Talk:Life After the IGI

From FamilySearch Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with '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.&n…')
 
Line 1: Line 1:
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 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.    
 +
 
 +
<br>
 +
 
 +
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? [[User:RaymondRS|Robert]] 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:21, 28 February 2012

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)