Latter Day Saints genealogy

[captainbeecher]

Just throwing this out there to see what others think but in the course of researching my family tree I have had two branches that have been sourced back a couple of hundred years through the Latter Day Saints info.

However when I have questioned both of these lines against old parish registers [which LDS state is their source for their info in both my cases] I have been unable to confirm or support any of the LDS information.

I find this a worrying development as both the lines I researched found literally dozens of links to other people's trees in ancestry.com and myheritage. I suspect people simply accepting LDS as fact without checking the source in many cases.

Also curious was that both family lines had offshoots that eventually led to Utah. I'm just sceptical that LDS can trace and confirm these two ancestral lines back to the 1600s with great accuracy yet when i try and search for them on Scotland's people or the parish registers i can find no trace at all of most of the people or if I do get a hit, they died young and unmarried and never left the British Isles, never mind making for Utah.

Does anyone else have a similar experience of the LDS genealogy or am I just being paranoid in suggesting that there may be some fabrication here to suggest that all roads eventually lead to Utah?

[Just Kia]

Not sure what you mean by LDS genealogy.
I use the LDS site for their index to parish registers, but try to avoid submitted entries (I think that the ones on the new site are all extracted records). In both cases I like to verify the info, either by being able to view the record myself (scan, photocopy, fiche, real thing, etc) or by a kind RC'er checking the register for me.

I don't trust anyone's online tree (genes reu, anc, etc) unless I can verify each event for myself. Anc is well known for people having "incorrect" trees. The best thing you can do is make sure your own research is as accurate as you can and document all your sources 0 for even the tiniest notes.
I'm regretting not being meticulous in documenting where I got certain pieces of info from in the earlier days of my research. At the time I thought "I'll remember" or "it's obvious" and now months/years later I'm left wondering "how do I know that?" and having to repeat my research to re-confirm things.

[CaroleW]

However when I have questioned both of these lines against old parish registers [which LDS state is their source for their info in both my cases] I have been unable to confirm or support any of the LDS information.

Are you sure that the records you found on the IGI were extracted records and not submitted ones?

Quite often - submitted records are "guesstimates" based on census info etc and are unreliable when researching

It's easy to check - when you find a record - scroll down and it will tell you whether it's from the original or whether it's submitted

[Hampshire Lass]

I also have found details on LDS which go back to 949AD. Amazing, I thought at first.

My tree is on A******Y and no I'm not a name collector. Also it is now a private tree.

There are a great number of public trees who have just copied the LDS results back to 949AD and I have now noticed that the info is submitted.

A few weeks ago I found via TNA very old documents which are stored in a records office many many miles from where the family were living.I sent for all of these documents and they prove that the submitted info is totally incorrect. I also went to the more local records office which has the original parish records and can see where the submitter has gone wrong as well as making more progress with the correct line.

Now I feel I am probably the only person with these documents and feel responsible for passing the info on. But how do you do it and how can you tell LDS this submitted info is wrong. The researcher concerned has a lot to answer for as there are many many people who have copied his info.

[RJ_Paton]

As you mention Scotlands people OPR's -  The OPR's on Scotlands people are only for the Established Church.
It is also possible that the family members concerned were members of the various secessionist churches or of faiths other than the Established Church of Scotland. and the LDS were allowed access to these other records when they first started their research although a clear distinction must be drawn between extracted records and submitted records. The latter as their name implies were submitted by members of the LDS Church and no checking was undertaken. If however the record states it was an extracted record you can be fairly certain of its accuracy as this is a transcription from the original records.

Although the LDS have made their research available for genealogists use, this was never their primary objective.

[Just Kia]

The LDS aren't trying to (re)construct (accurate) trees. They perform baptisms on behalf of the deceased so that they may enter heaven (I may not have explained that 100% right). Their work just happens to benefit us family history researchers.

Hampshire Lass - don't feel that responsiblity. It is any individuals own responsibility to make sure that their own reasearch is accurate. Those people who have blindly copied info are just as bad as the person who originally made the submitted entry, then again in fairness it could have been an honest mistake in the first instance.

[Hampshire Lass]

Hi Justkia,

I actually think that LDS is a brilliant site and am thankful for it. I also believe that the submitter did make a genuine mistake but he now has such a lot to answer for. Because the documents I have were stored in such an obscure place I was lucky to find them and they are immensely interesting. It's a shame that all the other researchers haven't found them and so I do feel responsible for passing this information on -but don't see how I can.

The documents relate to a tree I'm researching for a friend but they are the most exciting discovery I have ever made.

[captainbeecher]

Just Kia

   I know exactly what you mean in regard to not documenting early research as I have info that I no longer remember how i sourced it. Like you I never take the word of someone else as there is so much blind copying that goes on. I use the smart matching on My heritage a lot but ask the owner of the tree to support their findings. sadly very few actually do supply reliable source material, which is what leads to widely reported errors in trees.

I see the new LDS site has sourced out much of the submitted info, which I have long been very dubious of. I do still suspect that occasional names have crept in that are not in the OPR. These being the names that always end up dying in Utah in the 1840s.

[Ruskie]

THere is a huge amount of information about this on the net, but Wiki is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead
Kia is correct in that the IGI is not for genealogical research however indirectly it is of great benefit to us. There was some discussion ages ago about the LDS (I wish I'd kept the link to it  ) which said that there is/was great pressure for members of the church to collect (anyone's) ancestor's names for baptism, which is the reason there are many inaccuracies and prefabrications - all they did was collect names.

J\The safest thing is to just steer clear of submitted entries, especially those using 'about' in the date, and giving names of spouses as 'mrs john smith' or something equally as vague. However some are accurate - often those which give exact dates and names, so just use them as a guide but check for accuracy.