APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-07 > 1088689979


From: "Chad R. Milliner" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] re: Mormon controversy in Maine
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:52:59 -0600
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040701074627.01ef8ec0@mail.earthlink.net>


Absolutely I call that Memorandum an open disclosure. The record custodian
gets, FOR FREE, exactly what the agreement says the custodian will get.
Notice that the agreement states that part of the agreement is that the
information in the records will be shared. By doing proxy baptisms, the
names in the records get in to the IGI. The IGI entries result in the names
being shared very effectively, since it serves as a defacto index to the
record collection.

Also, the agreement doesn't state that the reasons enumerated in the
agreement are the sole reasons for why the GSU is agreeing to microfilm the
records. When you buy a car do you put in the bill of sale EVERY reason why
you are buying the car (i.e., to get the kids to school, to go food
shopping, to commute to work?). Of course not. The agreement focuses on
the reasons that are important to the record custodian. And the agreement
is made between the custodian and the GSU (as opposed to the LDS Church
itself) for legalistic reasons, but I am sure that it does not result in any
of the record custodians being confused about whom they are dealing with.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol W. Skydell" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 7:02 AM
Subject: [APG] re: Mormon controversy in Maine


> .....to quote an oft used phrase coined by the tv series "Dragnet"...
> just the facts ma'am <g>
> -----------
> Chad writes: "But there is nothing malicious or underhanded going on
here."
>
> "Malicious"?....certainly not. "Underhanded"????...
>
> Here's how the system gathers records.
>
> A Memorandum of Understanding is presented to a custodian of records. The
> one I have states as follows " In order to preserve and share
> historical information of significant genealogical value, it is agreed
> that: The Genealogical Society of Utah (Society) will microfilm the
> following records for the time periods listed: (the specific records are
> identified)
>
> The Society includes the information that it will circulate copies of the
> microfilmed data within its genealogical research system, but NOWHERE is
> it mentioned that the GSU is actually the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-day Saints. NOWHERE is the custodian of records informed
> that the end result will be the 'posthumous', 'vicarious', 'proxy', or
> the current , 'proffered' baptism of each and every one of the thousands
> of names in those records.
>
> Would you call that means of acquiring vital records an open disclosure
of
> intent.?
> ================
>
> Kathy Flynn writes in part:
>
> I understand that mistakes had been made in the past and the 1995
agreement
> has stopped that but the IGI containing names simply abstracted from a
> record does not mean a temple process was done or that the 1995 agreement
> has been ignored.
>
> Am I correct?
> -------------------------
> Sorry Kathy, not even close <g>. The 1995 agreement has stopped
> nothing. Names of Holocaust victims were removed in 1995 as per the
> agreement and those names recorded on a CD and presented to the various
> groups who participated. Roughly half the names removed in accord with the
> 1995 agreement are already back in the IGI, some with ordinance dates as
> recent as May 2004.
>
> The agreement stated that no further Holocaust victims would be
> posthumously baptized. Names of Ukrainian Jews murdered in 1942 are now
> appearing with June 2004 ordinance dates.
>
> The agreement stated that permissions of closely related Jewish family
> members were to be requested. While one correspondent to this list
stated
> that a Brooklyn stake does request them, this is highly unusual. Even Don
> Evans, church spokesman in Arizona said in February in an Associated Press
> interview "permission should be obtained from an immediate family member
> but, ordinarily, we have not asked for permission" .
>
> And finally to clarify what the IGI actually is....it is an index of names
> of people who have been CLEARED for, or already have been, posthumously
> processed ....baptism, endowment, sealing to parents, spouses or children
> and some even elevated to the level of Melchizedek priesthood. It might
> be more accurate to call it an IBI - International Baptismal Index.
>
> There is no question that the Church runs the finest genealogical library
> in the world, and for this we, as amateur or professional genealogists
must
> be grateful. But in our enthusiasm for what is offered, let's not
> ignore the facts about the true purpose behind this effort and the way in
> which the records are acquired.
>
> Carol Skydell,
> Chilmark MA
>
>
>
> ==== APG Mailing List ====
> The Association of Professional Genealogists
> http://www.apgen.org/publications/apg-l/index.html
>
>


This thread: