Beginning Monday, April 10th the temple category will only be viewable to Church members who must be logged into their member account to see it.
If you have questions about your account, please post in the FamilySearch Account category or contact us via another channel here: https://www.familysearch.org/en/fieldops/familysearch-support-contact-us.
Margery Moss M2RW-KJY need help looking at ordinances
Hi,
I think there is something off with the ordinances being completed in 1928. I think something may have been merged incorrectly, but I am unable to unmerge or look at something else.
When I look to see what has been changed with her, there is an event of 1718 of Hutton, Lancaster, Co., England. This makes me wonder if the Margery of 1910 has been merged with an older record.
Thank you
SusAnn
Answers
-
This is where the Change Log is very useful. Going to it, the original record that was imported into Family Tree in 2012 was this:
It had just a name and a residence. No parents, no spouse, no children, no vital information. Nothing.
On September 1, 2017 someone decided to take this not even a skeleton of a record and turn it into her relative by adding a birth information and parents. This completely changed who this fragment of a person was.
Looking at the ordinances, her personal ordinances were completed in September and November 1928. This does mean that the ordinances belong to Mrs. Margery Moss, about 1718, of Hutton, Lancaster Co. England and not to Margery Moss, 1910, Bamber Bridge, Lancashire, England.
Since there have been no merges for Margery, this is easy to fix and you can do it yourself.
1) Create a new record for Margery 1910 as a child with her parents.
2) Remove all the information that was added to Margery 1718 and restore her back to her original 2012 record, including removing her from the family she was erroneously added to.
(If the though of this makes you nervous, I would be happy to do this for you, but I think you will find it very straightforward to complete. But do get this done. Margery 1910 still needs her individual ordinances completed. They have never been done.)
Now a couple of other points. The only way that original record could have gotten in Family Tree was for it to have been an IGI record generated by the completion of temple work in 1928. She is listed as Mrs. That means she was probably originally submitted for temple work in a family group with her husband. That is also how her temple work could have been completed without any birth information. So somewhere in the IGI there is likely a couple record with her and her husband. This should lead to a Family Tree record with just her and her husband's names and a couple sealing, probably completed in 1928 or 1929. This may also lead to some children for this couple. if you are ambitious, you could probably reconstruct this entire family.
And some historical background. In 1928, submitting a Family Group Sheet for a family consisting of a husband, wife and two children would potentially create the following IGI records:
- Husband baptism/confirmation
- Husband initiatory/endowment
- Wife baptism/confirmation
- Wife initiatory/endowment
- Husband/Wife couple sealing
- Child 1 baptism/confirmation
- Child 1 initiatory/endowment
- Child 1 sealing to parents
- Child 2 baptism/confirmation
- Child 2 initiatory/endowment
- Child 2 sealing to parents
This is why the importation of the IGI as part of the original basis for Family Tree created so many duplicate records that need to be carefully and correctly merged.
0 -
Thank you. I did create a new Margery. I am probably not ambitious enough to try and assembly the Margery 1718. If you would like to, I totally support that.
0 -
I was too curious to not take a look in the IGI. Using this search: https://www.familysearch.org/search/genealogies/results?q.anyDate.from=1718&q.anyDate.to=1718&q.collectionId=5&q.givenName=margery&q.surname=moss gives as the top nine results what looks to all be this same Margery. I'll go through them thoroughly and if I can confirm that, find these records in Family Tree and put them together there.
0 -
By the way, I neglected to say "Good catch!" You were very observant and I think it's great you wanted to handle this properly.
0 -
Thank you for your willingness to correct the family.
I was preparing to complete the SP when I noticed the 1928 ordinance dates. It was a pretty big give away. I was just confused because no one had been merged.
Thank you again!
0
