Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m frustrated

People are changing dates from before 1500 to 1800

Case: Temple Ordinances prior to 1500 (06052837)
2019-08-09 06:12::50 GMT
Details: I have spent many hours restoring oral genealogy entered by my husband and me from 25 generations of oral genealogy handed down from his grandfather and father in our possession.
People are changing dates from before 1500 to 1800 and then doing the Temple work. e.g Matasepu L667-6GB born Abt 1398 changed to born 1805 so they can do Temple Work and then completing it.
Is it possible to block these dates from being changed?
It has happened hundreds of times.
Regards
Alison and Tui Faifai
PS
25 Sep 2019
After me correcting the date to Abt 1398
someone has changed it again to 1800's
2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • 1
    Even more important than that: why are figures from that far back from Samoa even included on the system? What actual evidence for them existing is there?

    Samoan was not a written language until the 19th century, so anything back beyond about 1750 is extremely suspect. Oral traditions are fine and dandy, but they can be rather vague with respect to dates.

    So why should someone that far back from Samoa be included in FSFT any more than Adam or Noah be included?
    • view 2 more comments
    • Ah so what makes oral histories of island natives from Great Britain (for example) different? What about oral histories of island natives from Sj√¶lland or Gotland or Iceland? They have extensively recorded native oral histories documenting lots of people descended from Odin or Thor and they are islands. What about Crete or Rhodes where descent from Zeus or Hercules is claimed?

      If you're going to accept oral histories of "island natives" then if applied consistently it opens a whole can of worms. Also is it island natives only? What about Sioux or Zulu or Inca or Buryat or Murrawarri oral traditions?

      Why only oral histories of "natives"? Why not everyone's oral history? Why is a family tradition in France that claims descent from Charlemagne any less valid than a family tradition in Samoa that claims descent from Matasepu (whoever that person was in Samoan oral tradition)?

      I know these are awkward questions, but they need consistent, defensible, logical answers. The position taken that "oral histories of island natives are acceptable by the Church for the purpose of completing vicarious temple ordinances" is not consistent, not logical and not defensible in that form.

      Supposed genealogy without evidence is mythology. Mythology is NOT genealogy. Since eligibility for vicarious ordinances is supposedly based on genealogy, the stance elaborated in this thread risks exposure to significant ridicule.

      The actual performing of vicarious ordinances is a religious matter. However if the stance taken is that only blood relatives or spouses of blood relatives can have vicarious ordinances performed on them by a particular person then that is NOT a religious matter in terms of its effect. Proving a relationship to someone is a genealogical matter. That means it follows the standards and proofs of genealogy and not the standards and proofs of religion. The standards and proofs of genealogy do not allow for oral history like this to be used for establishing relationships.

      Brett may not like that I am asking these questions, but these are the sort of questions that should be both asked and answered.

      The most important question, and what my entire point is really predicated on is am I correct in my understanding that vicarious ordinances can only be performed on blood relatives or spouses of blood relatives of the person doing the vicarious ordinances?
    • 1) No written language.
      2) Those that are not accepted have written records.
      3) Persons who claim ancestry (for the purpose of performing vicarious temple ordinances) from the oral histories must have evidence that connects them to the history.
      4). Yes, you are correct to a point. Vicarious ordinances can be reserved for relatives and those unrelated, but married to relatives. An ancestral line is established though one of the following relationships: Biological, adopted, guardian, and foster,

      A step- relationship is valid if the person was raised by the step parent(s). I was impacted by this and didn't realize that I could reserve those ancestors of my step mother because I was still at home and in high school when my father married her. What was key was the fact that "view my relationship" showed the relationship when I used a feature called Ordinances Ready.

      Another, but hard to use exception is "Possible ancestors, meaning individuals who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate, such as those who have the same last name and resided in the same area as your known ancestors."

      Note, anyone temple recommend holding member can perform the vicarious ordinance, but only relatives can reserve them. The relative must be a member of the Church, but does not need a temple recommend to reserve ordinances for their relatives.

      More on Oral Histories are in the article Does FamilySearch have oral genealogies? at https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...

      The pertinent information:

      "Does FamilySearch have oral genealogies?

      FamilySearch collects, preserves, and shares genealogical records worldwide and works to make these records available to all people.

      We began collecting oral family histories and genealogies in the Pacific Island countries of Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, and Tahiti in the 1960s. Collection work was expanded to the southeast Asian countries of Indonesia and Malaysia in the 1980s. Today, FamilySearch is collecting and preserving oral histories and genealogies in Africa. This project aims to preserve these records for the rising generations.

      There are an estimated 250 million names to collect. With the younger generation leaving African villages for larger cities, some family histories may not be passed to future generations unless we preserve them now. Many stories are held in the minds of those living in remote African villages. This work is of great worth to families, tribes, villages, and future generations.
      "
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 1
    Tui,

    I looked through the change log for L667-6GB and found that you originally entered the data for her and her parents back in February of 2014. The dates all pretty much aligned at that point.

    What happened afterwards is the problem. In October of 2014, you added a child, Tauiliili) born in the 1800s, some 400 or so years after Matasepu and her parents lived.

    That triggered all sorts of problems because others, possibly descendants of Tauiliili, got involved and corrected the dates for her parents according to information that they had.

    They were not changing the record so they could do temple work, but went back to try to correct the situation when you added Tauiliili. Prior to that time, the dates remained stable.

    What has to happen at this point, is that you will need to contact those involved with the changes and explain what happened and ask that they help you separate out the later records so you could restore the original birth dates and remove (or correct) the information about the errant child that started this mess.

    In other words, you're going to need to go back to the data as it existed before October of 2014 and then go from there. That means also removing any child of the couple or at the very least, correcting Tauiliili's birth date and removing other children who were not the couple's children.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned