Is this ordinance work valid, or does it still need to be done?

ChurchBruce Walter1

• This person has a green temple indicating that the Baptism needs to be done, however alternate information indicates that the ordinance work has been done.
• LdsBaptism
• 22 MAY 1954
• Reason This Information Is Correct:
• GEDCOM data
• Last Changed: February 13, 2022 by WesternEllenMaria1

John Hawkins

1728 – Deceased

 • G6SF-1YZ

Graham Buckell

@ChurchBruce Walter1

The reason that the Temple work is showing as available (subject to the fact that it has now been reserved very recently) is that this is a new record created on 14 February 2022. It looks like it has been created by uploading a GEDCOM file to Genealogies and then added to Family Tree via the Compare facility.

If you look at the siblings listed on Family Tree, it looks like quite a few new records were created. The names are the same as many siblings already there although the dates are somewhat different.

Without investigating further, I strongly suspect that these new additions are duplicates and therefore should be merged into the existing records.

This may avoid a lot of duplicated Temple work.

Regards

Graham Buckell

ChurchBruce Walter1

Thanks Graham, this partially answers my question, however not entirely satisfactory, still leaves me with a lot of questions, and a lot of supposed work. However, I thank you for the answer as it gives me some direction as to where to look next.

Sincerely, Bruce W. Church

ChurchBruce Walter1

Graham, your comment "The reason that the Temple work is showing as available (subject to the fact that it has now been reserved very recently) is that this is a new record created on 14 February 2022." Suggested that I go back and look at John Hawkins. It now shows that the temple work is in progress and does not show green anymore! Many Thanks!

Bruce W. Church

Graham Buckell

Bruce

With respect, I think you are missing my point. My concern is that someone may have gone diving ahead to create extra Temple work when the work has already been done. I may be wrong of course but my strong recommendation is that further research should be done before time might be wasted in the Temple.

I have spent a few minutes looking. You have 15 children between 1728 and 1756 with names repeated. Parents are Zachariah and Elizabeth.

I looked on Ancestry for baptisms in Croughton with Zachariah as a father in the period 1715 to 1735 and found the following:

Note that the mother is Judith in all cases, not Elizabeth.

I then repeated the exercise for 1735 to 1755 and found

We now have Elizabeth as the mother.

The two Johns appear. But the new one has the wrong mother.

So the position does not look too bad.

Some children have the wrong mother.

It looks like there were two Zachariahs too - one born in 1711 who married Elizabeth and another born earlier who married Judith. An Ancestry member's tree suggests another Zachariah baptised in 1690 who married Judith Wells. The marriage is a long way away although the names and date fit. I recommend investigating further before accepting that marriage.

Hopefully this emphases that care should be exercised.

Regards

Graham Buckell