IGI – More doubts expressed!

[Peter Goodey]

There have been a few recent postings on soc.genealogy.britain which cast further doubt on the value of the IGI for proper genealogical research.

You may like to have a look at them - http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.britain?hl=en

The threads are

BTs vs IGI Records (Dec 2)
Bishop’s Transcripts of Stinchcombe GLS (Dec 1)
Bishop’s Transcript Research Report (Dec 1)

Basically, the theory offered is that if an entry is submitted (presumably by a Mormon in pursuit of his or her theological duties), any corresponding extracted record is deleted!

To my mind this theory, if it holds water, further debases the value of the IGI to serious genealogists. If anyone has any evidence to back up or knock down this theory, I’d be interested and no doubt so would the person who offered the theory.

[John]

To my mind this theory, if it holds water, further debases the value of the IGI to serious genealogists. If anyone has any evidence to back up or knock down this theory, I’d be interested and no doubt so would the person who offered the theory.
I don't really see how it debases the value, it is only an index after all. Extracted or submitted the event still needs to be checked against the register. Many of the extractions are done with a sense of duty rather than a sense of purpose and much often important detail is not included.

John

[Guy Etchells]

The conclusions would make sense if the researcher had previously found the relevent extracted record on the IGI then found that it had been deleted later.

From what he is saying the only conclusion one may draw is if it is found that an extraction duplicates an existing record then no ordinances are carried out on that extracted record.
Seems to me that is a logical thing to do as it reduces the number of duplicated entries.
Cheers
Guy

[Mythology]

Yes, from an indexing point of view that seems logical enough.

There are, in any case, entries which the IGI have skipped when doing their extractions, presumably because they were too faded on film to even take an educated guess at, so an "extracted batch" is liable to be incomplete anyway.

There is one case of a baptism that I came across on the IGI, slightly different to what Suffolk FHS give in their baptism index. The IGI *submitted* entry looks suspect, as I know that the marriage detail shown in the same entry for this person is wrong - they've found the licence date and the groom's abode, not the marriage date and the parish where it took place. However, on checking the register I find that the IGI submitted entry is actually correct, it's the Suffolk FHS baptism index, which I think we would all normally regard as much more reliable, that is wrong - it's quite clearly 11 not 1, and the FHS transcriber evidently didn't hit the 1 key hard enough second time around - mistakes happen.

I'd agree with John, it's only an index, and any index is liable to transcription error. If anything, provided that "duplicate" means "exact duplicate" and not "tinkered with to fit Elder Smith's version of his tree", it means that a greater number of entries which, being "submitted", we would regard with great suspicion, are likely to be true than we might think.

[Guy Etchells]

I didn't answer the final part "debases the value to serious genealogists".
The answer to that is very simple, no. Any serious genealogist knows full well that the IGI is only an index to the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such it is complete (though ongoing) and 100% accurate.
To make any other use of the IGI requires that every record, extracted or patron submissions must be regarded like all other tertiary sources, with suspicion.

I should also add that those who ignore patron submissions (note these are submitted by anyone who wishes not just members of the LDS church) are fooling themselves, some patron submissions have been added by experienced genealogists after a lifetimes work, only a fool would dismiss them without looking.
Cheers
Guy

[Patrisia]

I should also add that those who ignore patron submissions (note these are submitted by anyone who wishes not just members of the LDS church) are fooling themselves, some patron submissions have been added by experienced genealogists after a lifetimes work, only a fool would dismiss them without looking.
A fair point Guy. Although I treat all LDS submissions with the utmost suspicion, in the past I have had two examples, that I checked with the PRs, that proved to be accurate, even though they did not appear in the index.

[Peter Goodey]

I don't disagree what anyone has said although I'd put a different emphasis on it.

By the way, I'm ignoring red herrings about patron submissions because the theory is primarily about extracted batches.

It may well be true that all IGI entries are of equal value to LDS members, but that is not true for serious genealogists. You all know and I know that IGI entries need to be checked. Beginners may or may not know that (they might know in theory!). But in practice many, many posts on these forums testify to, at least, some reluctance among beginners to do it. Even experienced genealogists may allocate a lower priority to checking extracted records than they would to submitted entries or Fred Bloggs' internet site.

The implication of the theory seems to me to be that the sort of advice that is often offered to the effect that an extracted batch is probably as good as any transcription, no longer holds.

[Guy Etchells]

It seems we may be of different opinion as to what a "serious genealogist is".
To me a serious genealogist is one who takes the subject seriously no matter what their level of experience.
To do so one must follow certain basic rules such as cross checking all sources, nothing is taken at face value without additional proof not even birth certificates.
Cheers
Guy

[Ken Boyce]

I see no reason to treat LDS transcripts and documentation with any less respect than one does for Census Indexes BMD etc etc they all need to be verified.

We have Friends who are LDS members and from discussions with them regardig how their particular ancestory line was investigated would I think make a professional researcher weep but as Guy has repeated on many occasions the system serves it's purpose well for the LDS After all
their intent is not to produce a legally defendable family line but a spiritual one.

I for one have a great admiration for what the LDS has done and continues to do for the family researcher and it's generosity in making their centers and library stuff available to all for such modest fees.

[Rod Neep]

I see no reason to treat LDS transcripts and documentation with any less respect than one does for Census Indexes BMD etc etc they all need to be verified.
But Ken, the IGI is 100% accurate for the purpose for which it is intended!

That might appear to be a strange statement for me to make, but it is true.

The IGI is an Index to the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - NOT an index of baptisms and marriages

It is not even an index of parish registers!!

The fact that their index differs from the facts of what are in parish registers means absolutely nothing to the LDS.

This comment is not "LDS bashing". Far from it. Their Index is indeed a 100% accurate record of the ordinances that they have carried out. And that is its purpose!

It happens to be extremely flawed as an index of baptims and marriages that actually took place in our churches.

regards
Rod

[Ken Boyce]

Hi Rod

I am in complete agreement with your posting.You have put more succinctly the message I was trying to convey re the use of the LDS data for genealogical purposes vs for church purposes

[Peter Goodey]

It should be obvious that I wouldn't disagree with Rod's words because I posted what might be evidence suggesting a further perhaps hitherto unknown flaw.

But do not forget that the LDS actually promote the IGI as a serious tool for genealogists and many sites more innocently suggest its use with few stated caveats. The more Rod and others promote the sentiments expressed in his message - particularly among the relative newcomers to the hobby who use these forums - the better.