Why wont LDS correct the IGI ?

[fountainpen]

Im just asking out of couriosity . Ive noticed many errors in the IGI and contacted the LDS site once to tell them about a "Huge" error they had .I told them i had a copy of baptism etc and that not only this but also was there an Ancestral file submitted with the same IGI mistake they said they wont correct their errors.
I know most researchers do check against records but some dont and really a lot of the IGI are more often than not incorrect .Im wondering why they dont correct their errors ?

[Mutley]

The information on the LDS site is compiled mainly for their own purposes but is a useful free source for Genealogists to explore.

There are Extracted Records which have been transcribed from Church Records and are mostly correct. They are an Index of Ordinances rather than a complete set of Parish Records.

There are Submitted Entries which are made by people carrying out their own research from all over the world (normally church members) and who often get it wrong.

Ancestral Files are a collection of private Family Trees and even the commercial sites do not correct the mistakes of public trees submitted to them.

It would be an impossible task to check and correct all the entries.

Read here.
http://www.british-genealogy.com/res...ipts/index.htm

[Procat]

I assume you are referring to member submitted data?

The LDS are no different to family trees on Genes Re-united or Ancestry in that they are merely a repository for the data submitted for others. They do not check what is submitted to them.

I have read somewhere that if a member submits information which later proves to be incorrect the member is unable to make a correction but must submit the corrected information. Both sets of information are then indexed. The reasoning is that the indexers have no way of knowing which version is correct.

[MarkJ]

Somewhere on this forum there is a quite lengthy discussion on the IGI and its reason for existing. As well as explaining the differences between submitted and extracted records, there is a discussion on exactly why the LDS go to such lengths to collect the data.
The LDS are not a genealogy organisation as such - they collect information for their own use and for that use it is not necessary to have "proof" in the way we would do so as genealogists.

It is worth reading the reasoning behind the collecting of data that they have. Basically, the LDS believe strongly in family ties - even after death. As such, they try to link each person who passes away to a family. Some of these links are made from assumptions which may be incorrect as far as genealogy is concerned, but not to them.

So the LDS won't "fix" data which is genealogically incorrect - from their religious viewpoint, that data is correct.

Stick to extracted IGI records being basically OK - although seeing the originals is really important if you can (transcript errors can creep in - plus there may be other info on the originals!) and treat submitted records with a very large degree of caution. At best, use them as a possible guide - but certainly not as factual.

As Mutley says, the IGI is a useful resource - and free! However, it must be used with caution.

Mark

[Peter_uk_can]

My answer. Why would they want to ?

[Guy Etchells]

The reason is very simple The IGI when used for the purposes it was created is 100% correct.

No, ifs, buts or arguments it is 100% correct.

The IGI records facts as presented in the Temple Ordinances.

It does not record facts that appear in a parish register or any other source, though the facts presented may have originally been recorded in a register.

Think of it as a court report.
The court report will record what was stated in court on a particular day even if that varies from something written elsewhere. The report only records what was actually stated in the court.

When viewing the IGI online patrons only see the redacted version. The full version with the details of Baptisms, Sealings and Endowments requires password protected access.
Cheers
Guy

[fountainpen]

Hi Guy,
Im not in understanding of what you have wrote above.
Whilst Ancestral files are submitted by people etc and are often wrong .I have come across wrong IGI entries many times .
In checking IGI against actual parish registers they have errors in the dates etc .
I use the IGI as a Guide only as when i do check the registers they do sometimes differ.

[MarkJ]

Hi Guy,
Im not in understanding of what you have wrote above.
Whilst Ancestral files are submitted by people etc and are often wrong .I have come across wrong IGI entries many times .
In checking IGI against actual parish registers they have errors in the dates etc .
I use the IGI as a Guide only as when i do check the registers they do sometimes differ.

Wrong in our view as genealogists - but not wrong as far as the LDS ae concerned.
You need to understand the difference between what we require and what the LDS require - the two are different. IGI records are not 100% reliable for our purposes - the submitted ones are frankly very dubious at times - but from the LDS viewpoint - the sealing of families etc - these records are correct and will not be altered.

Mark

[Guy Etchells]

Hi Guy,
Im not in understanding of what you have wrote above.
Whilst Ancestral files are submitted by people etc and are often wrong .I have come across wrong IGI entries many times .
In checking IGI against actual parish registers they have errors in the dates etc .
I use the IGI as a Guide only as when i do check the registers they do sometimes differ.

That is because you are trying to use the IGI (or the computer file as it used to be called) as an index to parish registers.

It is not an index to parish registers, it never has been and never will be.
The IGI is only an index to the Temple Ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

://anguline.co.uk/IGI.jpg

If you click the above link and look at the columns B, E & S those are the dates the ordinances (Baptism, Endowment & Sealing) took place.
They are what the IGI indexes the date those ordinances were performed on the person specified.

The rest is only how the person was identified in the ordinance nothing more
Cheers
Guy

[DBCoup]

Bottom line is that you should never take the IGI as "gospel". As stated above, submitted information can often be wrong or "fantastic" ie of fantasy. There are one or two lineages submitted that claim to be of the families I am researching but there the similarity ends. I, at least, have consulted the parish records. Extracted records tend to be more correct but remember they are still what someone has interpreted from what was written. When I started going through the early Dundee parishes I wondered how on earth anyone could make out what was written. Having done my time with them I now wonder how I could have had such difficulties at the beginning.
Don't forget that those who do the extractions do not often have the invested interest that you have. By that I mean they don't have the familiarity of the family that you have.
Aside from any errors of transcription the parish records often have more information in terms of godparents, witnesses or sponsors, depending on which denomination, and these folk are frequently related and sometimes with the relationship spelt out ie uncle, grandfather etc. I have, in my Dundee extracts, instances where the child is baptised in memory of a great grand parent etc.

At least if you look at the original parish records you will know what is written and you will also know what is not there - perhaps another child was born in that frustrating gap in the record. If you have a record of the gaps and your other research indicates a child that "just has to be there" but isn't then perhaps they were born in a gap in the records.

daryl