are being constantly rewritten.

We have a tendency to identify changes as either good or bad. But changes are just changes. Some of the changes made to the Family Tree make the information more accurate. Some changes do not reflect sources or reason and move the Family Tree towards chaos and anarchy.  Overall, the changes are good because people are involved and many are learning that their extended family creates an atmosphere of diversity. As I have written previously, genealogists are conditioned to expect stability in their own conclusions. They are not used to being challenged. The Family Tree provides a venue for diversity and confrontation with differing conclusions.

How do we know the difference between good changes and bad changes?

There is a really simple solution to this quandary. Look to the sources attached to the individuals involved in the changes. Are the changes supported by sources? If not, then the changes are likely to be ad hoc and more than likely wrong. But you are not qualified to draw that conclusion until and unless you provide a source or sources to support your own view of the information. In other words. unless you are willing to do the research, you are in no position to complain about the changes.

Here is an example of a supported response to a change in the Family Tree.

This is from a recent email notification from the FamilySearch of changes being made to people I am watching in the Family Tree. To understand what happened here and why the change was corrected, here are some of the responses made to the person who made the changes.

You might note that there is a request to "Provide sources, please."

So here we have the crux of the problem of distinguishing between good and bad changes. Good changes are accompanied by source citations and perhaps an explanation. Bad changes almost uniformly are made without explanation or sources. By the way, to see what is going on with any individual in the Family Tree, you should expand the recent changes section and look at all the changes.

An example of bad changes.

This type of random change without even a basis in speculation is destructive and if allowed to continue would rapidly degrade the information in the Family Tree. How is this problem addressed? By watching the entries you put into the Family Tree. I have used the analogy of a garden previously. But it always bears repeating. If we don't constantly weed a garden, we will not have any good results from our efforts. The Family Tree is a living and growing tree. It needs constant care and weeding of bad information is one of the main factors in keeping the Family Tree a viable and useful tool for genealogy.

BYU Family History Library Webinars and Videos Now Directly Available

https://sites.lib.byu.edu/familyhistory/classes-and-webinars/online-webinars/

The Brigham Young University Family History Library has redesigned their Webinar page, but more importantly, they have added most of the videos to the viewer that allows the videos to be viewed from the website. The issue is that the WiFi used in chapels of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints blocks YouTube.com. Because the BYU Family History Library videos are on YouTube.com, they cannot usually be viewed in a chapel building or Family History Center using the available WiFi. But now, you and everyone else can view the videos directly from the BYU Family History Libray website. If you click on the name of a video in the very long list of videos available, then you get an option to view the video from the BYU website.

The link says "View video here." The video then plays directly from the website. We hope this expands the usefulness of our videos.

A Family History Mission: A Webinar

https://sites.lib.byu.edu/familyhistory/classes-and-webinars/online-webinars/

No. 76

Note: You can do a Google search for "A Family History Mission James Tanner" to see all the previous posts in this ongoing series. You can also search for "James Tanner genealogy" and find them or click back through all the posts.

On Friday, August 17, 2018, I will be presenting a Webinar entitled, "A Family History Mission: Digitizing Records for FamilySearch." You can attend the webinar for free by clicking on the above link. But if you happen to miss the webinar, within a few days, you will be able to access the recording on the BYU Family History Library YouTube Channel.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7hqNOQt-2AfeVEpDuc7sCA

If you would rather read about our mission rather than watch a video, I will be continuing to post here on my blog.

Back to the 60s: Freedom of Speech and Student Organizations

Note: This is my own opinion and I am not acting in the capacity of representing any other individuals or organizations.

Banning student organizations at universities is not a new phenomenon. As a person who was raised in the 1960s, I am well aware of the controversy and even violence that is part of our American history of student organizations. While a member of the ROTC during the Vietnam War demonstrations, I have seen first hand what happens when a university administration gets involved in policing first amendment rights. The issues being expressed in the 60s were fundamental and serious. My own involvement, however, ended abruptly when I left the country for a two-year mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Argentina.

Now, more than 50 years later, I am amazed that university administrations are still trying to police first amendment rights and deny access to those with whom they disagree. A recent new article yanked me back into this controversy of my youth. Here is the headline from a recent news article found in the Deseret News for August 10, 2018.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900027644/mormon-muslim-and-sikh-student-groups-kicked-off-iowa-campus-amid-legal-battles.html

The issues today are not about a war being fought in the Far East, but about a vague issue of "discrimination" which now seems to be more important to school officials than First Amendment rights. The University of Iowa deregistered 40 student groups, including the Latter-day Saint Student Association of which I used to be a member, for failing to comply with campus policy. About a fourth of the organizations were faith-based.

This action was arguably taken as a result of a lawsuit filed earlier this year in which the United State District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled against the University of Iowas on exactly the same issue raised by the present action. The case is Business Leaders in Christ, an unincorporated association vs. The University of Iowa, et al. My link is to the entire 31-page court decision. Essentially, back on the 23rd of January, 2018 the Court ruled that this organization could not be banned from the campus for the same reason that all of the 40 student groups were more recently banned. One key issue in the Court's ruling was selective enforcement. So the University of Iowa apparently decided to ban all of the student groups they felt did not follow their policy and try to get around the Court's ruling. This is right back into the 60s.

Here is the University's policy:

[I]n no aspect of the [the University’s] programs shall there be differences in treatment of persons because of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, disability, genetic information, status as a U.S. veteran, service in the U.S. military, sexual orientation, gender identity, associational preferences, or any other classification that deprives the person of consideration as an individual, and that equal opportunity and access to facilities shall be available to all. See https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/BlinC-District-Court-Oder-on-PI.pdf

The simple question here is upon what criteria can any organization be formed? In other words, no organization could be allowed that had any requirements based on "any other classification" that would exclude anyone. 

Additionally, anyone can apply and be accepted by the University of Iowa for admission despite low academic standing, criminal background, etc? If I take a test in a class while attending the University aren't I entitled to pass? Isn't the professor discriminating against me just because I can't answer his or her test?

What about the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble? Where does that go? Perhaps you have forgotten that we have a First Amendment. Here it is in case you have forgotten:

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here is an article from the Library of Congress entitled "Right to Peaceful Assembly: United States." Are the faculty and staff of universities now agents of the United States of America and empowered to interpret and enforce their own version of the laws of the United States?

This is not an issue that is going to go away. There is a way to actively discourage discrimination without, at the same time, denying people their right of free speech and assembly. Although I think it is sad that organizations such as Iowa State University think that they have to assume governmental powers and selectively enforce their version of constitutional law.