Inaccurate Information Needs to Be Removed from the "Ordinances" Section of Two Distinct Individuals
In 2016 (in my capacity as both a professional and family historian), I corrected, sourced, and clarified the Individual Record Entries of two separate and distinct individuals from Friesland, Netherlands who have very similar sounding names: (1) Johannes *Jochem RIENSTRA [PID = L2PX-NY2] and (2) Johannes *Jans RIENSTRA [PID = KLVH-61N]. Under the patronymic system in use during their lifetimes, what appears to English-speakers as their "middle" name, is actually their father's "given name". They are two entirely different men. My ancestress, Leentje Holkes BOKMA [PID KLVH-6L8] married Johannes, son of Jochem. Johannes, son of Jan, married an totally different woman - Elisabeth DE JONG. They were never, ever married to one another!
Even though the "Detail" section of both Leentje BOKMA's Individual Record and Johannes Jans RIENSTRA's Individual Record each currently show ONLY their one actual and correct marriage, the "Ordinances" sections for both show an Incorrect Link claiming that Leentje Holkes BOKMA and Johannes Jans RIENSTRA *QUOTE*: "do not have a couple relationship but are the parents of a child" and that a relationship between them must be added so that a Sealing to Spouse ordinance can be performed for them! THIS IMPLICATION IS COMPLETELY FALSE and totally undocumented, but may very possibly convince a future well-meaning patron to "Create" a marriage for them so this totally unnecessary ordinance can be completed. I believe that Programmers in the Quality Control Dept. should remove this inaccurate reference to prevent two individuals -- who probably never even knew each other in life -- from being "sealed together"
I previously posted futther details and documentation concerning the matter in both the "Live Sketch" and "Collaborate" record areas for KLVH-61N
Thank You so much! --- Carolyn Gast Depp [aka: StoryCatcher]
Best Answer
-
We reviewed this issue with patron by phone , and have submitted this issue for review.
0
