APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2009-03 > 1237876003

From: Janessa Roberts <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Mormon News Argument
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:26:43 -0700
References: <C5ECFE1D.147A1%laura@lauraprescott.com><200903231544.n2NFiOkn000377@mail960c35.nsolutionszone.com>
In-Reply-To: <200903231544.n2NFiOkn000377@mail960c35.nsolutionszone.com>

VERY well written, Debra. I especially liked the comment where you said we
are "keepers of the past." Made me sit up just a little bit straigter and


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Debra Blackard <
> wrote:

> To All Members of the List:
> Rather than immediately jumping to the defensive position if corrections to
> any online (free or subscription,) print or family source were questioned,
> we should all thoughtfully evaluate the databases, books or family records
> and compare the information contained in them to records created
> contemporaneously to the ancestor we are researching.
> All religion is a matter of faith. I am not LDS, and in my Protestant
> denomination I am encouraged to seek the best sources for my belief, not
> accept anything from someone else, even a minister, without checking it
> out.
> I am aware that this is not true in many churches/religions. I also have to
> accept that many people do not have the same research standards that I have
> been taught. Religious faith should have no part in actual research,
> regardless of the reason one is researching. Fact finding should be the
> operational mode; Facts should be supported by documentation. Whether LDS
> or
> that dreaded "Fundamentalist Baptist", we need to become "researchers" on
> this list and quit defending the indefensible.
> Would we not be better genealogists, LDS, non-LDS if we left behind the
> defensive posture of blind loyalty to flawed sources and do our very best
> to
> support the facts with good quality evidence? So much time is spent on this
> list defending and attacking the LDS research sources and their critics.
> As
> Elizabeth Mills and many others have said in previous posts, there are
> flaws
> in every source. And yes, there are many more flaws possible with the
> technology we use today compared to when we had only print sources. We
> waste
> our time and energy refusing to admit that obvious fact.
> It is true that much of what is available online is trash. It is also true
> that mistakes are perpetuated much more rapidly because the databases and
> indices that have been made available online and/or for sale on disks
> without any type of quality control over the research. It is also true that
> many people won't believe a stack of original records if they have found
> different information on a purchased disk of gedcoms or if Aunt Hattie had
> a
> different version.
> Instead, let us use those BCG Standards available to all of us, certified,
> credentialed, or aspiring, professionals.
> I cannot waste my time on arguments when the answers are very obvious to
> me...Use the very best sources I can find, original if possible, and
> facsimiles of the original if not. Avoid compiled databases for actual
> facts; use them only for possible kernels hidden among the chaff. Follow
> every so-called fact found in a compilation to the source record. As Peggy
> Reeves pointed out recently, NSDAR constantly has to correct flawed
> lineages
> because they have been proven with fraudulent or incorrect research. I know
> this to be true because I have communicated with the DAR Corrections
> Genealogist about problems in some of my lines.
> Become politically active. Write your local officials and congressional
> representatives about the need to keep our local, state and federal records
> fully accessible to us as private citizens and without filtering them
> through any private or religious entity. [I don't want someone else, be it
> a
> staffer at NARA or my state archives or a volunteer for any church or
> organization to decide which ten pages will be most important to me in my
> research.] We need those records to remain open to researchers and the only
> way this will happen is if we become involved and tell our leaders how
> important that these records are.
> We are not just genealogists looking for another leaf on our family tree.
> We
> are keepers of the past and that is a weighty responsibility, one which we
> should take seriously and make every effort for others in decision making
> positions to do the same.
> Debra from Arkansas
> .
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message

This thread: