Talk:Life After the IGI

this is a great article and would be very helpful to send to patrons with questions about the future of the IGI, except for the two paragraphs which refer to temple ordinances. This is a very touchy subject with people who are not members of our faith. I wonder if those two paragraphs could be deleted from the article.

This goes to the thesis of the paper--the IGI was designed for _______, not for genealogy. Consequently, it has major limitations and replacing it is a good thing. Genealogists should welcome a replacement, rather than demand its persistence. What would you say instead of those two paragraphs? Robert 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert, I hesitate to chop up a carefully written article with this suggestion, and to blur the main point as well. My only purpose is to produce a document which can be sent out to patrons who are already disturbed at the thought of losing the content of the IGI. This is so beautifully crafted, it seems like a great answer to their questions. “Created and published primarily to assist members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) to identify their ancestors and other relatives and to avoid duplication of efforts.

so modify this paragraph and skip the 2nd. Probably better that you craft it than I but this is the suggestion if we are to use it for other purposes than its original intent.

Jean Robbins

Supervisor - Historical Records Patron Services

I see your point. The article was designed for the general public. The information about ordinances is in our currently printed public guides to using the IGI. The content has also been approved to be filmed and published with our training videos.

If I don't explain that it was designed to prevent duplication of ordinances, how do I explain why the Church extracted records and subsequently threw them away? That doesn't "assist members...identify their ancestors...and to avoid duplication of efforts." Obvious duplicity makes people trust the Church less, not more. Robert 18:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Jean, it became clear how to handle the 2nd paragraph and I've made the changes. I'm still open to suggestion on how to handle the first without subterfuge. Robert 18:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)