Mormon records? ? ?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Ray

Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av Ray » 11 jan 2008 15:49:04

I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/ web site
which is maintained by the Mormon Church:

-- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future
postings. Is this correct?

-- Is there any way to correct inaccuracies which I have found in my own
family records?

The site is a valuable source for confirming and enlarging information you
already have, but it must be used with care. It is not "gospel," to coin a
phrase.

singhals

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av singhals » 11 jan 2008 16:23:58

Ray wrote:

I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/ web site
which is maintained by the Mormon Church:

-- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future
postings. Is this correct?


Sort of.

-- Is there any way to correct inaccuracies which I have found in my own
family records?


Not unless you're Mormon.

The site is a valuable source for confirming and enlarging information you
already have, but it must be used with care. It is not "gospel," to coin a
phrase.

As even the LDS complains. (g)

Backing up to expand.

Sort of: LDS is working on a replacement to be used for LDS
purposes by LDS members. All future additions will go into
that database. How / if that will affect non-member access
to the familysearch.org site and the data thereon is a
trifle unclear at the moment.

Not Unless you're Mormom: *IF* you are Mormon and *IF* your
Temple district has the replacement mentioned above, you can
identify which pieces of information are more-correct than
others. If either of those two conditions are not met, you
cannot at this time do anything with it. At some point in
the future, non-member access to the information will be
permitted and it is thought by some that non-members as well
as members will be allowed to attach comments to entries.

As even the LDS complains : seems to me to need no further
comment.

Cheryl

JD

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av JD » 14 jan 2008 15:14:56

"Ray" <rayj.balt@DELTHISverizon.net> wrote:

I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/
web site which is maintained by the Mormon Church:

-- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future
postings. Is this correct?

For the latest LDS efforts, check out

http://labs.familysearch.org/

It's still in beta testing, but you can register for a taste of the new
LDS offerings at:
http://search.labs.familysearch.org/

-- Is there any way to correct inaccuracies which I have found in my
own family records?

The site is a valuable source for confirming and enlarging information
you already have, but it must be used with care. It is not "gospel,"
to coin a phrase.

I don't know about corrections, or what you want to correct.. but if you

are referring to the trees and pre-researched "pedigrees"... stay away
from ALL of them unless you just want blanks filled in for the sake of a
large tree. I've only found about 1 or 2% of any of them from ANY source
to be properly cited, thereby suspect enough that you may as well do the
research from the start yourself anyway.

Imo, the BEST and FASTEST way to build a large tree with reasonably good
sources & cites is to pay the bucks and subscribe to Ancestry.com and use
FTM 2008 with it to help with auto-search and auto-merge. Just stay away
from the Ancestry trees as well or use them cautiously and as a last
resort when you're stuck.

At some point, you'll eventually need to do the research manually in any
event, and the best corrections of all are contributing your own properly
documented/cited trees when you're done.

Ray

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av Ray » 14 jan 2008 16:57:21

I agree with all you say. But as I said, the Mormon site can be of some
value in confirming or enlarging what you have -- with great discretion.

But I suspect as time goes on, if the palpable errors on the site could be
corrected, its usefulness will grow.

-- Ray

"JD verizon.net>" <jd4x4@<del.this> wrote in message
news:Xns9A255E1395932jd4x4verizonnet@199.45.49.11...
"Ray" <rayj.balt@DELTHISverizon.net> wrote:

I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/
web site which is maintained by the Mormon Church:

-- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future
postings. Is this correct?

For the latest LDS efforts, check out
http://labs.familysearch.org/

It's still in beta testing, but you can register for a taste of the new
LDS offerings at:
http://search.labs.familysearch.org/

-- Is there any way to correct inaccuracies which I have found in my
own family records?

The site is a valuable source for confirming and enlarging information
you already have, but it must be used with care. It is not "gospel,"
to coin a phrase.

I don't know about corrections, or what you want to correct.. but if you
are referring to the trees and pre-researched "pedigrees"... stay away
from ALL of them unless you just want blanks filled in for the sake of a
large tree. I've only found about 1 or 2% of any of them from ANY source
to be properly cited, thereby suspect enough that you may as well do the
research from the start yourself anyway.

Imo, the BEST and FASTEST way to build a large tree with reasonably good
sources & cites is to pay the bucks and subscribe to Ancestry.com and use
FTM 2008 with it to help with auto-search and auto-merge. Just stay away
from the Ancestry trees as well or use them cautiously and as a last
resort when you're stuck.

At some point, you'll eventually need to do the research manually in any
event, and the best corrections of all are contributing your own properly
documented/cited trees when you're done.

JD

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av JD » 14 jan 2008 18:29:48

"Ray" <rayj.balt@DELTHISverizon.net> wrote:

But I suspect as time goes on, if the palpable errors on the site
could be corrected, its usefulness will grow.

-- Ray

I agree with that, for sure. It's been a while since I used them for tree

info (basically gave up on ALL of them, like I mentioned) and the
Ancestry.com/Genealogy.com/Rootsweb trees would be improved as well as
useful if there were more cited sources and even better posting dates! So
many seem to be built with layer upon layer of outdated & wrong previous
trees.

That's why I'm such a big fan of any sort of XML data standard and/or
software like FTM 2008 that makes it easy for people to actually make &
distribute trees with cites. At least Ancestry tree "matches" will show
some of the source trees that they use when building their OneWorld tree so
you can decide if it's credible info.

It's all a mess, but I think it's slowly going the right direction.

jburns

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av jburns » 14 jan 2008 19:01:12

In my experience the trees you find at Ancestry.com aren't any more reliable
or better cited than the ones at the LDS site.
John
"JD verizon.net>" <jd4x4@<del.this> wrote in message
news:Xns9A255E1395932jd4x4verizonnet@199.45.49.11...
"Ray" <rayj.balt@DELTHISverizon.net> wrote:

I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/
web site which is maintained by the Mormon Church:

-- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future
postings. Is this correct?

For the latest LDS efforts, check out
http://labs.familysearch.org/

It's still in beta testing, but you can register for a taste of the new
LDS offerings at:
http://search.labs.familysearch.org/

-- Is there any way to correct inaccuracies which I have found in my
own family records?

The site is a valuable source for confirming and enlarging information
you already have, but it must be used with care. It is not "gospel,"
to coin a phrase.

I don't know about corrections, or what you want to correct.. but if you
are referring to the trees and pre-researched "pedigrees"... stay away
from ALL of them unless you just want blanks filled in for the sake of a
large tree. I've only found about 1 or 2% of any of them from ANY source
to be properly cited, thereby suspect enough that you may as well do the
research from the start yourself anyway.

Imo, the BEST and FASTEST way to build a large tree with reasonably good
sources & cites is to pay the bucks and subscribe to Ancestry.com and use
FTM 2008 with it to help with auto-search and auto-merge. Just stay away
from the Ancestry trees as well or use them cautiously and as a last
resort when you're stuck.

At some point, you'll eventually need to do the research manually in any
event, and the best corrections of all are contributing your own properly
documented/cited trees when you're done.

Texas Gen

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av Texas Gen » 14 jan 2008 21:57:45

John wrote:
In my experience the trees you find at Ancestry.com aren't any more
reliable or better cited than the ones at the LDS site.

I don't mean to diminish the efforts of those who want to share their
research on Ancestry, but I agree with you. When I am absolutely certain
that the tree has an error, I write a [I hope] gracious Post-It to the
relevant page. I thank them for sharing their research, and then mention
the different information that I have and its source. Sometimes the author
makes the correction, sometimes not. Sometimes the author makes the
correction, citing me and my own source(s), which is considerate.

Unfortunately we get erroneous information and pass it around so much that
it is finally taken as gospel because it appears in so many places.

Regards,

Donna

hlmw

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av hlmw » 14 jan 2008 22:14:59

Texas Gen wrote:
John wrote:

In my experience the trees you find at Ancestry.com aren't any more
reliable or better cited than the ones at the LDS site.


I don't mean to diminish the efforts of those who want to share their
research on Ancestry, but I agree with you. When I am absolutely certain
that the tree has an error, I write a [I hope] gracious Post-It to the
relevant page. I thank them for sharing their research, and then mention
the different information that I have and its source. Sometimes the author
makes the correction, sometimes not. Sometimes the author makes the
correction, citing me and my own source(s), which is considerate.

Unfortunately we get erroneous information and pass it around so much that
it is finally taken as gospel because it appears in so many places.

Regards,

Donna

Yes, it gets passed on by people who are 'doing genealogy' and gathering names of people who may or may not be their ancestors. I tried to help someone to trace her lineage this past summer back to the 1700s where one man appeared having 2 sets of parents! I spent weeks winding my way through films of parish records ordered through LDS to try to sort out the problem. I also looked in the Ancestral File to see what was going on only to find that 24 people had submitted names and lineage for that particular family. I gave up when the person I was trying to help said: (of the 24 submissions): "I guess I'll go with this one, it looks the most likely one. I know her, she has done a lot of work on our "family genealogy". I protested to no avail. In some way, it is likely that all the submissions will find their way on to Ancestry also. This is an example of the 'desire' to get one's genealogy 'done' at any cost.

Lorna

Jane Benn

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av Jane Benn » 15 jan 2008 00:29:05

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:14:59 -0700, hlmw <hlmw1@telus.net> wrote:


Texas Gen wrote:
John wrote:

In my experience the trees you find at Ancestry.com aren't any more
reliable or better cited than the ones at the LDS site.


I don't mean to diminish the efforts of those who want to share their
research on Ancestry, but I agree with you. When I am absolutely certain
that the tree has an error, I write a [I hope] gracious Post-It to the
relevant page. I thank them for sharing their research, and then mention
the different information that I have and its source. Sometimes the author
makes the correction, sometimes not. Sometimes the author makes the
correction, citing me and my own source(s), which is considerate.

Unfortunately we get erroneous information and pass it around so much that
it is finally taken as gospel because it appears in so many places.

Regards,

Donna

Yes, it gets passed on by people who are 'doing genealogy' and gathering >names of people who may or may not be their ancestors. I tried to help >someone to trace her lineage this past summer back to the 1700s where one >man appeared having 2 sets of parents! I spent weeks winding my way through >films of parish records ordered through LDS to try to sort out the problem. I >also looked in the Ancestral File to see what was going on only to find that 24 >people had submitted names and lineage for that particular family. I gave up >when the person I was trying to help said: (of the 24 submissions): "I guess I'll >go with this one, it looks the most likely one. I know her, she has done a lot of >work on our "family genealogy". I protested to no avail. In some way, it is >likely that all the submissions will find their way on to Ancestry also. This is an >example of the 'desire' to get one's genealogy 'done' at any cost.

Lorna


I haven't done a lot, yet, but I have a ton of names and data in a
tentative tree. I will sometimes pass along that information, but I
make it very clear that it is not sourced, and should not be taken as
gospel, but as a basis for further research. Information I have
obtained from Ancestry, the LDS and other researchers, unless sourced,
is just that, as far as I am concerned - a basis for further research.

The only thing I trust without documentation is my mother's word for
things that occurred within her memory span, because you just have to
take some things on faith. :-)


--
Jane

Texas Gen

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av Texas Gen » 15 jan 2008 01:38:39

Jane wrote:
The only thing I trust without documentation is my mother's word for
things that occurred within her memory span, because you just have to
take some things on faith. :-)

Be careful!

Sir Creep

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av Sir Creep » 15 jan 2008 04:55:04

singhals wrote:
Ray wrote:

I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/ web site
which is maintained by the Mormon Church:

-- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future
postings. Is this correct?


Sort of.
Backing up to expand.

Sort of: LDS is working on a replacement to be used for LDS
purposes by LDS members. All future additions will go into
that database. How / if that will affect non-member access
to the familysearch.org site and the data thereon is a
trifle unclear at the moment.

Cheryl

So if one isnt' Mormon, the existing lists and future non-Mormon lists
aren't affected (sign-on capabilities aside). Then who gives a hoot
(no offense, my Brethren). I got a little of any religion you can
think of in my tree, but no Mormons.
SC

Jane Benn

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av Jane Benn » 15 jan 2008 15:26:15

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:38:39 -0600, "Texas Gen" <texas.gen@gmail.com>
wrote:

Jane wrote:

The only thing I trust without documentation is my mother's word for
things that occurred within her memory span, because you just have to
take some things on faith. :-)

Be careful!


At 99.96, that woman has a memory that most 30 year olds would envy. I
check a lot of it, anyway. I just haven't caught her being wrong, yet.

--
Jane

Jane Benn

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av Jane Benn » 15 jan 2008 16:11:48

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:53:35 -0800 (PST), Sir Creep
<sircreep@hotmail.com> wrote:

singhals wrote:
Ray wrote:

I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/ web site
which is maintained by the Mormon Church:

-- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future
postings. Is this correct?


Sort of.
Backing up to expand.

Sort of: LDS is working on a replacement to be used for LDS
purposes by LDS members. All future additions will go into
that database. How / if that will affect non-member access
to the familysearch.org site and the data thereon is a
trifle unclear at the moment.

Cheryl

So if one isnt' Mormon, the existing lists and future non-Mormon lists
aren't affected (sign-on capabilities aside). Then who gives a hoot
(no offense, my Brethren). I got a little of any religion you can
think of in my tree, but no Mormons.
SC

Don't be so quick to assume this isn't relevant. What if a (current)
Mormon is descended from one of your ancestors? I have found a couple
of their family trees that intersect with mine as few as three
generations back.

--
Jane

f/fgeorge

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av f/fgeorge » 15 jan 2008 17:41:10

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:11:48 -0500, Jane Benn
<nospamplease99@rogers.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:53:35 -0800 (PST), Sir Creep
sircreep@hotmail.com> wrote:

singhals wrote:
Ray wrote:

I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/ web site
which is maintained by the Mormon Church:

-- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future
postings. Is this correct?


Sort of.
Backing up to expand.

Sort of: LDS is working on a replacement to be used for LDS
purposes by LDS members. All future additions will go into
that database. How / if that will affect non-member access
to the familysearch.org site and the data thereon is a
trifle unclear at the moment.

Cheryl

So if one isnt' Mormon, the existing lists and future non-Mormon lists
aren't affected (sign-on capabilities aside). Then who gives a hoot
(no offense, my Brethren). I got a little of any religion you can
think of in my tree, but no Mormons.
SC

Don't be so quick to assume this isn't relevant. What if a (current)
Mormon is descended from one of your ancestors? I have found a couple
of their family trees that intersect with mine as few as three
generations back.

My dad's cousin married a Mormon and TONS of my ancestors are now "in

there"! I used to go to the local FHC and walk away with $20.00 of
print outs twice a week, until I figured out how to use a floppy disk!
ALL were my relatives!!!! I have over 17,000 people in my line now and
that does not count TONS and TONS of kids of non direct line
relatives! ALOT of them from the Mormon records. I have begun the very
laborius process of documentating seperately everything, but have not
found any problems with this ladies research!

brenda parker

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av brenda parker » 15 jan 2008 19:09:12

And people copy things right out of books onto the web/ancestry.com

On 1/14/08, Texas Gen <texas.gen@gmail.com> wrote:
John wrote:
In my experience the trees you find at Ancestry.com aren't any more
reliable or better cited than the ones at the LDS site.

I don't mean to diminish the efforts of those who want to share their
research on Ancestry, but I agree with you. When I am absolutely certain
that the tree has an error, I write a [I hope] gracious Post-It to the
relevant page. I thank them for sharing their research, and then mention
the different information that I have and its source. Sometimes the
author
makes the correction, sometimes not. Sometimes the author makes the
correction, citing me and my own source(s), which is considerate.

Unfortunately we get erroneous information and pass it around so much that
it is finally taken as gospel because it appears in so many places.

Regards,

Donna



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
ALT-GENEALOGY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message




--
Proud member of IBSSG

brenda parker

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av brenda parker » 15 jan 2008 21:15:15

What amazes me the most about genealogists is EVERYBODY from Missouri is
related to one of Jesse James outlaws or Jesse or Frank James. EVERYBODY
from Tennessee has Cherokee Indian blood or is related to Andrew Jackson.
ALL southerners of course fought for the South.

And NOBODY"s ancestors were just plain every day people who worked hard for
a living.


On 1/15/08, brenda parker <fairplay1951@gmail.com> wrote:
And people copy things right out of books onto the web/ancestry.com

On 1/14/08, Texas Gen <texas.gen@gmail.com> wrote:

John wrote:
In my experience the trees you find at Ancestry.com<http://ancestry.com/>aren't any more
reliable or better cited than the ones at the LDS site.

I don't mean to diminish the efforts of those who want to share their
research on Ancestry, but I agree with you. When I am absolutely
certain
that the tree has an error, I write a [I hope] gracious Post-It to the
relevant page. I thank them for sharing their research, and then
mention
the different information that I have and its source. Sometimes the
author
makes the correction, sometimes not. Sometimes the author makes the
correction, citing me and my own source(s), which is considerate.

Unfortunately we get erroneous information and pass it around so much
that
it is finally taken as gospel because it appears in so many places.

Regards,

Donna



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
ALT-GENEALOGY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message




--
Proud member of IBSSG




--
Proud member of IBSSG

saki

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av saki » 15 jan 2008 21:23:21

"brenda parker" <fairplay1951@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mailman.2151.1200428167.4586.alt-genealogy@rootsweb.com:

And NOBODY"s ancestors were just plain every day people who worked
hard for a living.

Mine were. :-) Well, most of them.

No kings, castles, princes, or fortunes though. It's been a hard job
convincing some of my relatives that we had no castle anywhere, or buried
treasure for that matter.

Seems to me that being able to trace ancestors (via verifiable documents)
back to 1597 is the real treasure!

----
saki@ucla.edu
http://sakionline.net/familypage

brenda parker

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av brenda parker » 15 jan 2008 21:35:22

My ancestor Johan Nicholaus Linke's family tree sort of vanishes in Germany
abt. that time. They were executing people left and right for witchcraft and
heresy.

On 15 Jan 2008 20:23:21 GMT, saki <saki@ucla.edu> wrote:
"brenda parker" <fairplay1951@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mailman.2151.1200428167.4586.alt-genealogy@rootsweb.com:

And NOBODY"s ancestors were just plain every day people who worked
hard for a living.

Mine were. :-) Well, most of them.

No kings, castles, princes, or fortunes though. It's been a hard job
convincing some of my relatives that we had no castle anywhere, or buried
treasure for that matter.

Seems to me that being able to trace ancestors (via verifiable documents)
back to 1597 is the real treasure!

----
saki@ucla.edu
http://sakionline.net/familypage

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
ALT-GENEALOGY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message




--
Proud member of IBSSG

f/fgeorge

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av f/fgeorge » 15 jan 2008 23:06:44

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:15:15 -0600, "brenda parker"
<fairplay1951@gmail.com> wrote:

What amazes me the most about genealogists is EVERYBODY from Missouri is
related to one of Jesse James outlaws or Jesse or Frank James. EVERYBODY
from Tennessee has Cherokee Indian blood or is related to Andrew Jackson.
ALL southerners of course fought for the South.

And NOBODY"s ancestors were just plain every day people who worked hard for
a living.

That's because most of those people did live long enough to have

descendants that made any of the books. If you were not on the winning
side of a battle you were either killed or assimilated. Those "every
day people" you speak of were the cannon fodder for battles and didn't
live very long. Now obviously after the middle ages this would not be
true. And lots of us have ancestors that just trudged thru life doing
whatever it is they did having kids along way and those kids
eventually leading down to you and I. But that is after the major land
battles were long over, excepting of course the World Wars.
Lots of people can trace their lineage to Charlemagne and anyone that
thinks the Bible is a true and accurate record can get themselves from
the Romans to Jesus and God. For those of us that tend to not believe
as much in its historical accuracy as others, it is a bit more
difficult. Genealogy is about facts and "every day people" just didn't
leave many for us to follow. Their lives were normal, mundane and
"every day". That is part of the fun of Genealogy, the searching for
that one person, actually there are thousands, that can make that
connection to someone else's genealogy that can extend our own line
for many generations.

brenda parker

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av brenda parker » 15 jan 2008 23:18:35

I am one of the lucky people whose family settled somewhere and stayed. My
family has been in Sumner County TN since the 1780's, both sides.

On 1/15/08, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:15:15 -0600, "brenda parker"
fairplay1951@gmail.com> wrote:

What amazes me the most about genealogists is EVERYBODY from Missouri is
related to one of Jesse James outlaws or Jesse or Frank James. EVERYBODY
from Tennessee has Cherokee Indian blood or is related to Andrew Jackson.
ALL southerners of course fought for the South.

And NOBODY"s ancestors were just plain every day people who worked hard
for
a living.

That's because most of those people did live long enough to have
descendants that made any of the books. If you were not on the winning
side of a battle you were either killed or assimilated. Those "every
day people" you speak of were the cannon fodder for battles and didn't
live very long. Now obviously after the middle ages this would not be
true. And lots of us have ancestors that just trudged thru life doing
whatever it is they did having kids along way and those kids
eventually leading down to you and I. But that is after the major land
battles were long over, excepting of course the World Wars.
Lots of people can trace their lineage to Charlemagne and anyone that
thinks the Bible is a true and accurate record can get themselves from
the Romans to Jesus and God. For those of us that tend to not believe
as much in its historical accuracy as others, it is a bit more
difficult. Genealogy is about facts and "every day people" just didn't
leave many for us to follow. Their lives were normal, mundane and
"every day". That is part of the fun of Genealogy, the searching for
that one person, actually there are thousands, that can make that
connection to someone else's genealogy that can extend our own line
for many generations.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
ALT-GENEALOGY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message




--
Proud member of IBSSG

hlmw

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av hlmw » 16 jan 2008 01:11:59

saki wrote:
"brenda parker" <fairplay1951@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mailman.2151.1200428167.4586.alt-genealogy@rootsweb.com:


And NOBODY"s ancestors were just plain every day people who worked
hard for a living.


Mine were. :-) Well, most of them.

No kings, castles, princes, or fortunes though. It's been a hard job
convincing some of my relatives that we had no castle anywhere, or buried
treasure for that matter.

Seems to me that being able to trace ancestors (via verifiable documents)
back to 1597 is the real treasure!



Some of mine were smugglers off the south coast of England (Cornwall)

names: May, Pearce, Body, Job.
Some were tin miners. Many emigrated to USA, Australia and Canada. One
named Body was supposed to have supported the king in clearing out the
monasteries and churches... guess which king?
Lorna

Jane Benn

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av Jane Benn » 16 jan 2008 04:58:14

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:15:15 -0600, "brenda parker"
<fairplay1951@gmail.com> wrote:

What amazes me the most about genealogists is EVERYBODY from Missouri is
related to one of Jesse James outlaws or Jesse or Frank James. EVERYBODY
from Tennessee has Cherokee Indian blood or is related to Andrew Jackson.
ALL southerners of course fought for the South.

And NOBODY"s ancestors were just plain every day people who worked hard for
a living.



I come from a long line of farmers and labourers.

I suppose I might have a sixth cousin somewhere who is or was famous,
but why would anyone care?

--
Jane

Allen Prunty

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av Allen Prunty » 18 jan 2008 16:28:05

brenda parker wrote:
What amazes me the most about genealogists is EVERYBODY from Missouri is
related to one of Jesse James outlaws or Jesse or Frank James. EVERYBODY
from Tennessee has Cherokee Indian blood or is related to Andrew Jackson.
ALL southerners of course fought for the South.

I'm from Tennessee and I have not been able to find Andrew Jackson nor
any Cherokee in my family. I did find a document that proves I am
related to Dolly Parton (of all people).

The small town that I lived in has a legend of Frank James living there
for about two years incognito... but he did not spread his seed while there.

Allen

the_verminator@comcast.ne

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av the_verminator@comcast.ne » 18 jan 2008 23:53:23

On Jan 18, 9:28 am, Allen Prunty
<allen.pru...@derbycitybbs.nospam.delme.com> wrote:
brenda parker wrote:
What amazes me the most about genealogists is EVERYBODY from Missouri is
related to one of Jesse James outlaws or Jesse or Frank James. EVERYBODY
from Tennessee has Cherokee Indian blood or is related to Andrew Jackson..
ALL southerners of course fought for the South.

I'm from Tennessee and I have not been able to find Andrew Jackson nor
any Cherokee in my family.  I did find a document that proves I am
related to Dolly Parton (of all people).

The small town that I lived in has a legend of Frank James living there
for about two years incognito... but he did not spread his seed while there.

Allen

Porter once introduced her as " a girl from the hills of east
Tennessee.... and look, she brought the hills with her!"

Allen Prunty

Famous Relatives

Legg inn av Allen Prunty » 19 jan 2008 05:30:03

To: the_verminator@comcast.net
Re: Re: Mormon records? ? ?
By: the_verminator@comcast.net to alt.genealogy on Fri Jan 18 2008 01:53 pm

I'm from Tennessee and I have not been able to find Andrew Jackson nor
any Cherokee in my family. =A0I did find a document that proves I am
related to Dolly Parton (of all people).

Porter once introduced her as " a girl from the hills of east
Tennessee.... and look, she brought the hills with her!"

I can say with all confidence that while she has had some enhancement
surgery... they are all natural and the surgery that she has had just lifts and
separates them to the max.

She said one time "why grow old gracefully when you can afford to have things
sucked, plucked and tucked."

I can also say... with the exception of my mom... that my aunts were all
equally as blessed as she.

Allen


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The Derby City BBS
-= Allen Prunty =- telnet://derbycitybbs.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Where Friends Gather
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85
Derby City BBS - telnet://derbycitybbs.com

JD

Re: Mormon records? ? ?

Legg inn av JD » 19 jan 2008 12:56:26

Allen Prunty <allen.prunty@derbycitybbs.nospam.delme.com> wrote:

I'm from Tennessee and I have not been able to find Andrew Jackson nor
any Cherokee in my family. I did find a document that proves I am
related to Dolly Parton (of all people).

Allen

Mmmmmm... Dolly Parton! I love her. She's so bubbly & down-to-earth.. kind
of!

When you next see her tell her I'm in love, and to keep up her.. uh,
"improvements"!

:-)

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»