Adding Proxy-only marriages
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Moroni4 said: Need the ability to post proxy-only marriages (as opposed to civil and plural marriages). I discovered an ancestor who had 4 proxy-only sealings, and it took hours (of my time and Family Search staff) to track down that the sealings DID exist (he was sealed to relatives of his plural wife, each of whom died unmarried and young). It was a comfort to know that these wonderful women were sealed to a loving man. Too bad it can't currently be a part of his and their records. Please consider adding this as an option. It would mean a lot, and save considerable confusion and time. Thank you.
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Brett said: Russell
Firstly, "Welcome" to this "FamilySearch" ( "GetStaisfaction" ) 'Feedback' Forum.
Secondly, "Official 'FamilySearch' Representatives", do monitor; and, sometimes, participate in, this Forum.
Thirdly, I am just another User/Patron, just like yourself (and, happen to be a Member of the Church).
Many Users/Patrons who regularly participate in this Forum who have a great deal of knowledge and experience with "FamilySearch", like to assist/help other Users/Patrons like yourself.
Finally, 'Yes', I understand the premise of your post.
Hopefully, not so much the ability for a User/Patron to "Add" that in "Family Tree"; but, IF, "Identified" by a Member User/Patron; THEN, the ability for "FamilySearch" to be able to include such against an individual/person on their "Ordinances" 'Tab'; so as, not to 'concern' non-member Users/Patrons.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
.0 -
Christine said: Yes. That information can also be added to notes.0
-
Brett said: Christine
'No', the (current) "Notes" (and, "Discussions"), being the (current) "Collaboration" 'Tab', would NOT be the appropriate place for such.
The only appropriate place for such would be the (Members ONLY) "Ordinances" 'Tab'.
But, as has been previously suggested/requested, perhaps we need a "Notes", come, "Discussions", area, being a "Collaboration" Section in that (Members ONLY) "Ordinances" 'Tab'.
Brett
.0 -
Brett said: Christine
'No', the (current) "Notes" (and, "Discussions"), being the (current) "Collaboration" 'Tab', would NOT be the appropriate place for such.
The only appropriate place for such would be the (Members ONLY) "Ordinances" 'Tab'.
But, as has been previously suggested/requested, perhaps we need a "Notes", come, "Discussions", area, being a "Collaboration" Section in that (Members ONLY) "Ordinances" 'Tab'.
Brett
.0 -
Jessie Hearle said: https://familysearch.org/ask/productS...
https://familysearch.org/ask/productS...0 -
Moroni4 said: I've actually been adding these individuals, but posting "PROXY SEALING ONLY" in all caps on the same line as "Place of marriage." In this way it is immediately clear to any viewer that it was an ordinance-only connection and not a living marriage. That seems to be a reasonable work-around for now.0
-
Brett said: Russell
Have you viewed the "Knowledge Articles" in "FamilySearch" provided below, posted by 'Jessie'?
They being:
Sealing-only relationships
https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...
My ancestor is sealed to an unrelated early Church leader
https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...
They are, interesting; and, revealing, to say the least ...
Brett
.0 -
Moroni4 said: This issue is specifically NOT a "no family relationship during their lifetimes," or a "Law of Adoption" non-relationship as described in the links. This situation involved the sealing of siblings who died unmarried in their 20s, and the living sister requested they be sealed to her husband. It means a lot to our family to know of the sealings and to have that information preserved for all working on the line.
>> Request Clarified: When creating a couples relationship via "Add Event" there is a drop-down menu with the options "Marriage," "Annulment," "Common-Law Marriage," "Divorce" and "Lived Together" options are located. They could simply add the options of "Plural Marriage" and "Proxy-Only Sealing." In this way confusion could be minimized and important and comforting family ordinance information could be retained.0 -
Brett said: Russell
'Thank You' for clarifying your post, below.
By the way, I do not disagree with the premise of your post.
Brett
.0 -
Moroni4 said: Thanks Brett0
-
Brett said: ☺0
-
Adrian Bruce said: You appear to be suggesting that an item which is, and must be, visible to all users of FamilySearch FamilyTree, should be amended to contain information that is of relevance only to LDS Church members.
As a non-member, I suggest that this is a seriously bad idea. I don't need to see such information and if it did, it would (possibly) betray all sorts of things that some would rather were kept confidential.
In addition, if I can see it, I (presumably) can amend it, which might cause all sorts of issues to Church members - especially as there was/is such a thing as "marriage by proxy" - it was quite normal for medieval monarchs or their heirs to be married by proxy and I imagine that you seriously don't want that data mixed up with LDS data.
If I'm missing something about visibilty, then please someone correct me.0 -
David Newton said: No. Absolutely not.
That is completely unworkable. If they were unmarried at death then they were unmarried. If there is to be something like this it MUST be completely separate from the actual relationship section. It must be invisible to anyone who is not Mormon and it must not affect their interaction with FSFT in any way, shape or form.
If you are creating relationships as described up the thread please stop doing so. You are creating false information by doing so.
If these proxy marriages are not handled correctly by the Mormon-only bit of FSFT then that's unfortunate for you, and it does need addressing. However the relationships part of FSFT is for actual relationships whilst individuals were alive. It can be seen by everyone and it affects the interaction of everyone with FSFT. It is just as inappropriate to record this there as it is to record sealing of a child to their grandparents (when that occurs as I understand it does sometimes) by creating a direct relationship between the child and the grandparents in the non-Mormon bit of FSFT where none existed (such as adoption) in life.
This needs addressing by the software development team, so do not mistake me as saying what you are wanting should not be accommodated.0 -
Brett said: Adrian; and, David
'Yes', you are correct, the premise of this post ...
- Is of no interest to ...
- Does not need to be viewed/accessible to ...
- Is of no concern to ...
non-member Users/Patrons of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
There is nothing wrong with the premise of this post (for such to be "Recorded"); except, for the later suggestions that such (the premise of this post) could be added to/appear in the (current) "Notes" (and, "Discussions"), being the (current) "Collaboration" 'Tab'; as, I have already suggested, that it would NOT be the appropriate to, either, (1) have the ability for a User/Patron to be able to "Add" such (premise of the post); or, (2) to include such (premise of this post) in/against the (current) "Notes" (and, "Discussions"), being the (current) "Collaboration" 'Tab' - nor anywhere else for that matter.
Again; as, I have already suggested, the ONLY appropriate place for the premise of this post would be against an individual/person on their "Ordinances" 'Tab'; so as, not to be, viewed/accessible to; or, of 'concern' to, non-member Users/Patrons of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
And, the inclusion (ie. addition) of such (the premise of this post) "Records", should ONLY, be by; and, through, "FamilySearch" - NOT the Users/Patrons.
Hence, why I jumped onto the post almost immediately.
But ...
That said ...
It HAPPENED ...
How many times has it been said ...
- Do not look at life through 'rose coloured glasses'; and,
- You cannot 'whitewash' history.
It NEEDS to be "Recorded" ...
All that is need is that such (the premise of this post) ONLY to appear on the (Members of the Church ONLY) "Ordinances" 'Tab'.
Therefore ...
Of NO concern to non-member Users/Patrons of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
... Out out sight, out of mind ...
Please do not concern yourselves with the premise of this post.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
.0 -
David Newton said: It is being suggested thst this be recorded in the general area of FSFT. That makes it our concern.0
-
Brett said: David
'Yes' ... that is WHY I jumped onto the post almost immediately.
Brett
.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: As a non-member, I have, and can have, no opinion on the recording of LDS material. But where the means of programming (apparently) explicitly moves out of the LDS-only part of the system into general view, it is my duty to warn - and clearly you feel the same.
I rather doubt that FS would ever program what the Original Poster asked for - but it's also important that the OP understands the issues - hence our desire to spell things out.
I suspect you, I and David are in violent agreement about where in FSFT any enhancement inspired by this request should be.0 -
Brett said: Yep
☺0 -
Moroni4 said: Excellent points, well made and well taken. It would only be church members who would have any investment in these proxy-only sealings. Others would either have no opinion or potentially even a negative view of this ordinance work. I am unfamiliar with any current "members-only" area of FSFT, but it could serve very well. My great frustration was the hours it took to explore and confirm the ordinance work. For members, who do care, it would have been a great benefit to have been able to locate this temple work without the extensive searching, emails, and phone calls it ultimately required. I would welcome any ideas that would have circumvented this. The idea of hosting *all* temple work relevant to an individual under a members-only "ordinances tab" seems potentially workable. Thoughts?0
-
Moroni4 said: Thank you for this perspective. Very much appreciated.0
-
Brett said: Russell
The (Members of the Church ONLY) "Ordinances" 'Tab' that I refer to is SIMPLY the ALREADY current/existing "Ordinances" 'Tab', for an individual/person - nothing more, nothing less - only seen/accessed by Members of the Church.
That "Ordinances" 'Tab' currently ONLY displays "Ordinances"; whereas, there has been suggestions/requests to include something akin to the 'General', "Notes"; and, "Discussions", Sections, within the current/existing"Collaboration" 'Tab'.
We, being Members of the Church, really NEED the ability to "Collaborate" with, both, "Notes"; and, "Discussions", Sections, within the "Ordinances" 'Tab', where "Notes"; and, "Discussions", on Church related "Topics" can appear, away from/devoid of non-member Users/:Patrons.
'Yes', having, both, "Notes"; and, "Discussions", Sections, within the "Ordinances" 'Tab' IS a workable solution.
The (Members of the Church ONLY) "Ordinances" 'Tab' would be a good place to have the "Sealing-Only Relationships", that you are referring to, that occur in your Ancestral lineage (for example) - as far as I am aware, SOME such "Sealing-Only Relationships" already exist for some individuals/persons, in the (Members of the Church ONLY) "Ordinances" 'Tab'.
What you have to be aware of and remember is that, the real 'sticking point' is, both, the many competing priorities within "Family Tree" (and, the Other parts) of "FamilySearch"; and, the very limited resources available to "FamilySearch".
That is the problem/issue ...
As I indicated, from the outset, there is nothing wrong with the original premise of your post - your suggested/requested enhancement is quite valid.
It is just the 'magnitude' of the the many competing priorities within "Family Tree" (and, the Other parts) of "FamilySearch"; and, the very limited resources available to "FamilySearch", that is the 'sticking point'.
I know that this does not help; but, I hope it puts things into perspective.
Not to mention that "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is ALSO now utilized by countless non-members of the Church, who are 'Registered' Users/Patrons, just like the Member Users/Patrons.
"Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" has grown well beyond the use of just for Members only.
Just something to think about.
Brett
.0 -
Moroni4 said: Brett
Thank you for the explanation. As a "member" registered user, I was unaware that the "ordinances" tab was not visible to non-member users. Now I better understand. By way of clarification on my end, I discovered these proxy-only sealings (of three deceased single adult relatives of a wife, to her husband, at her request) when building out this line in Ancestry.com. In "accepting" the "merge" of various family trees already in Ancestry.com, fully *10* other associated family trees showed these three relatives as sealed via temple work done in 1885. Too many to ignore, it seemed. But these entries lacked sources. So, of course, I looked to Family Search, under the ordinances tab, to confirm - and found nothing. Many calls and emails later, the sealings were eventually confirmed via a historian's review of the old temple records. Then, working with Family Search I discovered, in the "changes" log, that these individuals had previously been entered and removed over time. If I "restore" them, the ordinance work again appears - but I'm being strongly encouraged here not to do that, for reasons well evident in this thread - and which reasons I understand and accept. I also understand your point, that Family Search programming has limits and priorities. I've shared this experience only because of the extraordinary amount of time consumed in tracking down something already *openly* present in Ancestry.com, but inexplicably (to me then) absent in Family Search - where I would expect to find such ordinance work, given the "Ordinances" tab. It may be that nothing can currently be done to remedy this. But at least the concern has been expressed. Thank you for the time you and others have taken to address this. To ensure no difficulties for others, I will leave these individuals "un-restored" - yet, still aware that any other "member" family researcher on this line will need to repeat this same tedious genealogical journey, when they encounter the same questions. As someone retired, it has been less of burden to me than to the very many people I reached out to in an effort to resolve something that, I came to learn, many others had previously explored and confirmed. It is times like this that we are reminded that the world is not always perfect, and we need to be patient with that!
Thank you again.0 -
Brett said: Russell
'No' ...
You are definitely NOT "... being being strongly encouraged here not to do that ...", in fact, just the the opposite of that ...
DO IT.
"Restore" them.
Re-enable those "Sealing-Only Relationships Ordinances".
ALLOW them to be (re-)displayed on the "Ordinances" 'Tab' of the individuals/persons concerned.
It happened.
It is (Church) "History".
Do not allow "History" to be 'whitewashed'!
DO NOT hesitate.
The non-member Users/Patrons will NOT see it; so, they will not be 'concerned'.
The Member Users/Patrons who are "Related" to those individuals/persons will APPRECIATE it.
PLEASE, do it.
Brett
.0 -
Moroni4 said: Brett, I'm under the impression (from your first post) that you formally work for Family Search. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Personally, I have felt as you do - it is history, factual, and relevant. However, I'm also very sensitive to the feelings of those posting. To "restore" is to re-introduce these persons into the relationship area that is visible to all. Only then will the "Ordinance" section populate with their temple ordinances. Where I've done this in past, I've made a point to enter "PROXY ONLY" immediately before the "place of marriage" information, so that it is instantly evident to *all* viewers exactly what relationship exists - without opening the relationship area to search for notes.
However, I have also carefully noted the following posts:
---------
David Newton 20 hours ago
No. Absolutely not. That is completely unworkable. If they were unmarried at death then they were unmarried. If there is to be something like this it MUST be completely separate from the actual relationship section. It must be invisible to anyone who is not Mormon and it must not affect their interaction with FSFT in any way, shape or form. If you are creating relationships as described up the thread please stop doing so. You are creating false information by doing so. If these proxy marriages are not handled correctly by the Mormon-only bit of FSFT then that's unfortunate for you, and it does need addressing. However the relationships part of FSFT is for actual relationships whilst individuals were alive. It can be seen by everyone and it affects the interaction of everyone with FSFT.
----------
Adrian Bruce 21 hours ago
You appear to be suggesting that an item which is, and must be, visible to all users of FamilySearch FamilyTree, should be amended to contain information that is of relevance only to LDS Church members. As a non-member, I suggest that this is a *seriously* bad idea. I don't need to see such information and if it did, it would (possibly) betray all sorts of things that some would rather were kept confidential.
----------
Adrian Bruce 14 hours ago
As a non-member, ...it is my duty to warn - and clearly you feel the same. ...you, I and David are in *violent* agreement about where in FSFT any enhancement inspired by this request should be.
-----------
Brett, I want very much to be sensitive to others, especially non-member users. Yet, I am also very aware that with Ancestry.com this information is *already* openly and widely available, seen and known (hence my finding it). I am also aware that Family Search was created, paid for and is maintained by the church to meet its members needs. Yet *all* feelings are important. You write: "The non-member Users/Patrons will NOT see it." Yet, I know of no way to restore these individuals, with their ordinance work, "invisibly," are you suggesting that there is some other option? Please advise. Thank you.0 -
Brett said: Russell
There could be.
Let me try to help.
Provide the PIDs.
I will take a look.
I cannot promise; but, ... you never know, it you do not give it a go.
Brett
.0 -
Moroni4 said: Thanks so much for this offer of help. I'll give you a different individual, as I had previously already added proxy-only relationships that you can now see (while the individual we've previously spoken about remains pending). Specifically: Alma Heath Silcock (1842–1864 • KWJB-DWK). With this case you can see how I'd clearly identified each with their proxy-only relationship status. In this case, he was proxy-only sealed to both Susan Dansie (1813–1829 • L6PH-8SB) and Caroline Myers (1837–1862 • KNJD-XTJ).
By way of background, the Dansie and Silcock families were quite close. They both came from England and crossed the plains and settled on adjacent farms in Utah. Many of their children subsequently intermarried. Caroline is unrelated but was a very dear friend. She died at age 25 while crossing the plains, and even shares a common grave with another Dansie (Charlotte), as they died within hours of each other.
The other proxy-only sealing was to Susan Dansie, who died at age 16 before the family left England. Once in Utah, Alma married but died in his first year of marriage (having just one newborn child) and without having had the opportunity to be sealed to his spouse. She later remarried and chose to be sealed to the man with whom she lived the remainder of her life and had 15 children.
Little wonder, then, that in 1917 relatives sealed these two loved ones to Alma - a much loved relative and a deeply cherished friend who was striving to make it to Utah with her fellow saints. She had been crossing the plains and died alone (e.g., without any of her natural family) in Wyoming. It clearly seemed very fitting to the family to provide her with temple ordinances and blessings, along with their beloved Susan, even while extending similar blessings to Alma - knowing that each can still choose whatever they wish after this life.
Let me know what can be done, if anything, to meet the needs and feelings of all involved. Thank you again for the help and support.0 -
Tom Huber said: I agree with the idea that the ordinance tab in a person’s profile be expanded to include proxy-only dealings, but without the necessity of adding those so sealed to the public view. What that means as far as setting this up may take design changes, but this is important to the Church members who have ancestral lines involved in this early Church practice.0
-
Moroni4 said: Thanks so much for your input. It would sure be positive for so many, and would save time for those of us confused over records we can't otherwise readily verify. Let's see what happens as Brett assists.0
-
gasmodels said: This is clearly a sensitive issue that needs some careful consideration. As Family Tree is presently constructed any proxy sealing will not appear unless the records involved are linked in the appropriate relationship. Since non-members can see all relationships it appears to them that one individual might have several extra spouses because that is what they would see in the Family Members section. Sometimes the associated dates for the individuals are such that the relationships would be impossible. Clearly they are not genealogically correct which is one of the stated purposes of Family Tree.
On the other had some members desire that the associated ordinances be displayed on the ordinance page because there is history or family connection behind these ordinances. We all know that only the earliest ordinances are displayed on that page and as indicated above sealings only show if relationships exist. We thus have a current quandary about how to resolve the issue. I would think that a change of design could be implemented to display sealings on the ordinance page even if the relationships do not exist in Family Tree. It would lead to some complications such as displaying sealings completed to incorrect spouses and parents because of mistakes in research etc. Presently these are hidden unless the incorrect relationship is connected.
I do not believe that I would like to see a change, I think it would just lead to more discussion about "incorrect ordinances". I believe this would be more more intense than the issue of this thread.0 -
Moroni4 said: Thank you for this input.0
This discussion has been closed.