Adding Proxy-only marriages

LegacyUser

Brett said: Russell

'G'Day', morning, from "Down Under"

Sorry for my delayed response, I was getting tired after my previous "Reply"; and, finally went to bed about 1 am.

I will take a look; and, get back to you.

Now ...
That said ...

The original premise of "Family Tree" (and, it predecessor, "New.FamilySearch") of "FamilySearch" was/were, 'designed'; 'developed'; and, 'implemented', by the Church, principally for Members of the Church, for "Temple" Work - plain and simple, NOTHING has changed in that premise.

All that has really happened in that the Church has later allowed non-members of the Church to participate in and use "Family Tree" (and, it predecessor, "New.FamilySearch") of "FamilySearch".

'Yes' we must be sensitive to non-members of the Church to a certain degree; but, we DO NOT have to "Change" the ORIGINAL premise of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" to TOTALLY accommodate non-members of the Church.

It happened.
It is (Church) "History".
Do not allow "History" to be 'whitewashed'!

For example, plural "Marriage".

And, of course, the "Sealing-Only Relationships Ordinances".

'Yes', for some non-members Users/Patrons the may have intense thoughts on these matters.

But, those non-members Users/Patrons can be "Educated" as to WHY; so, they can at least understand:

It happened.
It is (Church) "History".

And, I am sure that (at least) some non-members Users/Patrons will (maybe) agree that "History" should not be 'whitewashed'!

The non-members Users/Patrons may still not comprehend our purpose; but, understand that this is our belief.

And anyway, ... 'So what!'

This is an INTERNET "Web" 'Site' principally Members of the Church, for "Temple" Work.

Such "Sealing-Only Relationships Ordinances" ALREADY exist in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" for for some of the EARLY Leaders of the Church ... take a look as KWJY-BPD.

DO NOT be put off.
DO NOT be concerned.

It happened.
It is (Church) "History".
Lets not allow "History" to be 'whitewashed'!

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Moroni4 said: Thank you for your very meaningful thoughts and efforts. I did note that for KWJY-BPD, all are "plural marriages" - none were "proxy-only." Even so, I will carefully consider all the feedback provided as I determine how best to proceed. I have great appreciation for all those who have responded. At the very least, we've given Family Search staff very meaningful input that may yet result in programming changes that could be positive for all. Time will tell. Again, thank you.

LegacyUser

Christine said: While I understand the hesitation some may feel about sharing some of this info openly, I believe the church has set a great example of transparency. I have often used original temple ordinance ledgers (and film numbers) as a source to confirm a relationship or dates of birth or death. These original records are a treasure trove of family relationships and in one particular case in researching my husband's brick wall ggg grandfather, research of these early temple ordinances led us to his father and mother (he was illegitimate) and a host of gg aunts and uncles and their children. DNA has confirmed the relationships. The only way I can show the validity of that relationship is referring to those relationships listed on early temple records. If I could only use that source in the ordinances tab, all of the relatives I have collaborated with in this research (not members) would not have been able to help me and vice versa.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Russell

I am sorry; but, my response above was "Removed".
As it was considered against the 'Code of Conduct', which it was NOT.
Clearly, you thought it was very meaningful
I am re-posting, here.

==========

Russell

'G'Day', morning, from "Down Under"

Sorry for my delayed response, I was getting tired after my previous "Reply"; and, finally went to bed about 1 am.

I will take a look; and, get back to you.

Now ...
That said ...

The original premise of "Family Tree" (and, it predecessor, "New.FamilySearch") of "FamilySearch" was/were, 'designed'; 'developed'; and, 'implemented', by the Church, principally for Members of the Church, for "Temple" Work - plain and simple, NOTHING has changed in that premise.

All that has really happened in that the Church has later allowed non-members of the Church to participate in and use "Family Tree" (and, it predecessor, "New.FamilySearch") of "FamilySearch".

'Yes' we must be sensitive to non-members of the Church to a certain degree; but, we DO NOT have to "Change" the ORIGINAL premise of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" to TOTALLY accommodate non-members of the Church.

It happened.
It is (Church) "History".
Do not allow "History" to be 'whitewashed'!

For example, plural "Marriage".

And, of course, the "Sealing-Only Relationships Ordinances".

'Yes', for some non-members Users/Patrons the may have intense thoughts on these matters.

But, those non-members Users/Patrons can be "Educated" as to WHY; so, they can at least understand:

It happened.
It is (Church) "History".

And, I am sure that (at least) some non-members Users/Patrons will (maybe) agree that "History" should not be 'whitewashed'!

The non-members Users/Patrons may still not comprehend our purpose; but, understand that this is our belief.

And anyway, ... 'So what!'

This is an INTERNET "Web" 'Site' principally Members of the Church, for "Temple" Work.

Such "Sealing-Only Relationships Ordinances" ALREADY exist in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" for for some of the EARLY Leaders of the Church ... take a look as KWJY-BPD.

DO NOT be put off.
DO NOT be concerned.

It happened.
It is (Church) "History".
Lets not allow "History" to be 'whitewashed'!

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Moroni4 said: Brett, thank you for your input and efforts.

Also, another poster removed a reply due to inclusion of personal information. Her overall point was meaningful. The relevant portion (excerpted, with identity and personal information removed) read:

"While I understand the hesitation some may feel about sharing some of this info openly, I believe the church has set a great example of transparency. I have often used original temple ordinance [information]...as a source to confirm a relationship or dates of birth or death. These original records are a treasure trove of family relationships and in one particular case [details removed here]...the only way I can show the validity of that relationship is referring to...early temple records. If I could only [put] that source [information] in the "ordinances tab" [invisible to non-members], all of the relatives I have [since] collaborated with in this research (not members) would not have been able to help me and vice versa."

This was, in part, my experience. When I located the temple records, they included additional identifying information that enabled me to locate and appreciate more fully these individuals and their relationships in our family's context. The poster's thoughts were important, and much appreciated. Worthy of consideration. Thank you, poster.

LegacyUser

FamilySearch Moderator said: A last reminder to adhere to the code of conduct https://www.familysearch.org/help/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Community-code-of-conduct . We all appreciate constructive responses, but when one's opinion becomes hostile to another or utilizes inflammatory language the entire post will be removed.