Latter Day Saints genealogy

[Just Kia]

Me too!

But, from my experience we obviously have to be very, very careful not to just accept without question their information but to approach with caution.

But, we should be like that about every guide and index.  Until we see the original (scan, photo, fiche, etc) then it should be a provisional entry that needs following up.

[pinefamily]

I agree with you both, but I was referring to the microfilms that can be obtained through their family history centres. These are filmed from original records, whether PR's, BT's, or census records. Without these, I would be lost here in Australia.

[pinefamily]

I can still remember clearly the moment I read the record of my 2x-great grandparents' marriage; it was a "halleleujah" moment. I had been trying to prove a link to certain surname handed down as a middle name, and there it was this day, many years ago now. I must have made a funny noise, because everyone in the room gathered around to see.
Who said genealogy is a lonely hobby?

[Redroger]

I think some of my relatives and ancestors will be turning in their graves at the thought of being baptised into the LDS church or for that matter any church. My objection is that the person being baptised has no say in the matter, but then I suppose these feelings are left overs from my family's baptist background of adult baptism.

[Hampshire Lass]

Me too!

But, from my experience we obviously have to be very, very careful not to just accept without question their information but to approach with caution.

But, we should be like that about every guide and index.  Until we see the original (scan, photo, fiche, etc) then it should be a provisional entry that needs following up.

I agree with that sentiment as well JustKia, but feel that people accept LDS info too readily and they should be more aware of the submitted pedigree records which can be so very incorrect.  We all have stories of looking at online trees and seeing the most appalling errors though and they could have been avoided if people had double checked and just generally been more careful. ie person dies in 1831 and gets married in 1840!!!!

[Redroger]

Correct, I try to adopt this practise. 1) Censuses include everyone in the house including lodgers and servants, surprising how often a lodger in one census is a son or daughter in law in the next, and servants have children with the surname of their employer as a second name! 2) If you think someone fits, but you don't know where, or have contradictory information, include them, but don't connect them to your tree, and make plenty of notes and references to what you have done. Makes it easier to include or delete them later on.

[jaybelnz]

I once found names of my parents and two further generations back on an online public tree. These entries were absolutely incorrect and this family had no connection whatsover with my family.

Reading further into the tree, it was one of those with zillions of names on it. There was also a facility to leave a "post-em" note, and email for the submitter.

I subsesquently emailed her, and requested that she remove my family's details from her tree, as I had proven data that they were not connected to her family.  I was surprised to get a reply from her, which said something like "I finished doing my research years ago, and I am not doing it anymore. No alterations will be made to my tree".  No apology - nothing!

I was pretty angry about it, so I left a post-em asking anyone viewing the tree to ignore the entries for  (named the people), and that they did not belong to that tree at all.  Also left my email address on it in case of bona fide researcher was  looking for info about my family.

I've found another one online as well, with my brother (and the children he had with his first wife), linked in as children of he and his second wife.  He and his second wife didn't even have any children together!!

Grrr! 

[Redroger]

In good faith as a basis for further research I sent information to a researcher in Australia, telling her it was a work in progress. She has incorporated it into her published tree, with no acknowledgement to either me or more importantly the fact the work is not proved. However, I make use of it thus, if I find a tree or information on line which includes this information I know it is spurious and treat it accordingly.

[Sloe Gin]

I think some of my relatives and ancestors will be turning in their graves at the thought of being baptised into the LDS church or for that matter any church. My objection is that the person being baptised has no say in the matter.

Yes they do 

By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. These individuals in the next life can then choose to accept or decline what has been done in their behalf.

http://mormon.org/faq/#Baptism