Question on 'sources'.

[HarrysMum]

I have always been under the impression you need more than one source (if obtainable) to prove relationships, ie certs, census, PRs, etc

I have been told by a "professional" genealogist (one who charges money..lol)
that having a document of 'sealing' from the LDS church is the best soruce you can have.

I have friends in the LDS who don't agree with this, but they are not genealogists. To them (and me) sealing is a religious rite and nothing else.

I think we've all seen "submitted" entries where the info is wrong. Lots of these would have been 'sealed'.

The question arose when I was looking for a marriage in my family. The church where it supposedly took place has no record. In fact there is no record anywhere and the "wife" later marries for a third time using her first husband's name as hers. However, the marriage record is "sealed".

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, so please move it if it isn't.

I'd like any thoughts.

[marquette]

I agree with you, "sealing" is a religious action of a Mormon, creating an "eternal family". They are just temple records created by a member for his family so they can all be part of the LDS church, even if they are dead. So are only as reliable as the person providing the information (like every thing else, I guess)

This webpage gives a good explanation about what a "sealing" is

http://heirlinesprofessionalgenealogy.com/how-do-i-use-lds-temple-records-in-genealogy-research/

Your "professional genealogist" ought to know better. Do they have any qualifications ? You don't really need any to set up in business as a genealogist.



Di

[HarrysMum]

Thanks Di....

I'm glad someone agrees with me. I'm not sure about the genealogist's qualifications, but I know they charge for their time. It's someone an elderly friend has used.

Makes you sick that they can get away with that sort of thing, but I suppose it happens all the time.

[tenterfieldjulie]

I agree with Marquette Libby. For example submitted entries for year of bith can be guesses counting backwards from an age at death. (which are often guesses too) We all do it to get an approx. year, but it is often wrong. If that is used in a sealing ceremony it has a religious significance to the Mormons, but it certainly not the most accurate record. It sounds like the "genealogist" is confusing her religious convictions with her genealogy role.

[HarrysMum]

Yes Julie except she's not a Mormon and my friend got her name from a list at her FH Group. Bit of a trap for people.

There's no way you can use the count back method with most of my lot. Theyw ere either non-cons and got baptised at adults, or done as a job lot so the eldest was 10 or so.....lol

[Olde Crone]

Don't get me started on "professional" genealogists, lol.

No, I do not consider an LDS sealing record as a primary source as it is very often wishful thinking at best.

OC

[kiterunner]

What an extraordinary thing for a professional genealogist to say!

[Kit]

I'm with Kate, it is a strange thing to say.

Has anyone actually seen a document of sealing? I just wondered what it contained.

[kiterunner]

There's some info here:

https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/LDS_Temple_Records

Even they say that:

Temple records correctly record the ordinance being performed but other information is not always accurate. For example, if asked for his baptism date, a temple visitor may have depended on his memory to estimate a date. Also when a pioneer ancestor was cut off by his family for joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints he or she would have themselves sealed, as a child, to one of the Church Leaders. Where possible, genealogical information listed in temple records should be verified in original records.

[Merry]

What an extraordinary thing for a professional genealogist to say!

What an extraordinary thing for anyone to say!

[HarrysMum]

Glad I was right......lol

I was starting to think there was another type of 'sealing' I'd missed....lol

[Kit]

There's some info here:

https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/LDS_Temple_Records

Even they say that:

Temple records correctly record the ordinance being performed but other information is not always accurate. For example, if asked for his baptism date, a temple visitor may have depended on his memory to estimate a date. Also when a pioneer ancestor was cut off by his family for joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints he or she would have themselves sealed, as a child, to one of the Church Leaders. Where possible, genealogical information listed in temple records should be verified in original records.

Thanks. It is a worry that they say that their own records may not be correct. It is annoying though that IGI records disappear and their own records replace them, given they say to check the originals.