I don't think a marriage date and place should suffice to do BCIE.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: If a person only has a marriage date and place with another person but has no birth, christening, or death information, I do not think they should be allowed to get BCIE done. At the very least an estimated birth, christening, or death date and place should be added. This would help people do more research before adding the person to the temple or doing the work themselves.
What do you guys who are members of the church think?

The current rules are shown in the image below:

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: It has worked in the past for marriage sealings, who were not showing any dates or places, so a date or place for BCIE would work I would think. I have in the past found many couples in the Family Tree without any documentation who I have built with source-linker and a census record into a family.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: It has worked in the past for marriage sealings. I have found many sealed married couples by themselves that I have used with the source-linker and a census record to start a family in the FSFT.

LegacyUser

Carol Jo Menges said: Many of us will use orthodox methodology to estimate the birth events, at the very least, to allow the cyber system to search for Sources for the person in question or possible duplicates, and so on. Not everybody does that, for several reasons. I'm grateful, regardless, that FamilySearch allows ordinances to be performed when a unique individual is found to be needing them. That's the whole reason for this work in the first place. Details are great and can lead to other discoveries, but ordinances are the most important regardless.

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: It seems to me that a marriage date identifies a person just as well as a death date. Have a death date say for a John Brown does not more to identify the exact john brown than does a marriage date and a spouse. In both situations you know that a John Brown existed and in one case you know of a relationship to another individual With just a death date all you know is that a John Brown died. It seems to me that allowing ordinances for one is as valid as for the other. I do not see any significant difference in the situations.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Jim Greene has mentioned to us a couple of times about how the temple standard and genealogical standards are different, and work towards different goals. It appears that the leadership of the church wants to get names to the temple as soon as possible once enough information is identified to show that those names actually existed.

So what is "enough information is identified to show that those names actually existed"?

With something like a marriage certificate, you have identified a unique event where a couple relationship was created on a specific date in a specific location that can be standardized. Regardless of other information that may or may not be there (e.g., parent relationships or birth dates), the one thing that there is no question about is that those two people were real people that existed and were married on that date in that place.

So if you KNOW that certain names existed in a specific relationship, you know that they were actual people. So why wouldn't it be appropriate to go and get all of those ordinances done?

Obviously, it may come out later that other duplicate PIDs exist, possibly derived from birth records or censuses. But the worst that can happen is duplicate ordinance work. Although the church has worked through FS to significantly reduce the amount of duplicate ordinance work being done, that appears to be secondary in priority to the basic need of identifying individuals and getting their work done.

So based on those apparent priorities that the church seems to have set, I believe that a marriage date and place DOES uniquely identify a person to the point that ordinance work can commence.

However, the genealogist and engineer in me really doesn't like that, and so when I identify a name that the temple standard considers "ready" (i.e., those green icons again), I tend to jump on it and focus on raking in as much information as possible and then merging any duplicates that come up during the process. That way I can prevent redundant ordinance work, and more importantly, reduce confusion in the records.

But when a person has been uniquely identified to have existed along with a relationship of some type, even though minimal, then yea, it should go to the temple IMHO.

The danger of course, is when someone just wants the minimal for the record in order to get it to the temple and after that is done with it, not completely the record to a reasonable point (especially considering how easy it is getting to be to do such things).

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: "So if you KNOW that certain names existed in a specific relationship, you know that they were actual people. So why wouldn't it be appropriate to go and get all of those ordinances done?"
Because the ordinances might have already been done. If you have a marriage event and do the sealing ordinance, I understand that. But doing the BCIE when there is only a marriage event can lead to duplicate ordinances being done because someone else has found the christening record and done the BCIE already, but there has not been enough research to tie the people together.
You can't do the sealing to spouse if you only have a baptism record (because you do not have the spouse's name), so this does not go the other way around.
This is one reason why I don't do temple cards from the temple anymore (the other being that I have plenty to go through from my own research): because it feels like a waste of my time (I do understand the benefits of going to the temple by itself, however). I've seen so many times where people are too hasty to reserve and do temple work when they could have done more research IMO.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said:

Because the ordinances might have already been done

But as I am beginning to understand better, holding off on doing ordinances because the name hasn't been more fully researched for potential duplicates and duplicated work is not considered a valid reason to slow down the ordinances work. That's why a minimal set of information (even without sources) will produce a green icon.

But I do understand. I personally only take names that I've vetted to some degree. And now I have less concern about temple work being done on minimal information. But I still watch my ancestors and relatives for evolving information to be added.

And as far as doing the temple work--I personally have had times where I needed to be in the temple, and if they could give me a name that was "ready" per their standard, I was more than happy to do it. But when I have the time I like to reduce duplicate work where possible.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Another complication is that there are many countries where vital records just don't exist. That is why it is more important not to exclude someone from having ordinance work than it is to be 100% certain and duplication free. In some countries there is no such thing as 100% certain.
Not saying accuracy or better knowledge is unimportant, just giving criteria for prioritization.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: gasmodels,

One of the other things that one of the FS employees shared with us (can't remember who--may have also been Jim Greene), is that relationship information has a slightly higher importance than normal vitals in uniquely identifying someone. So that may be the breaking point between a single event marriage (which contains a relationship) and a single event death or burial (which frequently does not).

In fact, it seems to be that something was also mentioned about the algorithms determining the green icons using relationships to prioritize the assignments of the green statuses.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Here's an example of how inputs might be made according to whether one is "LDS" or not. Whereas, for genealogical reasons, I would never consider adding an estimated date of birth or death (unless I was completely sure of it being within a particular +/- 5 year range), Yet here is a discussion about doing just this: if this would be of importance regarding ordinance work.

As far as this, "help(ing) people do more research before adding the person to the temple", if I am reading this correctly, I don't see how using estimated dates would make any difference. If you input an estimated date (e.g."about 1745"), this shows on the Landscape view as being an ACTUAL date. Anyone in a rush would see that, say, "1745" and take it to mean a 1745 date had been found for the event. Okay, with any ordinance work, a Church member would be looking in more detail from the person page, but I still don't get the need for estimates, unless you are very sure about close proximity of the inputted date.

Sorry to crash in on what ostensibly is a "LDS only" matter, but any inputs affect the work of all of us - LDS, secular, or whatever we are using Family Tree for.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Paul,

If you think about it, NONE of the dates, locations, and other vitals recorded in a person record are FACTs. They are all just CONCLUSIONS derived from different sources and different researchers reasonings. Even the contents of sources themselves cannot be considered FACTs. I can't begin to tell you how many birth dates for spouses in early marriage licenses were 1-4 years out due to spouses lying about their age! Sources are only EVIDENCE of events that happened.

So what is the difference between a birth date calculated from a census and one that has a 3 year error taken from a marriage license? All conclusions are types of estimates--some just with more extensive evidence and reasoning than others.

To say that a conclusion is the ACTUAL date could only be based on the preponderance of evidence and the nature and quality of the sources--and even then it might only have been a calculated value.

In Jim's example we have the circumstances where in some cultures, the only genealogical history has been recorded verbally as names and parentages, No dates or places at all. For the theological side of the house, that is enough. For someone filling out pedigree charts, they might not be happy with it :-)

From a genealogical record keeping standpoint, a vital by itself is pretty useless. It is a conclusion without the evidences or documented logic that it was derived from. It is an ice cream truck with nothing inside. It's appearance is only an illusion!

Let's see, where was I?

Oh, yea. So there is a "threshold" of information required relative to temple work and the church has set the standard. But to support that from a genealogical standpoint, we continue to add as much information and accuracy as we can.

IMHO, What should not happen is that when people lose interest in the record simply because the temple work has been completed. We continue to receive new sources and frequently they can reveal errors in the logic by which vital conclusions have been made.

LegacyUser

Carol Jo Menges said: I agree.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Jeff

You make good points, and I am largely in agreement. Except, at least there is usually SOME evidence (i.e. based on a source) when I add a (perhaps incorrect) date for one of the vitals. My point concerns inputting a date when there is absolutely NO evidence for when the event might have occurred. Like the users who take 21 or 25 years off the marriage date for the birth date input and, similarly, assume an individual died when they were 75 years old, if there is no alternative evidence..

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Yep. Tom Huber quotes a statement from somewhere that makes a lot of sense along the lines of "Conclusions without Sources are mythology"

And my extension to that is that when sources are questionable and in conflict with each other, any conclusion drawn from them that is not accompanied with a documented reasoning as to how that conclusion was pulled from those sources is not very credible.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: That adage has been around for a long time. The original statement, from what I can tell, is "Genealogy without documentation is mythology." I believe I found it on the U.S. National Genealogical Society site. A quick search reveals a current article, written September 18, 2009 by Daniel Hubbard where he talks about that phrase. It actually occurred much earlier than 2009, but I don't have an origin date.

The Daniel Hubbard article is a good read and his conclusion is more descriptive of the problems we face: "Genealogy without a single document is a figment and even with documentation can be a fabrication.”

The prime example is my ancestor Pieter Claesen, 9312-XFX. His ancestral line was the subject of a genealogy produced by Gustave Anjou who fabricated sources to connect Pieter with royalty in Europe. Anjou is widely regarded as a self-proclaimed genealogist who bilked many American families out of thousands of dollars during the early part of the 20th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_...).

Pieter is an excellent example of not having absolute sources, but circumstantial evidence as to his birth date and place. It is one of the very few profiles where I used circumstantial evidence to draw a bith date and place conclusion.

To me, it is something that we (as individuals) have to decide. "Do I have enough evidence (including circumstantial) to determine that this person was a real person?"

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: My take away from this discussion is that people should not lose interest and stop researching a person simply because they did the temple work already. And that the low threshold of info for a record needed to do ordinance work is so that the work can be done for various situations. Therefore, the current rules are ok, but we should continue to go above that while we are doing the ordinance work too.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Pieter's vicarious ordinances were completed before I tackled the job of putting together what is now there. It took my a solid month of research to obtain what I needed and discussions with others related to him to come the conclusions now in the record.

You are absolutely correct. I'm in the middle of getting ready to move out to the Westport area of Washington State, but the Stout family is another one that needs a lot of work to put together a decent record. There are many other ancestors and relatives that I need to review and make sure the lines are solid.

Most members of the Church are not thorough and often do the minimum, and, in the past, have used the green temple icons to determine what to work on next. I believe that many of them fail to realize that research really needs to be done in an orderly fashion and that means if they are going to do research, they start by making sure their ancestral lines are as complete as they can make it, regardless of whether the vicarious ordinances have been completed or not.

Then once the ancestral lines have been made as complete as possible, they can start doing descendancy research, but not by using the temple icons.

They need to pick an ancestor and make sure that the record is as complete as possible, do the same with the spouse, and then with each of the children. Once the family is complete, start with the oldest child, add their spouse and children and repeat the process.

Then pick up the next child and do the same thing. I stopped with Pieter Claesen because I knew that it would take a lot of research to work up the records for his spouse (and her family) and then each of the children. There is a lot of misinformation floating around out there and it will likely take a lifetime of work, just to bring Pieter's family down to the 19th century, much more all the way to the present time.

So yes, it is very important that we work toward making each of our relative's profiles as complete as possible, not with just FamilySearch records, but all records, no matter where they may appear.

Right now, I need to make sure all the photographs that I have gathered over the years from my deceased family are properly identified as uploaded in the memory gallery, then properly tagged to the records of the deceased in the massive tree.

There is still work needed to be done with respect to ordering memories (by FamilySearch) and while packing up my genealogical papers, I came across a nine page biography on my father that he contributed before he died. So there is a lot to do, once my wife and I get moved.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Yup. And relative to Jodi's original question for this topic, a marriage license and certificate is extremely good evidence that those two names were for real people, even if a lot of other information about them is not known.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Jordi,
yes those are my beliefs. And it is because there are two important aspects of family history. The FIRST is learning about, finding, and recording family persons, histories, and other family related cultures (i.e., the genealogical aspects of it). The SECOND one is the temple work. So I might rephrase your final sentence to something like "the current temple rules are okappropriate, but we should also abide the other family history rules of good documentation as well. continue to go above that while we are doing the ordinance work too."

But again, those are just my beliefs.

Tom,

people should not lose interest and stop researching a person simply because they did the temple work already

Or simply because that name has been shared with the temple. All of the recent discussions here about green icons have been primarily due to people specifically wanting the icon colors to assist them in doing this very thing.

There does seem to be a "hit and run" approach to genealogy by many on the website. Hopefully that reduces over time and with increased experience and learning new techniques.

LegacyUser

ATP said: As I see this topic and its mitigations is whether the documentation of our kindred dead is "worthy of all acceptation"! Good thing that the records Lehi preserved of his genealogy as a descendant of Joseph and passed on to the future generations were not GEDCOMs!