GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1997-01 > 0852660262


From: Jack Chandler <>
Subject: Re: LDS Accuracy
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:04:22 GMT


On Mon, 06 Jan 1997 15:43:25 GMT, (Gordon
Johnson) wrote:

> (Jack Chandler) wrote:
><snip>
>>time afraid to use it and give it condemnation. IT IS A RELIABLE
>>SOURCE if you read properly and treat it with respect.
>**Sorry to disagree with you, but the IGI is NOT a source, it is an
>INDEX to sources, and the errors arise when people transfer or
>transfer data from the original source into the IGI. Therein lies

Agreed, the IGI is an INDEX as indicated by the name "International
Genealogical Index" , however, in all respects an index IS a SOURCE.
It is NOT an INDEX to _sources_ but an INDEX to those LDS Temple
Ordinances completed or submitted for completion. The source of the
vital data given in the IGI is given by coded Batch Numbers as stated
in the original message. As with any source they must be evaluated.
In any copied and/or transcribed document listing vital data there
occurs both transcribing errors and errors due to misunderstanding the
original. This does not demean the IGI if it does not agree with
another copied/transcribed document or index. As stated in the
original message, the source of the entry in the IGI is the clue to
its use. If these are considered and evaluated properly they are as
can be as accurate as any other copied/transcribed documents.

If this discussion is only on semantics then this is the END OF
DISCUSSION.

Jack []

This thread: