why is it that you do not require any type of "PROOF" for changes
I checked my personal 'file' and some months ago an 8th cousin once removed (who i have never met) was allowed to go into my family structure and change information on MY CHILDREN and family structure without my permission and not being required any type of proof?
In the file for my father (and mother) someone changed their marriage date (from the actual marriage date to the date that they took out a marriage license). The person who did this has NO RELATIONSHIP to my family. I now cannot get the false information removed. When i called i was told that all could be done was for me to 'dispute' this information.
Currently a non member of our family is trying to get permission to seal my father (Dilworth C. Brinton) to his second wife (Gloria Waters Reedy). They are alrready sealed to their individual first spouses. at one time there was a note in the file that the marriage was for time only and there were to be ''do not seal' DNS.
and now someone who is no relation is trying to do this. I check on the 'i have permissionn' to see what would happen and i was given a box"G to check (with no proof required) to give permission and NO PROOF WAS OR IS REQUIRED.
I can give you 4 addition 'changes' that were made without permission or any proof and i am getting very MAD about your system. Do i need to start standing up in every genelalogy or family search class and loudly declair the faults of "Family garbbge search" Dilworth Brinton Jr
Answers
-
Hello @dbrintonjr
We understand that you are frustrated with other guests changing information without requiring any proof for those changes.
To better understand the philosophy behind the decision to allow other guests to make changes to Family Tree, this link may help:
Purpose of family tree • FamilySearch
Our purpose is to help families work together to make connections and discover their heritage.
You should be able to edit the marriage date for your parents using the steps outlined in the following article:
Add or edit marriage events in Family Tree • FamilySearch
To reduce inaccurate changes to FamilyTree please read this article:
We believe that the reason that you were able to request ordinances to get permission to seal your father to his second wife is that being his son, no proof was required. A non-member person in your family should not be able to request permission for the sealing.
Also, it is very helpful to have your personal tree on another program that works with FamilySearch that other guests can't change.
Brother Brinton, we encourage our guests to provide proof whenever changes are made. If you feel the changes are being made maliciously, you can use the "report abuse" search term to find the article in the help center that explains the process.
1 -
Hello @dbrintonjr
We understand your concerns about incorrect changes made by others in Family Tree.
First of all, the changes you saw to your own children's information -- are your children deceased? If they are still living, no one would be able to see their records in Family Tree and would not be able to make any changes. The information for living individuals is not visible to anyone except the person who added that record for a living person.
Secondly, only Church members can see temple and ordinance data in Family Tree and non-members would not be able to request ordinances, even if they were able to obtain verbal or written permission from a close living relative.
Third, if all parties are deceased there is no way to prevent ordinances from being performed even if those parties did not want to be sealed. Ordinances are only effective if the deceased individuals accept the ordinances on the other side.
Under the 110-year policy, permission to reserve ordinances can only be given by a close living relative and the person filling out the request form must provide the contact information of the person granting permission. This contact information is required and may be used to confirm the permission.
Because you are a close living relative to your father may be one reason why you did not see the permission required warning when you clicked on request ordinance. In fact, if you do not want the sealing between your father and his second wife to be performed, requesting the ordinance yourself and then holding on to it is one way to prevent the ordinance from being completed.
Because Family Tree is an open-edit, collaborative, universal tree, any user can make changes. There are a number of ways to prevent others from making incorrect changes and that is to document a person's life with every source available. Making notes, including discussions, writing a life sketch and providing clear and concise reason statements when changes are made are other ways to ensure that a person's record is accurate. We strongly encourage all of our users to employ every feature available in Family Tree that is designed to produce a complete and correct record for our kindred dead.
Please see the following knowledge articles about the various points discussed, above.
Another article about the same issue: https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/what-is-the-110-year-policy-and-why-was-it-initiated
https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/requesting-that-ordinances-not-be-performed
We hope this information brings you some comfort and understanding of how Family Tree is designed to work to preserve the memories of our ancestors, as well as to provide the saving ordinances for them.
1 -
FYI
A point of 'clarification' here ...
In regard to your statement that ...
Third, if all parties are deceased there is no way to prevent ordinances from being performed even if those parties did not want to be sealed. Ordinances are only effective if the deceased individuals accept the ordinances on the other side.
I understand the the SECOND sentence, there is not concern there.
But ...
That Said ...
I have 'noticed', of late, on quite a number of posts, in the 'Category' of "Temple", in his "Q and A" Section, that some of the "Images", that were provided by the Participants (ie. Users/Patrons), that on some of the OLD "Printouts", that were (in fact) "Printouts" from the "Temples" (or, maybe the "Temple Department", of the Church), that there was a "Stamp" of either, "DO NOT SEAL"; or, "DNS"; and, "Time ONLY Marriage", for a couple.
So, it looks like there WAS a "Policy", at some stage or other; where, the "Sealing to Spouse", was NOT considered either, appropriate; or, needed; and, thus, NOT applied; or, available.
I am sorry to put you, on the spot, in this situation; but, as, you raised the matter ...
I wonder, if you; or, someone, can advise if such was the case (ie. "DO NOT SEAL"; or, "DNS"; and, "Time ONLY Marriage" ▬ regarding "Couples"); and, there has been a subsequent "Change" in "Policy". There very well could (or, must) have been. But, I just do not recall. I certainly do recall that "DO NOT SEAL"; or, "DNS"; and, "Time ONLY Marriage", DID exist a while back, where, such had to be "Authorised" (by the "First Presidency", if a recall).
'Thank You' in advance.
And, again, I am sorry to put you, on the spot.
Brett
0 -
Hello @Brett .
There may have been such a policy or practice regarding a DNS designation in the past, but I have no way of knowing what the "history" might have been with regard to the change in either policy or practice.
As has always been the case, we adjust to changes as they come along and make the most of the amazing advances in temple and family history work that have blessed our lives in this new century.
0 -
thank @Brett . NM
for your attempt to placate the problem without having a solution. I see that i am going to have to check my family files monthly or even more often to keep 'helpful' people such as you from trying to 'correct;' my family (screwing it up). Help, i might add, that i am not interested in having. The origonal PAF program had some safeguards that were in place so that really stupid mistakes could not be done. But with the 'amazing advances in temple and family history work' (as you want to call it) these few safeguards were removed so that people out side of the family could change, add and otherwise falsify family history -accidentally or otherwise.
you say " it doesn't matter' is a very false statement. allowing such mistakes and the time, money and energy it takes to correct could be better spent on REAL genealogy instead of the 'facebook, look nice, feel good because i don't want the real truth' genealogy. If it doesn't matter, why did the church give in and quit doing genealogy and temple work of dead jewish names?
it took almost a year of work to have the church REMOVE false information that married my mother to Henry Stapley in the Salt Lake Temple with a date of three years before her birth date. And then to remove the children that were (allowed) to be added to her an Henry , again BEFORE her birth. If we follow your 'wish' this would be not only O.K. but advantagious because it gets people to get excited about genealogy and temple work.
I have a dozen other examples in my family line if you want to put the "it doesn't matter" arguments. instead of hours of correctiton, i could have spent the time, money and energy on REAL GENEALOGY
you don't put me on the spot,. I want TRUTH on a straight path, You seem to be looking for the easy way on the crooked path Would it be o.k. if i falsified a bit of your family history?
dilworth brinton jr
0 -
Dilworth
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ... ]
FYI
You totally misunderstand my request for 'Clarification'.
I was NOT questioning the advice; as, proffered by 'MNuttal'.
And, I already, deep down, believed, that such was the case.
As, I indicated I have recently been 'seeing' those OLD "Printouts", that were (in fact) "Printouts" from the "Temples" (or, maybe the "Temple Department", of the Church), that there was a "Stamp" of either, "DO NOT SEAL"; or, "DNS"; and, "Time ONLY Marriage", for a couple.
And, if I recall, such could be "Requested"; and, was SOMETIMES "Granted"/"Approved".
But ...
That Said ...
Such is NOT the case NOW.
Things "Change" ...
Such is Life ...
And, I can totally understand, WHY there was, a "Change" in "Policy" (ie. "Procedure").
There amount of such "Requests", for "DO NOT SEAL"; or, "DNS"; and, "Time ONLY Marriage", for a couple, submitted to the "First Presidency", MUST have been astronomical.,
I am certain that through Prayerful Decision, by the "First Presidency", the "Change" in "Policy" (and, "Procedure") NOT to "Continue" with such "DO NOT SEAL"; or, "DNS"; and, "Time ONLY Marriage", was predominantly made on the 'grounds' that ULTIMATELY the "Decision"; as, to whether or not, to "Accept" the Work, rests solely, with those concerned, who have passed on (and, not our choice to make).
As an aside ...
One of my Grandfather's, marriage to his FISRT Wife, does not appear to have been a happy one - but, NOT in any way unlawful, in any respect.
I DO NOT know the full story, only what I have been able to piece together, from available "Documentation".
They were together only a few Years. Had no children. Basically, separated on the Wife's request. Later he we off to fight in WWI. They eventually 'Officially' Divorced some x7 to x8 Years later. So that, my Grandfather could Marry my Grandmother. The First Wife died the following year.
After speaking with my Father and Aunt, I was of the 'thinking', that My Grandfather and his First Wife should NOT be "Sealed" together.
But ...
That Said ...
Such did not appear to be possible.
So, I held onto that "Sealing", for many Years (ie. "Release"; and, "Re-Reserve").
Finally, after much, consternation; consideration; and, counsel, I was of the 'thinking' that the "Sealing" SHOULD go ahead, allowing for them to make the "Decision" themselves; as, to whether of not, to "Accept" the Work.
[ ps: He was already "Sealed" to my Grandmother. ]
So ...
That Said ...
Again, I was NOT questioning the advice, merely clarifying the advice; as, proffered by 'MNuttal'.
[ ie. CURRENT; as opposed to, PAST, "Policy" (or, Procedure") ]
Now ...
That Said ...
It may still be possible, that ...
IF, there is both, a VALID; and, significantly specific, REASON; as, to WHY a "Couple" should NOT be "Sealed"; THEN, such can still be submitted to the "First Presidency" for "Approval"/"Authorisation"; but, the 'grounds' for such would need to be quite significant, to even get considered, let alone submitted.
In such cases, it would be a matter of "Holding" onto the "Reservation" for the "Sealing"; and, going through all the procedures to try, to seek "Approval"/"Authorisation", from the "First Presidency", quite a lengthy process.
Just my thoughts.
Whereas ..
That is different to the situation that you proffer, regarding the "Sealing" of your Father to his Second Wife.
I know that this does not help; but, I hope that is gives you some perspective.
Brett
0
