Latter Day Saints genealogy

[Redroger]

Regarding reply No.8 I concur with the caveat that if you are able to authenticate a submitted record through access to the submitter or to the source document (preferable) then such a record has to be acceptable for research.I have actually done this once out of several attempts.

[Plummiegirl]

I take all submitted entries on LDS site with a degree of sceptiscism.

Many of these entries were done many years ago, US people looking for their UK ancestors, no visits to UK, just very scant records available and they have just added people to their families 'cos right name, age etc., well we all know how accurate that type of supposition is.

Justkia - I think that a 'genuine' mistake is being very generous on your part.

I have seen people born in UK, marry in UK, then go to the US, but come back to the UK to give birth to every child (as many as 10 times!) and then their body is brought back for them to be buried in their local parish church.

Sadly the LDS records which are submitted are a guideline which needs in many instances a great deal of accurate research.

The object of the LDS church is to baptise every person who has died into their own church.  Which they do in batches.  Eventually we will all be baptised into this church so as to enter the kingdom of heaven!!!!

[M.R. Dien]

Many of the tools which we regard as part of genealogy were never intended for that purpose, a prime example are the census records or even birth marriage and death records.
That said they, like the LDS records, are single sources and should always be checked (and if you are as sceptical as I often am you check and check again) 

[Sloe Gin]

Bear in mind that parish registers are not infallible either.  I eventually tracked down a marriage which doesn't appear in the PR, but does appear in the Bishop's Transcript.  This I found at the county records office, there is no record of it anywhere online so far.  I can well imagine someone's genuine submitted entry being binned as "dodgy" in such circumstances.

Oh, and I actually have someone in my tree who did go to Utah!  He became quite a prominent Mormon, as it happens, so don't automatically dismiss the possibility.   

[Redroger]

Bear in mind that parish registers are not infallible either.  I eventually tracked down a marriage which doesn't appear in the PR, but does appear in the Bishop's Transcript. 

Though this has happened to me more than once I always find the situation strange and a little confusing given that the BT is supposed to be a copy of the register.

[Sloe Gin]

I suppose it depends how the recording was done, and by whom.  Some vicars or clerks would write the entry straight into the register, while others would fill it in later, having jotted down the details on a scrap of paper (or not!).  Things are sometimes missed when copying.  Could be that sometimes the BT was separately recorded, rather than being copied from the PR, and the clerk included an event that the vicar had forgotten  - or vice versa.

[Redroger]

Probably,but I think this shows that all records however compiled are open inevitably to human error. The best we can hope for is to get as close to the source document as possible.

[aghadowey]

A few years ago I got permission from a minister to view the church records (I had previously seen them with his predecessor) and noticed there were no baptisms recorded since he had arrived (and he'd been there quite a few years by then). I didn't ask why but he looked at the latest register and commented "I must remember to put those baptisms in the book." Haven't seen the records since but often wonder how many errors or omissions there are for that period 

[Redroger]

A lot no doubt!What comes of being answerable only to a higher authority.