Notes
The Genealogical Society experienced more far–reaching changes between 1961 and 1975 than in any previous period. In many ways, these changes reflected the broad changes in the Church that resulted from correlating its programs and establishing the priesthood line of authority as the primary channel for communicating the directives of Church leaders to each member. New leaders significantly changed the focus of the work of the Society. They permitted names to be taken from record sources and submitted directly for vicarious temple ordinances. The Records Tabulation Program, enhanced by computer technology, provided the flow of names required to keep up with increased temple attendance. General Authorities such as N. Eldon Tanner, Howard W. Hunter, and Theodore M. Burton instigated farsighted programs to encourage widespread genealogical activity, including a branch library system and promulgation of a program encouraging members to submit four generations of genealogical information. The Society expanded its library services, moved into new facilities, changed its research policy from hiring professional researchers to simply providing better assistance for patrons, and hosted the 1969 World Conference on Records.
Changes in Administration
The first of the three major reorganizations during this period came in 1961. Board members were surprised when, during a 22 June meeting with Presidents David O. McKay and Henry D. Moyle, they were told that the Society was to be reorganized and that all of them were being released. Even Joseph Fielding Smith, who had served as president for twenty–seven years and as a member of the board for twenty–seven years before that, was released, along with his two primary administrators, Archibald F. Bennett and L. Garrett Myers. General Authorities of the Church, the First Presidency explained, must be relieved from such heavy administrative responsibilities.1
The 1961 reorganization was actually part of a renewed Churchwide correlation movement. In 1960, Elder Harold B. Lee, as chairman of the Melchizedek Priesthood Committee, was assigned to reexamine Church curriculum. He appointed Antone K. Romney, dean of the College of Education at Brigham Young University, to head a committee to do a historical survey of Church programs. The committee focused particularly on the way programs may or may not have been integrated, or correlated, effectively within the larger structure. After reviewing the committee’s final report, the First Presidency announced the new correlation plans on 30 September 1961. Genealogy became one of the four functions of the priesthood.2
Although the Genealogical Society was restructured just prior to the announcement,3 the correlation effort prompted the reorganization. However, certain administrative problems that had become apparent may also have played a role in the change.4
The reorganization took place quietly, surprising many staff members and unavoidably hurting some feelings. L. Garrett Myers, for example, who was in charge of personnel and had devoted his life to the Society, was out of town when the change was announced and was undoubtedly stunned when he learned he had been relieved of all his responsibilities. George Fudge, who had only recently been made assistant superintendent to Myers, was asked by President Henry D. Moyle to direct the operations of the Society until the First Presidency appointed a new president.5
The new leaders were announced on 6 July 1961. Junius M. Jackson, former president of the New England Mission, became president—the first time this office was held by someone other than a General Authority. Jackson was given two assistants, Lamont B. Gunderson and George H. Fudge, as well as a new six–person board of directors.6 Neither Junius Jackson nor his first assistant had previously been employed by the Society, but George Fudge had worked fifteen years for the Society in Salt Lake City and had helped pioneer microfilming in England. Fudge remained in charge of the Society’s daily activities, while Jackson worked with other matters and directed the convention staff.7 Paul Royall and Roy Brown became, respectively, secretary and treasurer.8 Archibald F. Bennett, who had been “Mr. Genealogy” in the Church, remained as director of education and was also placed in charge of the Genealogical Library.9
Presidency of the Genealogical Association, 1961: (left to right) President Junius M. Jackson with his assistants George H. Fudge and LaMont B. Gundersen. The Genealogical Society was directed by business leaders in 1961–62.
The new officers began their work with a major discussion on the nature of the Society—Should it continue as an incorporated body under the laws of the state of Utah, or should it disincorporate and become strictly a Church organization, functioning as a Church auxiliary? Most board members, including Junius Jackson, thought that it could function better as an auxiliary. Exactly why they preferred auxiliary status is not clear, although they may have felt it would give them greater opportunity to attend stake conferences as official visitors and thus promote genealogy more effectively. For whatever reasons, they voted on 27 July to propose that the Society be discontinued as a corporation. They also began to refer to the Society as the “Genealogical Association”10 (a name that sounded more like other auxiliaries). The term “association” was used until the end of Jackson’s administration but never caught on generally.
This new auxiliary status was fully in line with Church policy. It was a novelty, nevertheless, for long–time staff members to suddenly see board members going out on stake conference assignments with General Authorities.11 The new status only emphasized, however, the increasingly significant role of genealogy in the minds of Church leaders.
The Society that Junius Jackson took over was a large, complex organization with difficult problems of administration and coordination. It encompassed a huge genealogical library, a vast international microfilming program, a rapidly growing index bureau, a $2 million budget,12 and hundreds of employees as well as hundreds of volunteer workers in the wards and stakes. The responsibility for supervising a unique combination of paid professionals and volunteer Church service workers proved challenging. The professionals were tightly controlled by the administrative system and procedures of the Society itself, but the Church service workers, scattered in wards and branches throughout the world, were in the difficult position of taking direction both from their local ecclesiastical leaders and from the Society. These local volunteers were appointed by the local leaders, were responsible to them for genealogical classes, and were dependent upon them for promoting the classes and supporting genealogical work generally. At the same time, they were responsible for submitting activity reports required by the Society and coordinating all research and temple work through the Society.
Jackson’s administration was short lived but vigorous. His reports to the First Presidency pointed with pride to the new board’s efforts “to bring genealogical work out of its hiding place and into the limelight of responsibility with the membership of the Church.”13 In the first six months, he and his staff worked with architects and the Church Building Committee on finalizing plans for a new genealogical building, instituted a study of personnel and work flow, discontinued overtime work in order to save money, studied purchasing procedures and in the process effected substantial savings, developed a motion picture for the 1962 conventions, improved other convention materials, received permission from the First Presidency for Society representatives to hold conventions in the missions within the United States, and planned a monthly bulletin that began publication in 1962. The Society staff also created new monthly report forms for stake and ward workers, developed a new family group sheet that was more readily adaptable for typewriter use, established a committee to approve what records were to be microfilmed throughout the world, studied new electronic technology and its adaptation for genealogical work, and began writing new lesson materials and instruction manuals. But the most significant change in this period was a policy of extracting names from genealogical sources and submitting them directly to the temples (the Records Tabulation program discussed below), which helped solve the increasingly difficult problem of keeping the temples supplied with names.
The year 1962 saw a significant expansion of all the Society’s programs, including more local conventions. There was also a major genealogical convention, attended by 7,000 people, in connection with the general conference of the Church in October. At the same time, the General Authorities felt the need for direct administrative involvement with this rapidly growing Church unit.14 On 4 December 1962, the First Presidency announced the release of Jackson and his board, and appointed Elder N. Eldon Tanner of the Council of the Twelve as president. The Church News commented on the vast programs and new direction of the Society as a result of advanced technology. Elder Tanner, the paper reported, would have full supervision “of all educational, public service, library, research, and microfilming activities of the Society, the index bureau and the storage vaults for microfilm records now nearing completing underground in Little Cottonwood Canyon. He will work closely with the Church advance planning committee in the field of electronic recording.”15
Like the 1961 reorganization, this change was also part of the continuing correlation movement within the Church. In January 1963, the correlation committee divided the responsibilities of the priesthood into four major categories: missionary work, welfare, home teaching, and genealogy. A General Authority was assigned to direct each of these areas. Rather than continuing as an auxiliary function, genealogical work became a basic priesthood assignment. The head of the Genealogical Society also became a member of a Church coordinating committee.16
Elder Nathan Eldon Tanner, president of the Society, 1963. He was released from this position when he was called to the First Presidency of the Church.
Elder N. Eldon Tanner brought a new administrative style to the Society. His managerial skills had earned him a well–deserved reputation as a leader, both inside and outside the Church. His respect for individuals, nonauthoritarian style of leadership, willingness to listen, personal humility, and obvious ability to make well–reasoned decisions created a warm regard for him within the Society. Elder Tanner dealt openly with complaints and attempted to correct whatever problems caused them. When patrons protested that the library was not open on Saturday evening, for example, he changed the policy. He required employees to take complaints directly to the parties they felt were doing something wrong. He effectively delegated responsibilities to employees and made them feel a part of the Society’s program. Microfilmer James Black described him as “one of the greatest leaders we have had in the Genealogical Society. I think everybody developed a real love for him. He seemed to be a person who liked to make use of the people who were in the Society to the fullest extent. He made the employees feel as if they were close, trusted friends,” Black recalled. “And I think he got results. There wasn’t anything I wouldn’t do for him.”17
Elder Tanner remained as president for only a year, but during that time he made some significant changes. When he took over, he found forty–seven departments that, at least in his view, were not working together as well as they should. He quickly streamlined the operation, reducing the number of major administrative units to nine.18 He attempted to separate public service functions from internal programs. He hired professional librarians, reduced the size of the research division, worked on the development of a computer program, and moved ward genealogical classes to the MIA. Under his direction, the Society was again reincorporated under Utah state law as the Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints, Inc. Under the new charter issued in November 1963, the First Presidency continued to select the Society’s officers.19
In October 1963, Elder Tanner became a Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church. In December the First Presidency appointed Theodore M. Burton as vice president and general manager of the Society, and he served as chief administrative officer until 1977. Paul Royall, secretary of the Society under Junius Jackson, also retained his major administrative responsibilities.
Elder Burton, an Assistant to the Council of the Twelve, had been presiding over the European missions of the Church. His only previous experience in the genealogy program was as a stake chairman for genealogy. Years later he good–naturedly recalled that as a young man he thought of genealogists as fanatics “with one foot in the grave.” He imagined that he was being assigned to an organization that spent a lot of money heedlessly, but he learned quickly how wrong he was. Before leaving Europe, he began his new assignment by visiting several microfilming projects.20
In the reorganization, President Tanner allowed George Fudge to choose between directing microfilm operations or directing systems and improvements. Having worked with systems since 1959, he elected to take charge of that program and to organize a name extraction department.21 Fudge molded the activities of the Society and the Family History Department for the next twenty years, eventually serving as the Department’s managing director, the chief executive officer under the General Authorities.
On 21 January 1964, President Tanner was succeeded as president of the Society by Elder Howard W. Hunter of the Council of the Twelve. Elder Hunter exerted a quiet, but pivotal, influence on Society work for many years. He had served on the board of directors from 1960 to 1961. Reappointed in late 1963, he had served only one month of his second term on the board when he was appointed to replace Elder Tanner. He remained president of the Society for eight years. (From 24 January 1970 until 25 May 1972, he also served as Church historian.22) In 1972, the First Presidency divested itself and the Council of the Twelve of all direct administrative responsibilities within the various Church departments. Accordingly Elder Theodore M. Burton, Society vice president, replaced Elder Hunter as president. Elder Hunter continued to serve on the board of directors until 14 February 1975.23
Needed: A Change in Policy
An acute shortage of names continued to plague the Society’s efforts to keep the temples supplied, but two important developments, occurring almost simultaneously, helped solve the problem: computer technology was adapted to the genealogical and temple program of the Church and policy was changed regarding name submission for temple work. The Genealogical Society and, consequently, the temples moved with solemn deliberation into the computer age.
In the 1950s, Church policy still required that all names submitted for vicarious ordinances be identified on family group sheets, which were submitted by a family representative, checked by the Genealogical Society, then sent to the temples. People submitting names could reserve them for their own families to use when attending the temple, or they could put them in the “temple file,” introduced in 1954, as a source of names available to patrons who had no family names for which to do the work. Most people who attended the temple were dependent upon the temple file. Exceptions to the established program were sometimes allowed in order to keep the temples running, but the policies of the Society did little to solve the problem of name shortages.24
A factor that contributed to the shortage of names was the time–consuming process the Society required to clear names. Early in 1960, L. Garrett Myers told the Personnel Committee of the Church that his employees were working overtime because of the shortage of names at the temples and that more part–time help was needed.25 In 1957, for example, the Society forwarded 780,464 names to the temples, but during the year, 950,379 endowments had been performed.26
Another problem arose because women consistently attended the temple in greater numbers than men, and the supply of female names diminished much faster than male names. Special priesthood sessions were held at some temples in order to catch up on the completion of male ordinances. For several years, the Logan Temple held priesthood sessions on George Washington’s birthday. In 1953 the president of the Logan Temple instructed all stake presidents in his district that women should not come to the temple at all unless they had their own family names for which to perform ordinances—the supply of female names was completely exhausted.27 Also, as another temporary solution, families were urged to put their names in the regular temple file rather than the restricted family file, so that all patrons could have access to them.28 These measures, however, provided no permanent relief.
Genealogical leaders faced a crisis as efforts to persuade Church members to increase their personal research met with little response. In 1958 ten temples were in operation, and temple activity had increased 29 percent that year, but the Society was unable to keep pace. Pleas by Society representatives at local conventions went unheeded. Members who were doing research continued to submit incorrect forms that could not be cleared. In 1961 some 42 percent were rejected, and another 26 percent were found to be duplicates. Name shortages required cutbacks in the number of daily temple sessions. In 1959 most temples eliminated two sessions per day. By 1960 the supply of names was precarious—only a six week’s supply was on hand at most temples, and only a month’s supply was at the Salt Lake Temple. The Society tried to compensate by increasing its output with overtime, night shifts, and holiday shifts.29 In Salt Lake City, Society workers were literally running back and forth each day carrying names to the temple to keep it open.
This crisis led to a number of urgent, but perhaps unrealistic, proposals to local Church leaders. In 1958, for example, Joseph Fielding Smith and Archibald F. Bennett asked stake genealogical chairmen to increase the size of ward genealogy committees to sixteen or more, to contact every family at least once every two months, to encourage better attendance at genealogical classes, to promote home–study courses, and to ask members to set aside two days each month as research days, keeping track of the number of hours spent on research. In practical terms, however, most members of the Church were not research–oriented, and they did not have the time, skill, money, and motivation to keep up the steady pace needed to supply the temples.30
Genealogical leaders faced a dilemma. On one hand, Church policy regarding the submission and clearance of names made it impossible for the supply of names cleared for temple work to keep pace with increasing temple attendance. On the other hand, the Church had stepped up its emphasis on regular temple attendance, making the name shortage even more acute. Clearly, something had to be done, and soon.31 The only answer was to introduce a new system.
As early as the 1940s, several genealogical leaders had begun to soften their previously inflexible position on the process of submitting names. On 16 April 1943, for example, the board discussed the issue. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said he would like to see the day when a staff of experts under the jurisdiction of the Society would do research and prepare names for temple work. With a touch of hyperbole, he estimated that “95% of those working on their own lines bungle the records in compiling them, leading to confusion comparable to a tangled ball of string. . . . Is it not the responsibility of the Church to prepare these records?” he asked. He also suggested that the Society had been a little too strict in requiring individuals to submit only their own family lines, though he still insisted that whatever names were submitted must be in connection with family group units. While he continued to oppose “haphazard” work, Elder Smith nevertheless observed that “we will shortly receive millions of names from Europe. Won’t we have to broaden out?” Elder John A. Widtsoe concurred, commenting that “we had been limiting ourselves unduly from a fear of promiscuous name gathering and in part had forgotten our obligation to the dead.”32 Archibald F. Bennett remarked one month later that, in the long run, there were really no families “of exclusive private ownership,” for all ultimately were interrelated. Other members of the board agreed that it would be a “shortsighted policy” to spend money for the building of temples without providing an adequate supply of names.33
In September 1943, Elder Widtsoe anticipated the policy that eventually developed when he declared that the Society ought to obtain all published manuscript and microfilm records as fast as possible and use the names for temple work. “Why don’t we use the names for temple work which cannot be tied to any Church families?” he asked. “The Lord has provided these names by inspiring genealogists to compile and publish them. In an extremity like the present, why not use the names from such records? . . . For what purpose have these books been compiled, if not to make the names available for temple work?”34 Three years later, Bennett made a similar appeal. A large number of Danish records were coming in, and he believed the Society should organize them into family groups for the use of people attending the temples without their own family names. Elder Smith agreed, predicting that eventually family records for temple work would be prepared by genealogical experts. “Is it not the business of the Church to prepare names for temple work?” he asked again. The minutes and correspondence of the Society during this period are filled with such discussions, and at least two committees were appointed to study the problem.35 The only real solution, however, was a wholly new approach to the philosophy of name submission.
Over the next several years, many suggestions were made for the use of electronic devices to speed up processing. George Fudge put the problem succinctly to the board in June 1961. The only alternatives were either not to worry if the temples ran out of names or to initiate a new program to produce names in addition to those provided by the public.36 But drastic changes do not come easily, nor do they come overnight. Church leaders proceeded quietly and cautiously, as they listened to suggestions for new programs that the marvels of computer technology were beginning to make possible.37
Changing Role and Policies:
Computers and the Controlled Extraction Program
Society began investigating the use of mechanical data processing methods as early as 1941 and decided they were not suitable for Society purposes, especially because of the problems that would be involved in completely changing the old filing system. But investigation continued into the possibility of transferring information from the Temple Index Bureau (TIB) cards to magnetic tape and finding a way to index and classify it electronically. Sixteen years later, after the Society began seriously to consider the use of computer technology, the idea of manually copying the TIB to magnetic tape still seemed so enormous as to be impractical, though the possible perfection of an acceptable optical scanner seemed to offer some hope.38
Computer programming was a new and highly technical field. Most people were not only unaware of its potential, but also somewhat apprehensive of investing in something they did not understand. No one within the Society had the technical qualifications to develop or work with a computer program, though a number of people, including Myers, Bennett, and Fudge, were eager to see what computers could do.
Just as the Church was reaching a serious crisis in providing enough names to the temples, many young Latter–day Saints began to carve out careers in computer technology and programming. Impressed with what recent technological improvements could do for the Church, particularly its genealogical program, they eagerly discussed it among themselves. One group of young men in the Los Angeles area began meeting together informally in the late 1950s and eventually decided to make some positive suggestions to the Church. After discussing some of the possibilities with certain Church leaders in Salt Lake City, the group wrote a small demonstration program. With the approval of Church leaders and the cooperation of the Society, raw data was obtained from microfilm copies of christening records from the British Isles. The data was entered into a computer, which, in turn, sorted the names into family groups at the rate of some forty thousand groups per hour.39
In the meantime, the Financial Planning Department of the Church was adapting new technology to Church needs. Alfonzo Pia, director of the Financial Department’s mechanized data processing and related functions, began to counsel with Myers, who also met from time to time with the California group. A new system for keeping the temples supplied with names was eventually devised through the cooperation of these groups.40
Many who had been involved in genealogical leadership for years questioned the wholesale application of computer technology. They hesitated not just about the mystery of advanced technology, but also the implications for policy. If computerized methods resulted in the gathering of an almost unlimited supply of names and if those names were submitted to the temple for ordinances by the Society rather than by family representatives, would not this procedure diminish the feeling of responsibility of the members toward their own family research? And since computers could keep track of each different ordinance separately, would it be permissible for vicarious temple work to be done for people out of the traditional order—that is, could a regular proxy endowment for the dead be performed before the preliminary ordinances and by a different person? These issues were carefully discussed, but in the long run, when compared with all the positive factors, they seemed much less significant than the need to keep the temples open and have vicarious work performed for all the dead, no matter what the family relationship.41
The spirit of the transition from the old to the new was beautifully demonstrated during this period in a presentation given by the California group to the Council of the Twelve. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, the venerable president of the Council, was there. Well over eighty years old, this stalwart of the Genealogical Society for over fifty years seemed to represent traditional programs and policies, and he was a bulwark against too rapid or irresponsible change. When Gary Carlson, barely over thirty, stood to make his presentation on the grand possibilities of computers, he was naturally apprehensive as to whether President Smith would understand what he was talking about—especially since it appeared to him that the elderly Church leader kept falling asleep. As Carlson later recalled:
I remember I got up to give my presentation and I looked right at President Smith and I tried to talk very slow and distinct right to him. He sat in his chair with his head bowed and eyes closed as though totally sound asleep. So I changed the inflection of my voice and I’d pause and I’d almost yell and I would do everything that I could to try to wake him up, because I so wanted him to understand the concept that we were talking about. . . .
We finished up and several of the Brethren came up and said that was fine and they appreciated the information. I got to President Smith and I said, “I hope you understand what we were trying to say. Is there anything I can answer or any question I can help you with?” He looked me straight in the eye and he said, “Now, Brother Carlson, you may think I was asleep. I’m an old man and my eyes are tired and my body is tired and I have to rest whenever I can.” I felt smaller and smaller. He said, “But I heard what you said. I don’t understand it, but I have the feeling that you young men know what you are talking about and I have confidence in you.”42
That instance represented the willingness of Church leaders to make the transition. “I practically flew home without the airplane,” Carlson recalled later. “He didn’t understand it, he knew he wasn’t going to, but he could feel that we understood the technology that we were talking about, and he had confidence in us. That was a humbling experience.”43
Church leaders took the new possibilities so seriously that some members of the California group were officially called as consultants. At the request of the First Presidency, they were released from all other Church service assignments.44 In January 1961, the First Presidency approved the utilization of electronic records processing, the employment of computer experts, and the purchase of a computer.45 The Society soon organized an electronic processing committee, and by 1962 the move toward computer use was underway.
However, even the members of this group were disheartened by the thought of transferring the old TIB information to magnetic tape. If only the TIB had initially been done on punch cards, they moaned, the modern Church could have saved millions of dollars.46 Little did they realize the obstacles Harry Russell had to surmount in the 1920s to even get the TIB launched. On Russell’s limited budget, the additional expense of punch cards, proper typewriters, and a training program might have kept him from implementing his project. Ultimately, the Society decided not to attempt to transfer the TIB wholesale to computers, but rather to check the names processed under the new system against the TIB and when they appeared in both places to transfer the TIB data into the new system.47
The California group met each Sunday and sometimes made special trips to Salt Lake City, at Church expense, to consult and to work with data. At the October conference of the Genealogical Association, several General Authorities of the Church urged the genealogists to take full advantage of the new technology. Elder Mark E. Petersen, however, cautioned the Society that the computer did not relieve Church members of their personal family responsibilities.48
Nevertheless, the General Authorities clearly recognized that the Society was now responsible for supplying the temples with names, even before providing direct research assistance or training to individuals. President David O. McKay made it clear that the temples were not to run out of names and that the Society was responsible to see that they did not.49 As a result, George Fudge marshaled the development of the R–Tab (Records Tabulation) program, which was the predecessor to the electronic name extraction program. Under R–Tab, names were taken from microfilm copies of British parish registers and prepared for temple work. In the first R–Tab effort, Fudge experimented with the records of the Bolden, England, parish by having one of his assistants, Queenie Mead, extract names and place them on family group sheets. The work was too time consuming to provide the temples with enough to keep them open doing proxy baptisms and endowments. They quickly turned to simply extracting names.50
Nevertheless, concurrent with extracting single names through R–Tab, the Society continued to experiment with compiling names on group sheets so that sealings could be performed. Between February 1961 and January 1964, the records filmed in 1948 by James Black in northwestern Italy were extracted, and the names placed on family group sheets.51 The issue arose as to who should be listed as the family representative when the sheets were prepared for temple work. In a letter to President Hugh B. Brown on 17 August 1961, George Fudge explained the problem and asked for advice. If family representatives must be listed, then the Society must set up a training program, he explained. Four months later, on 14 December, he reported to the board, in strict confidence, that the First Presidency had authorized the Society to begin compiling names for the temple without listing a family representative. The implications of this new policy were tremendous, and the reasons for the initial confidentiality were obvious. Church leaders wanted the members to hear about this major change in policy from official sources and not by way of rumor. Also the expanding role of the Society in pursuing such a name extraction program would require a greater budget, and at that point, the money was not available.52
In 1962 the R–Tab program was underway, even though the Society did not own a computer. Instead, the Church organized the Advanced Planning Department, headed by Kendall Wright, who was a member of the California consulting group. All Church computers were located in this department, and all the other Church departments used its services.
Under the original Records Tabulation Program, names were all typed on index cards. In 1961, after consulting with Alfonzo Pia, the Society began to use flexowriters—typewriters that produced punched paper tapes. By June 1962, a computer was available, and the flexowriter data was sent to it. Two typists copied the same data from the same microfilms; then the data from the paper tapes was converted to magnetic tapes and fed into the computer for comparison. If everything matched—an indication that the two sets of data had been copied accurately—a new “C” tape was created that contained all the correctly copied information. When discrepancies arose, they were reconciled, and a corrected record sent through for further processing. The system was soon refined so that data could be entered directly on magnetic discs, and the corrected names were sent directly to the temple without being put on family group sheets.53
Staff using flexowriters, ca. 1965. The flexowriter produced a punched paper tape. The data from this tape was transferred to a magnetic tape and then fed into a computer.
In 1962 the Church began to call people on missions to work in the name extraction program, beginning with certain English parish records on microfilm. Initially, seventy–five men and women from ten stakes were called to work eight hours a week for two years. Some worked at microfilm readers extracting names in longhand, while others learned to use flexowriters. As the electronic R–Tab system grew, the unit cost of clearing names for temple work dropped from a high of $1.37 in 1967–68 to $.64 in 1973. Before long, flexowriters, which were comparatively noisy and awkward, were eliminated, and the program was designed for regular computer terminals.54
The computer had changed the nature of the genealogical program of the Church. However, Church members were still reminded that they were responsible for their own families and must become acquainted with their ancestry. “It doesn’t matter whether your computer is able to compile all the family group sheets for every one that ever lived on the earth,” President Joseph Fielding Smith told Alfonzo Pia. “It remains the responsibility of each individual to know his kindred dead. . . . Even if the work is done, then it is still each person’s responsibility to study and become acquainted with his ancestors.”55 The new policies allowed the Church to keep the temples open, provide the living with the blessing of regular temple attendance, and do vicarious temple work for all the dead whose records were available, regardless of family relationships. Leaders were concerned, however, that the computer would replace the Spirit of Elijah and that the hearts of the children would not be turned to their personal forebears. But for many Church members that problem did not materialize; families throughout the Church continued to submit family group sheets.
The Society still had not solved the problem of processing all the group sheets promptly. Clearing names for temple work sometimes took as long as two years. Checking was a very slow, manual process, which seemed incongruous when compared with the rapid computer process used for other temple work. The Society decided to change the forms necessary for submitting names to the temple. Instead of using the old family group sheets, the Society would have the names for temple work submitted on new single–entry forms. This way, patrons would not have to wait until they had a complete family group sheet before submitting names for ordinance work. July 1969 was set as the date to begin submitting names for temple work on the new forms.56 That year the Society introduced the Genealogical Information and Name Tabulation (GIANT) program, inviting Church members to submit the individual names they had been keeping in their files for years because they could not link them to family groups. George Fudge later said that people emptied their cupboards of such names.57
Research Division
The Genealogical Society did not forget its obligation to help members with their own research. By 1961, however, the research division seemed hopelessly flooded with requests, and researchers were complaining that they were both overworked and underpaid. The board of trustees was reluctant to raise the fees charged to patrons, but at the same time the cost to the Church for continuing this research was high. In 1965 the board decided to eliminate the research division and redirect the Society’s activities to educating patrons in research methods rather than doing the research for them. In January 1966, the board announced that it would accept no new research accounts. All custom research was eliminated before the end of the year.58
The alternative was a program decided on by the board earlier, in 1963, to recommend private researchers to patrons and to develop a testing program for accrediting researchers. The first accreditation examinations for professional researchers in the sources of Denmark and Scotland were complete by 1964. Becoming accredited was not an easy process. Candidates had to (1) have access to the collection, (2) complete a thousand hours of research in the area of specialty, (3) possess a working knowledge of the language for the area of specialty, and (4) pass a comprehensive exam.59 The written examination administered by the Society could take as long as eight hours. In addition, the candidate was required to defend, before a committee, a pedigree he or she had prepared. In 1976 the accreditation list included 131 researchers. The list was updated quarterly.60
The Society assumed no responsibility for furnishing clients with an accredited genealogist or for certifying the work accomplished by the researcher. However, the genealogists signed an agreement promising to abide by certain conditions. They agreed to reply promptly to all correspondence connected with their employment; to clearly inform clients about fees, deposits, other agents used, reporting methods, and areas of accreditation; to make regular written reports to clients explaining all aspects of their work, including any reasons for delay; to maintain accurate accounting; and to adhere to “The Genealogist’s Code” prepared by the Board of Certification of Genealogists.
While it no longer accepted private research accounts, the Society provided general research assistance. Research papers describing the main genealogical sources in different countries were prepared by the Society’s professional staff and published. The Society also offered to do certain kinds of selected research projects. It would, for a nominal fee, check the Temple Index Bureau and copy appropriate index cards for patrons. It would also make brief searches of the library sources for surnames and localities.61
Library
As the Society phased out doing research for patrons, it gradually expanded its library services. In 1961 the Society’s president, Junius Jackson, encouraged the staff to improve its approach to serving the public. “We need to be missionaries,” he declared, “and patrons should get excellent attention from everyone in this building.” Nevertheless, when Delbert Roach became head of the library in 1963, he found considerable criticism of its operation. Book and microfilm stacks were closed to the public. Patrons could check out only one roll of film at a time, which slowed service since the staff were constantly on the run trying to provide the books and films requested.62 Gradually the library changed these policies. In January 1965, after an extensive reclassification and recording process, it became an open–stack library. Access to the microfilm collection remained restricted until November 1969, when a better humidity control process was installed in the library, and a new, simplified classification system was developed for easy patron retrieval of the films.63
Even with open stacks, the limited library staff had difficulty serving all its patrons. Between 1961 and 1969, the average number of daily users increased from 301 to over 600. The staffing problem was partially solved with the establishment of a volunteer program; Church members from the Salt Lake Valley received training and worked at the service desk in the evenings and on Saturdays.
The open–stack system created some new concerns about the use of certain microfilmed records of temple ordinances. These films were still restricted. Patrons were required to show temple recommends before they could use the microfilm and were asked to work only on their own family lines. In 1974, however, when a book was published containing information from the restricted microfilmed records, the policy for accessing such sensitive records was tightened even further.64
Branch Libraries
During all this time, the Society continued to receive requests for the establishment of branch libraries. The first step toward a major policy change came in 1961, when residents of Logan, Utah, organized their own genealogical library in connection with the public library and asked the Genealogical Society in Salt Lake City for help in expanding their resources. At the 2 November meeting of the board, members were urged to support such regional libraries. They would provide researchers with preliminary sources although the more advanced sources would remain in Salt Lake City. Establishing branches in local areas, George Fudge argued, would help patrons avoid needless expenditures of time, effort, and money. The board agreed with him. Later that year, the Los Angeles Temple supervisors asked for permission to establish a library at the Bureau of Information near the temple. Permission was granted two months later,65 but like the one at Logan, this library was not a completely official branch of the Genealogical Society.
Some resistance to establishing branch libraries continued, partly because of the expense involved and partly because of the fear they would diminish the resources of the main library. When N. Eldon Tanner became president of the Society, he reconsidered the concept and appointed a committee, chaired by Delbert Roach, to investigate it. As a result, Elder Tanner announced in the October 1963 general conference that four branch libraries would be established in Mesa, Oakland, Logan, and Cardston. Actually, the first official branch library was established in May 1964 in the library of Brigham Young University as a pilot project. The trained librarians available, the number of students and community residents available as patrons, and the proximity to Salt Lake City all made BYU a natural choice for the new experiment. In June 1964, the Logan library became an official branch. In October the branch program was turned over to Archibald F. Bennett, who vigorously promoted it.66 By the end of the next year, there were branches at twenty–one locations, and the number doubled to forty by the end of 1966.67 The seventy–fifth branch library, in Moses Lake, Washington, was founded in 1968. Clearly, the availability of microfilming and other technologies had provided an important basis for the rapid expansion of genealogical research opportunities in many parts of the Church.68
Reading room of the Cache Valley, Utah, Branch Library, 1967. Microfilms from the Society can be ordered by the branch libraries. This service provides worldwide access to the Society’s collection.
The Society soon developed guidelines for establishing branches. A group of stakes could request permission to set up a library or, in isolated areas, an individual stake could do so. Minimal facilities included an adequate room, good lighting sources, and access to rest rooms. Once the branch was established, a revolving fund was set up at the Genealogical Society to help finance the orders for films by patrons. The library district was to contribute one cent per capita to this fund. The local stake was responsible for branch library operations, and staff members included volunteers called to fill this Church service assignment. At first libraries were set up in either Church or public buildings. However, some residents of Logan complained about the Church genealogical library being located in the public library building. The Logan branch library was moved to the basement of the Logan Tabernacle. It soon became policy that all libraries should be set up on Church property.69
Initially branches could not be located within a sixty–mile radius of each other. In October 1971, however, Theodore M. Burton asked the Society trustees to eliminate that rule, for it seemed impractical. A more feasible plan, he suggested, would be to establish branch genealogical libraries in stake centers, rather than to build additional physical facilities in public buildings. The board agreed, and with this significant change in policy, branch genealogical libraries could be established in stake centers throughout the Church.70
Each branch library had a basic set of microfilms, books, and other materials. It could order additional microfilms from the Society in Salt Lake City. In 1964 branch libraries ordered 1,295 rolls of film; the following year they ordered 9,676 rolls, and in 1966 the number reached 22,691. By 1968 between 170,000 and 200,000 patrons were using the branch libraries each year, with an estimated monthly attendance of between 200 and 250 people per library. By 1973, with the computerizing of the branch library system, requests for films were handled with increasing efficiency.71
Publications
During this era, the Society issued a number of publications designed to encourage research as well as motivate its employees. In 1962 it initiated an in–house publication called the Genealogical Researcher, which was sent to ward and stake genealogical committees. The following year, however, Church leaders asked that the information be included in the Improvement Era rather than in a separate publication. In 1964 the Church News also added a section on genealogy. The following year, Douglas D. Palmer started a weekly genealogical column, “What’s Your Line,” that continued for three years in the Church News. In January 1965, the Society began issuing News and Reviews for Branch Libraries, which contained reports from various branch libraries and information on books and other materials that the branches might want to purchase. The same year, it also inaugurated the Genealogical Society Observer for the benefit of employees and branch libraries. In 1973 the Observer became a single–page bulletin for priesthood leaders and branch libraries, and the newsletter for employees was renamed the Record. The Observer continued for four more years, and the Record for one.72
Special Classes and Seminars
The correlation program resulted in changes to long–standing programs of the Society, causing unavoidable discomfort for some. In 1964, for example, Archibald F. Bennett saw one of his cherished responsibilities disappear. The Society was no longer responsible for genealogical instruction programs throughout the Church. Because genealogy had become one of the four functions of the priesthood, its teaching responsibility also became a priesthood function. Therefore, the Society was no longer directly responsible for classes and course outlines, although it still cooperated with the educational efforts of the other organizations of the Church. As its main work, it now provided facilities and resources for research, direct assistance to patrons when possible, and a continuing supply of names to the temples. The Society’s staff did not do research for other people or conduct regular genealogical classes as part of its responsibility.73
Nevertheless, certain specialized classes and seminars on how to do genealogy continued. For example, the library still taught classes on the use of library files, films, and research books and on “analyzing your own research problems.” They were conducted by Archibald F. Bennett and the library staff.74 In 1968 and 1969, the workload of the Society was so heavy that special orientation classes were held daily for the benefit of those interested in learning how to use the library. The library also had audio–taped tours, and volunteers gave tours of the facilities. “Locality lectures” were held so that patrons could learn what sources were available for particular countries. So many people attended a series called “Spotlight on English Research” in January 1968, that it had to be repeated. For one week during the 1969 World Conference on Records (see below), the library held classes in German on “Library Procedures and Genealogical Sources for Research in Germany.” Classes were also held on genealogical programs developed by the Society, such as Records Tabulation.75
In addition, the Society planned various seminars. The first genealogical seminar at Brigham Young University was held in 1966, and 483 people attended. By 1975 nearly 3,000 people, including a number of genealogists not affiliated with the Church, attended the meetings. Many had traveled great distances. As these week–long seminars grew, a number of features were added. A General Authority of the Church gave a motivating address on genealogy each day. Beginning, intermediate, and advanced subseminars were added in 1970; the next year, special subseminars were held for branch librarians; and in 1972 classes were added for stake and ward genealogical leaders. By 1974 classes were taught in fundamental research methods for the British Isles, continental Europe, Scandinavia, the United States, and Canada. A session for youth was added in 1975. In 1976 approximately 3,000 people attended the annual seminar.
Leaders of the Society began to recognize that even with such good attendance, continuing the seminar program would not meet the needs of all the members of the Church. Some, in fact, believed it was becoming a program only for Church members in Utah. The Society made the decision to discontinue its involvement in the seminars in favor of encouraging priesthood leaders to hold stake genealogical seminars. However, beginning in the summer of 1978, annual seminars were sponsored at Brigham Young University by the Family and Local History Program.76
World Conference on Records, 1969
Of all the classes, seminars, and other public programs held during this period, the most significant was the World Conference on Records, 3–8 August 1969. That year marked the Genealogical Society’s seventy–fifth anniversary. The board felt nothing could provide a more appropriate celebration than a worldwide convention for genealogists and genealogical organizations.
Detailed planning for the conference began after a planning committee was organized in December 1967. They adopted the theme of “Records Protection in an Uncertain World.” With Frank Smith as program chairman, the committee planned an ambitious program on research and record keeping. The Society invited genealogists, archivists, librarians, historians, computer experts, microfilm technologists, and civic leaders from around the world to take part.77
General Assembly of the World Conference on Records, 1969. This conference gave the Society international recognition as a leader in genealogical endeavors.
The Society was not disappointed. People from many nations flocked to Salt Lake City for the conference. Those who came were well served. Five thousand participants, including some who arrived just in time on a charter flight from Frankfurt, Germany, attended the opening session in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on the evening of 3 August. They heard General Authorities of the Church explain the reasons for the Church’s commitment to records preservation and genealogical work and were treated to a musical program by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
The program included various general sessions in which participants heard about UNESCO’s archival work from Dr. Alfred Wagner; the role of newspapers in preserving history and genealogy from Lord Thompson of Fleet, owner of the London Times and 180 other newspapers; archives of the future from United States Archivist James B. Rhoads; the Genealogical Society’s microfilm program from Elder Howard W. Hunter; the preservation and use of records from Dr. Felix Hull, County Archivist for Kent, England; “Records Preservation in an Uncertain World” from U.S. Senator Wallace F. Bennett; and records preservation in the U.S.S.R. from Genadii Alexandrovich Belov, Director General of Archives, Moscow. Participants could also choose from over 230 sessions dealing with the creation, storage, and preservation of records; retrieval of records; written history of the British Isles as well as the Germanic, Slavic, Scandinavian, and Romance countries; written, oral, and traditional history in the Pacific, South Asia, Africa, Middle East, United States, and Canada; history and records of East Asia; heraldry; genealogical and hereditary societies; publication of genealogical material; and family organization. They enjoyed tours of the facilities of the Genealogical Society, including the famous Granite Mountain Record Vault. Many participants stayed in the homes of local Church members, which gave them a chance to observe some personal aspects of family life in Salt Lake City.78
The conference was also the occasion for some awards to the Society. On 5 August, Agfa–Gevaert, Inc., of Antwerp, Belgium, the world’s major microfilm supplier, presented an award to the Society for “valuable contributions to the state of the art of visual communications and records preservation.” Dr. Ken Stryker–Rodda, president of the American Society of Genealogists, also gave a certificate of appreciation to the Society. Later in the year, it received an award of excellence in microfilming from the 3–M company, a certificate of award in a graphics arts competition sponsored by the Printing Industries of America, Inc., for the brochure on the world conference, and an award of merit for the success of the conference from the American Association for State and Local History.79
The conference was considered a huge success by the Society, but there were some disappointments. Early estimates anticipated the possibility of 20,000 visitors to Salt Lake City during the conference, but the actual number attending was 6,000. The Society estimated that the income from and cost of the convention would balance at $456,000. In the end, however, revenue from registration and other fees came to only $134,918.48, while expenditures amounted to $383,861.34, resulting in a net loss of $248,942.86. Some Church leaders worried about the losses, but Society officials, including Theodore M. Burton and Frank Smith, maintained that the positive effects of the conference outweighed the costs.80 The conference legitimized the Society in the eyes of many archivists worldwide and opened the way for microfilming in previously untouched realms on the globe. It was, according to Howard W. Hunter, president of the Society at that date, one of the great successes of the Church.81
Personnel
During the early 1960s, the Society was responsible for hiring its own employees and sometimes had difficulty retaining well–trained personnel. In 1960 the employee turnover reached 77 percent, but in 1961, after the rules allowed women to work for six months after their marriage (see chapter 4), it dropped to 57 percent.82 In the 1970s, Church policy was modified to allow married women to continue to work in Church offices indefinitely.
The Society also worked to promote high morale among its employees. It developed an orientation manual and various training programs, and Society personnel were encouraged to attend professional conferences and schools in order to improve their skills. In 1973 the Society held a major seminar for its employees, where division leaders discussed the history and the future of the Society and where various staff members presented musical numbers. The number of employees was becoming so large that their relationship to the Society could become impersonal. The leaders hoped that motivational programs would help employees feel they were important in the genealogical work of the Church.83
Physical Facilities
The rapidly expanding programs, library resources, and staff continued to create a need for larger and better facilities. In December 1933, the Society had moved into the basement and first two floors of the Joseph F. Smith Memorial Building. By 1949, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith was appealing to the First Presidency for more space. In 1955 the third floor, previously a ballroom, was remodeled, and the Society’s microfilm readers, some offices, and the library reading room were moved to that floor.84
The added space met the needs of the Society only temporarily. What the board really wanted was a new library building located near the Salt Lake Temple. The First Presidency approved the concept in 1949, but nothing was done at the time. In 1960 there was still much discussion about the location of an archive building. Church leaders went to the Huntington Library and other archives in order to get ideas about what might be done, but more than two decades passed before the Society obtained its own library building.85 In the meantime, the Society leased extra commercial property in Salt Lake City for additional space.
The need for new facilities became acute in 1960, when the city announced plans to widen the street where the Joseph F. Smith Memorial building was located. The plans meant that the building would have to be razed. The Church promised the State of Utah that the Society would be out of the building within two years. Various suggestions were made for a new location, such as an old munitions plant on Redwood Road or some alternate sites on the east side of Salt Lake City. The Society had high hopes for the possibility of building on a fifteen–acre plot on Foothill Boulevard near Twenty–first East, but in the end, none of these locations were approved. In 1962 the Society moved into the abandoned Montgomery Ward building at 107 South Main Street. As the need for more room became critical, the Society also took over space in the Beehive Bank Building. These facilities were considered only temporary, since the Redwood Road site was still being considered. Officials of the Society were adamant, however, that they did not want to move to Redwood Road. It was in an industrial area; it was too far from downtown; there was inadequate parking available; and access to the area for patrons was very indirect. As late as 1969, Elder Theodore M. Burton was seriously discussing possible plans for remodeling the Montgomery Ward building in order to utilize that space more effectively.86
Montgomery Ward Building, ca. 1962, at 107 South Main, Salt Lake City, location of the Genealogical Society, 1962–72.
In the meantime, the Church erected a new twenty–six–floor office building on North Temple Street, which was ready for occupancy in November 1972. The four floors of the west wing and considerable space in the central tower were allocated to the Society.
Church Office Building, ca. 1972. The Genealogical Society was located in the west wing, 1972–85.
Stake and Ward Organizations
The Genealogical Society was concerned not only with improving its central facilities, but also with maintaining viable genealogical organizations at the stake and ward levels. When genealogy became a central priesthood responsibility, local high–council members and high–priests group leaders were made directly responsible for stake and ward genealogical activities. These included teaching genealogical classes and examining records compiled by local Church members for submission to the Society. Unfortunately, the Society found that many of the family group sheets submitted contained the same types of errors that had always plagued the program. In January 1964, a new examination program was set up in an effort to eliminate some of the mistakes before they reached the Society. All records submitted were to be checked by two ward “examiners,” who presumably had studied a training manual designed to help them locate errors on the forms. The Society stressed the fact that examiners should be teachers who helped ward members learn correct procedures, not censors.87
Genealogical Society leaders undoubtedly remembered the mixed success of earlier efforts to conduct genealogical classwork in the wards. Nevertheless, plans were soon made to once again have a genealogical class taught in the Sunday School, and a new lesson manual was written. The Society also planned to teach an adult genealogical class in connection with the MIA and encouraged priesthood quorums to study genealogy. Junior classes were begun in 1964 in five pilot stakes. Plans were made to expand them to the entire Church in 1965.88
There was still some debate, however, over where genealogy should be taught—that is, to what age group and in what organization. On 18 February 1964, Elder Burton commented candidly on the problem in a reply to an inquiry from Elder A. Theodore Tuttle. The Society really did not know where the classes would be most effective, he said. The junior classes for teenagers in the pilot stakes were a success, but, because of the manual being used, the adult Sunday School classes were ineffective. The courses in the MIA had been successful in some stakes, but due to the haste of the Society in getting the classes into the MIA, there had not been enough preparation, and the program had not worked well. Elder Burton suggested that until more information could be obtained, the genealogical program at the ward level should be confined to encouraging Church members to gather pedigrees, make family group sheets, and write personal histories. In subsequent letters, Elder Burton pointed to some additional problems, especially with the MIA classes. The number of family group sheets being submitted for temple work were not increasing as a result of the classes, because, he felt, there was too much emphasis on why genealogy should be done and not enough on the practical, how–to–do–it lessons. “We can talk about genealogy from now until dooms–day,” he commented, “and not get any work out of our people unless we begin to do actual research.”89
A new genealogy manual for the MIA class, entitled Genealogy in Action, was prepared for 1964. Its emphasis was not on doctrine and theory, but on organization, research, and submission of information. It outlined a thirteen–week course of instruction. The Genealogical Society stated that the class could also be taught in Sunday School if a local stake president or bishop felt that was a more appropriate place. The Society also suggested that stake and ward leaders take the course together and that it also be presented in priesthood quorums. Unfortunately, the genealogical class became a cause for some mild tensions within the Church as some wards began to hold it on Sundays, along with a workshop, at the same time as Sunday School opening exercises and classes. Complaints were registered about a policy that would allow this, and in April even Elder Burton objected to it. He wrote to the First Presidency stating his feelings that genealogical workshops should not be held on Sundays; he also did not feel that he had the authority to give such instructions to stake presidents and bishops. The policy was soon defined in such a way that wards could teach the genealogical classes at any time. The Society reported that the most successful classes were those held during Sunday School time. A new manual, Family Exaltation and You, was prepared for the course in 1973. It contained twelve lessons.90
Two stake and ward programs were eliminated during the 1960s. One was the practice of sending out genealogical home teachers to ward families, along with lessons and monthly study guides. This program had been reinstated under President Junius Jackson but was canceled when N. Eldon Tanner assumed Society leadership. Regular home teachers, however, were told to ask how much genealogical research was being done by the families, and MIA classes were to take over the lesson materials.91
The convention program was the other program to be discontinued, though not until after it had seen some significant expansion. When Jackson became president of the Society in 1961, he enlarged the convention staff to twenty–eight, because of the increasing number of stakes to visit. Some of the new people were volunteers, not Society employees, who had received the assignment as a Church calling and were trained by the Society.92 To increase interest in the conventions, the Society produced various film and slide presentations. It also took programs to the missions of the Church. In 1962, for example, the Society explained its operations to two hundred international stake leaders. It also held a special genealogical meeting for stake presidents, stake genealogical chairmen, and bishoprics on the day before the opening of the October 1962 general conference of the Church.93
It was not long, however, before conventions were eliminated as a function of the Society. In 1963, as part of the general correlation program, the convention staff was transferred to the Church’s new priesthood genealogical committee. In the stakes of the Church, one of the quarterly conferences each year was devoted to genealogical and welfare topics. A genealogical representative accompanied the General Authority visiting a stake conference and might be asked to speak three or four times during the weekend, as well as hold a genealogical workshop on Sunday afternoon. During the regular conference sessions on Sunday, the genealogical workers were given fifteen minutes, during which they emphasized genealogy as a priesthood responsibility.94
Eventually, the priesthood genealogy committee was reduced to Thomas Daniels as executive secretary and Elder Burton. The convention staff was eliminated. In 1967 the First Presidency began calling Regional Representatives of the Twelve, and one of their charges was to encourage genealogical work. By this time, the Society no longer had the responsibility for working directly with the wards and stakes.95
Promoting Genealogy
The Genealogical Society continued to find various ways and means to promote research in the Church and, at the same time, to avoid duplication of research efforts. One effort to prevent duplication was the development of the Pedigree Referral Service (PRS). Through this service, genealogists could register family surnames they were working on and receive information from others who were researching the same family names. The PRS used a computer to classify data by surname, town, county, country, and dates. Interested people could register for the service at no cost, but patrons requesting information would be charged a nominal fee for finding people working on the same surname in the same locality. George Fudge, manager of research and development, was initially placed in charge of the program, but in 1965, it was transferred to Delbert Roach and the Genealogical Library, where it became a patron service.96
The Society announced the beginning of the Pedigree Referral Service through priesthood authorities. In addition, articles appeared in the Church News and the Genealogical Observer inviting anyone doing genealogical research to register. The Society also encouraged people who were not members of the Church to register for the service. Articles explaining the PRS appeared in an El Paso newspaper as well as in Family Weekly and Reader’s Digest.97
The Society had great hopes for the PRS, even anticipating two million names on the system. At first the officers of the Society planned to subsidize the program, hoping it would pay for itself once it got started. They were disappointed in the initial responses from members of the Church. After three years, the PRS still had only 800,000 names, and the Society was paying about five thousand dollars a month to subsidize the program. The Society made every effort to keep the PRS alive, even raising the membership fee from two dollars to four. Anyone who submitted a request to the service was required to register with the PRS, but when this policy failed to produce any more names, the requirement was eliminated.
The experience with the PRS demonstrated how few Church members were actually doing genealogical research. The Society thought that 20 to 25 percent of the Latter–day Saints were actively involved, but the results of the PRS experiment suggested that the figure was only about 2 percent. Some revisions in the program in 1968 failed to improve participation, and the PRS was finally abandoned in 1969. The names already on the computer were printed and microfilmed so they could be used by patrons.98 Nevertheless, the need to coordinate research remained and in time would be addressed in new programs, such as the Family Registry and Ancestral File (see chapter 8).
The Society also made other efforts to encourage research and cooperation among members, including a three–generation and then a four–generation genealogical program. In 1965, following a suggestion by Paul Royall, the Society began to ask all Church members to submit three generations of family group sheets. Through this program, the Society hoped to teach members how to fill out the forms properly by giving them experience and having them receive help from ward examiners. Families were also encouraged to form family organizations. In addition, the three–generation program was seen as an opportunity to help train high priests group leaders and ward examiners in their genealogical responsibilities. The Society planned to microfilm the three–generation sheets so they could be used for research. By the end of 1966, approximately 20 percent of Church members had participated in the three–generation program.99
Elder Howard W. Hunter, president of the Society, and Elder Theodore M. Burton, Society vice president, review sheets submitted as part of the three–generation program, ca. 1965.
In 1966 the priesthood genealogy committee introduced a four–generation program at the stake conferences of the Church. The three–generation program was to continue, but members were asked to submit one more generation. In support of both the three– and the four–generation programs, the Society sent stake presidents, bishops, and other priesthood leaders a packet of information explaining how the programs should operate. The material was for use in the stake conferences devoted to genealogy. In 1967 the two programs were combined. The Society also encouraged Church members to submit two additional family group sheets, to keep books of remembrance, to attend the temple, to take part in the MIA genealogical workshops, to submit information to the PRS, and to be active in family organizations.100
In the meantime, the Church was expanding globally, and the Genealogical Society became concerned about how to promote its message and provide research assistance outside the English–speaking world. Until the 1960s, all Genealogical Society manuals were produced in English, but Theodore M. Burton began to encourage the Church to translate the materials. Eventually arrangements were made to have translations done. In 1962 plans were also made to form a genealogical society in Mexico, and the following year a genealogical library was set up there.101
In still another effort to be of service, the Society began a stake indexing program in the 1960s. In 1945 a patron had donated some Icelandic records to the Society, but a number of mistakes were found in the records. Henry Christiansen was asked to work with them. In 1967 a member of a stake high council in Springville, Utah, offered the services of members of his stake to index those records. The offer was accepted, and members of the stakes donated over 4,000 hours of work to index 1,251 pages. The success of this program gave the Society the confidence needed to begin similar indexing programs in other stakes.102
The period between 1961 and 1975 was one of constant change. The Genealogical Society’s status moved from a brief stint as an auxiliary to one of the four basic priesthood programs of the Church. The Society stopped doing research for individuals but began to provide more effective assistance in the main library as well as in a network of branch libraries. It also began a name extraction program designed to keep the temples open regardless of whether or not Church members were providing enough names through their own research. Nevertheless, Latter–day Saints were not excused from doing their own ancestral research, putting family groups together, and performing sealings in the temples. During the April 1975 general conference of the Church, Elder Theodore M. Burton told priesthood bearers that the Society was furnishing 77 percent of all the names presented for vicarious ordinances in the temples but that it could not do the work of establishing family lines. “It is your personal, individual missionary responsibility,” he reminded them, “to see that your direct–line ancestors have been baptized, endowed, and sealed in proper family order.”103
Notes
1. Genealogical Society Minutes, 22 June 1961, Family History Department of the Church (hereafter cited as FHD).
2. James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter–day Saints, 2d ed., rev. and enl. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 596.
3. Actually, there was some confusion about how to initiate the reorganization. According to the charter, the president was to be appointed by the First Presidency, but the rest of the officers were to be elected by the Society’s membership. Since the Society had not accepted paying members since the charter was filed with the State of Utah in the 1940s, the only known members were General Authorities, temple presidencies, and former life members. An attorney suggested a meeting be called of this group, but the General Authorities decided to make the changes internally and not follow the terms of the charter. Lorin F. Pace to the First Presidency, 1 August 1961, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Henry Christiansen files, July 1961, FHD.
4. The reasons are not all clear, but apparently general administrative procedure had been rather loosely handled, and among other things, there may have been some concern about possible inappropriate use of funds and poor accounting. Theodore M. Burton, who later became vice president and then managing director of the Society, emphasized, however, that the problems were the result of carelessness rather than dishonesty. See Theodore M. Burton, oral history interview by Bruce Blumell, 1976, typescript, James Moyle Oral History Program (hereafter cited as JMOHP), Archives Division, Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints, Salt Lake City (hereafter cited as LDS Church Archives), 8; George H. Fudge, oral history interview by Bruce Blumell, 1976, typescript, JMOHP, 39–40.
5. Fudge, interview, 39–40.
6. The new board consisted of G. Eugene England, Lorin F. Pace, Zelph Y. Erekson, Edward H. Sorensen, Irvin Fox, and Howard S. Bennion. Genealogical Society Minutes, 6 July 1961.
7. Fudge, interview, 39–40.
8. Genealogical Society Minutes, 10 October 1961.
9. Bennett’s work at Brigham Young University and in other educational capacities had made him well known as a teacher. He was delighted to continue working in the educational department of the Society, for he felt it was “an important and highly attractive division of the work.” Archibald F. Bennett to Daniel H. Ludlow, 31 August 1961, Archibald F. Bennett collection, FHD; Genealogical Society Minutes, 10 August 1961.
10. Genealogical Society Minutes, 14 December 1961.
11. Henry E. Christiansen, oral history interview by Bruce Blumell, 1975 and 1976, typescript, JMOHP, 45; Burton, interview, 10.
12. Mark E. Petersen to the Budget Committee, 19 December 1960, David O. McKay papers, LDS Church Archives. In this letter, Elder Peterson recommends, on behalf of the Society, that the Society’s 1961 budget request be reduced from $2,413,864 to an exact $2 million dollars.
13. Genealogical Society Minutes, 19 November 1962.
14. There was also a suggestion that the management of the Society in the Jackson administration was not effective, in spite of the accomplishments listed above. Reportedly, Jackson, Gunderson, and some of the new board members were inexperienced and spent little time at the Society. It was said, for example, that Gunderson spent only a few hours a week at the Society talking with employees and that Jackson himself was not a good administrator. See Burton, interview, 8; Frank Smith, oral history interview by Bruce Blumell, 1976, typescript, JMOHP, 25–26.
15. Church News, 19 January 1963.
16. See Richard O. Cowan, The Church in the Twentieth Century (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985): 306–10, including chart on p. 309.
17. James M. Black, oral history interview by Bruce Blumell, 1975, typescript, JMOHP, 1–2; Smith, interview, 26–27.
18. Burton, interview, 8.
19. Initially, N. Eldon Tanner was listed as president, Theodore M. Burton as vice president, and Paul Royall as secretary. N. Eldon Tanner to Secretary of State of the State of Utah, 1 October 1963, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Genealogical Society Minutes, 8 November 1963; Certificate of Incorporation of The Genealogical Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints, Inc., with foregoing minutes.
20. Burton, interview, 3, 7, 8.
21. Genealogical Society Minutes, 8 April, and 22 October 1963, 14 December 1964; Fudge, 1976 interview, 46.
22. Fudge, interview, 46.
23. Genealogical Society Minutes, 28 January, and 15 July 1964, 25 May 1972; Deseret News, 26 May 1972.
24. At least as early as 1939, for example, the Hawaiian Temple was not in use much of the time because of lack of names. Elder John A. Widtsoe suggested that the Hawaiian Saints might be allowed to submit names for temple work even if they were not of their own direct lineage. Genealogical Society Minutes, 28 February 1939. The Logan, St. George, and Manti Temples likewise experienced shortages. When the president of the St. George Temple brought this matter to the attention of the Society in 1941, Archibald F. Bennett simply replied that “the function of our Society is to gather names for individual patrons” and to encourage members to do their own research. He urged that something be done to stimulate research in the temple district but offered no further help so far as providing a constant supply of names was concerned. Archibald F. Bennett to Harold S. Snow, 29 December 1941, Temple correspondence files, FHD.
25. L. Garrett Myers to Committee on Personnel, 19 January, and 19 February 1960, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD.
26. L. Garrett Myers to Church Budget Committee, 18 January 1958, Genealogical Society correspondence.
27. A. George Raymond, President of the Logan Temple, to All Stake Presidents, 15 April 1953, Genealogical Society correspondence.
28. A discussion of these problems was held in a meeting of temple presidents, 4 April 1958, as recorded in minutes filed in Archibald F. Bennett papers, FHD.
29. L. Garrett Myers to Committee on Personnel, 19 February 1960, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD.
30. Joseph Fielding Smith and Archibald F. Bennett to Stake Presidents and Stake Genealogical Chairmen, 18 February 1958, Genealogical Society Correspondence, FHD.
31. Fudge, interview, 9–11, 15–16; Memo from George H. Fudge to President Hugh B. Brown, 17 August 1961, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Joseph Fielding Smith and Archibald F. Bennett to Stake Presidents and Genealogical Representatives, 18 February 1958, Genealogical Society circular letters, LDS Church Archives; Robert Petersen, oral history interview by Jessee Embry, 1977, rough draft, LDS Church Archives, 6; Smith, interview, 14.
32. Genealogical Society Minutes, 16 April 1943.
33. Genealogical Society Minutes, 22 June 1943.
34. Genealogical Society Minutes, 27 September 1943.
35. Genealogical Society Minutes, 16 April 1946; Myers, interview 7, p. 13. In June 1943, Myers and Archibald F. Bennett were appointed to a committee to look into the whole problem, and in April 1946, Myers, Bennett, and Harold A. Dent were appointed as a committee to make recommendations specifically with regard to the incoming Danish records.
36. Genealogical Society Minutes, 2 June 1961.
37. For some thoughts on the early impact of technology, including computer technology, on various Church programs, see James B. Allen, “Testimony and Technology: A Phase of the Modernization of Mormonism since 1950,” in After 150 Years: The Latter–day Saints in Sesquicentennial Perspective, ed. Thomas G. Alexander and Jessie L. Embry, Charles Redd Monographs in Western History, no. 13 ([Provo, Utah]: Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, 1983), 173–207.
38. Fudge, interview, 15; L. Garrett Myers to Joseph Fielding Smith, Genealogical Society Minutes, 10 October 1957; Genealogical Society Minutes, 24 May 1960.
39. Gary Carlson, oral history interview by James B. Allen, 15 January 1980, typescript, JMOHP, 5.
40. See Alfonzo Pia, oral history interview by James B. Allen, 1979, typescript, JMOHP, 2–16.
41. See Carlson, interview, 20–22, for comments on this from the viewpoint of one of the computer experts.
42. Carlson, interview, 9–10.
43. Carlson, interview, 9–10.
44. Carlson, interview, 7.
45. Genealogical Society Minutes, 27 September 1960, 20 January 1961; L. Garrett Myers to the First Presidency, 4 October 1960, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD.
46. Carlson, interview, 19–20. See chapter 3 above for a discussion of the origin of the Temple Index Bureau.
47. Lyle J. Gardner, “A Computer System for the Genealogist, Part I: Introduction to the Giant System” (paper presented at the World Conference on Records, 1969), 7. Copy in possession of Kahlile Mehr.
48. Salt Lake Tribune, 5 October 1962; Church News, 13 October 1952.
49. Fudge, interview, 15–16; Peterson, interview, 6.
50. George H. Fudge, oral history interviews by George D. Durrant and John C. Jarman, 31 May–31 July 1984, 18. Copy in possession of Kahlile Mehr.
51. Hugh Toner Law, “Biographical Sketch,” June 1989, unpublished typescript, 4. Copy in possession of Kahlile Mehr.
52. George H. Fudge to President Hugh B. Brown, 17 August 1961, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Genealogical Society Minutes, 14 December 1961.
53. Pia, interview, 8–12.
54. See Burton, interview, 11–12; Fudge, 1976 interview, 16; Peterson, interview, 6–7, 17; George H. Fudge to Hugh B. Brown, 25 May 1962, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Genealogical Society Minutes, 30 June 1962 (where the permission to extend missions calls is reported); form letter dated 18 September 1962, calling genealogical missionaries, to which the names of the first missionaries are attached, David O. McKay papers, LDS Church Archives; Church News, 15 September, and 27 October 1962; George H. Fudge to James E. Faust, 12 March 1963, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; other miscellaneous letters in Genealogical Society correspondence about various aspects of the R–Tab and missionary program; “The Records Tabulation Program,” Improvement Era 69 (October 1966): 872–73; various discussions reported in the Genealogical Society Minutes, 1962–73.
55. Pia, interview, 12.
56. Peterson, interview, 3–6, 14–16; Fudge, 1976 interview, 17–19; “A New System in Genealogy,” Church News, 25 January 1969; “The New GIANT System in Genealogy,” Improvement Era 72 (January 1969): 48–49; Christiansen, interview, 69–70.
57. Fudge, 1976 interview, 20.
58. Genealogical Society Minutes, 19 October, and 12 December 1961, 16 October 1962, 29 March 1963, 17 June 1964, 13 April, and 31 March 1966; L. Garrett Myers to Sidney C. Mayr Jr., 24 March 1961, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Fudge 1976 interview, 25–26; Smith, interview, 29–30; Theodore M. Burton to the Patrons of the Research Department of the Genealogical Society, 17 January 1966, David O. McKay papers, LDS Church Archives.
59. “Requirements for Becoming an Accredited Genealogist,” mimeographed handout provided by the department in 1976.
60. Personal interview with Roy Spjut, Research Specialist, Priesthood Genealogy Division, by Jessie Embry, 19 August 1976. Notes in possession of the authors.
61. Genealogical Society Minutes, 17 June 1964; Theodore M. Burton, “How to Obtain Information from the Genealogical Society,” Fourth Annual Priesthood Genealogical Seminar Manual (Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society, 1969), 27, 31–32.
62. Genealogical Society Minutes, 7 December 1961, 1 May, and 3 September 1963.
63. Genealogical Society Minutes, 1 May, 3 September, and 19 November 1963; Delbert E. Roach to Theodore M. Burton, 18 March 1974, Henry Christiansen files, FHD; Ted Powell, oral history interview by Jessie Embry, 1977, typescript, JMOHP, 10.
64. Genealogical Society Minutes, 17 August 1961; Library Statistical Report, 1961–62, 1969; Henry Christiansen files, 1970, 1974, FHD.
65. Fudge, 1976 interview, 34; Genealogical Society Minutes, 2 and 28 November 1961, 13 February 1962.
66. Genealogical Society Minutes, 27 October 1964, FHD.
67. Memorandum, May 1988, FHD.
68. Genealogical Society Minutes, 2 and 31 July 1963, 28 January, and 3 March 1964; “Report on Branch Libraries,” Henry Christiansen files, 1964, FHD; The Genealogical Society Observer 5 (March 1969): 5.
69. Henry Christiansen files, 1964, FHD; Archibald F. Bennett, “The Day of Branch Genealogical Libraries Is Here,” Instructor 100 (July 1965): 193; “Branch Genealogical Libraries,” Improvement Era 69 (September 1966): 790–91; Theodore M. Burton to Lloyd A. Hamilton, 25 November 1964, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Orson Cannon, oral history interview by Jessie Embry, 1977, typescript, JMOHP; Fudge, 1976 interview.
70. Theodore M. Burton to Board of Trustees, 13 October 1971, included in the Genealogical Society Minutes, 27 October 1971.
71. The Genealogical Society Observer 3 (January 1967): 9; 5 (September 1969): 14; Genealogical Society Minutes, 23 May 1973.
72. Henry Christiansen files, 1962, 1965, 1973, FHD; Genealogical Society Minutes, 10 March 1964; George H. Fudge to Ronald G. Polland, 3 April 1963, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Theodore M. Burton to All Stake Presidents, 14 April 1964, Genealogical Society circular letter, LDS Church Archives; Fudge, 1976 interview, 44; Theodore M. Burton to Paul Royall, 31 August 1964, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Douglas D. Palmer, “What’s Your Line,” Church News, 1 May 1965.
73. See Archibald F. Bennett papers, FHD, various memos and notes in 1964, for some insight into the frustrations Bennett was facing during the time of these changes. As late as June 1964, he still perceived his own duties as being directly related to teaching at BYU and supervising genealogical instruction in the Church.
74. See material related to these classes in the Archibald F. Bennett files, FHD.
75. The Genealogical Society Observer 4 (February 1968): 4; 5 (September 1969): 3; Genealogical Society Management Meeting, 6 January 1970, Central files, FHD.
76. Burton, interview, 25–40; Genealogical Society Minutes, 11 April 1973; Priesthood Genealogical Seminar Syllabi, 1969–76; Smith, interview; Fudge, interview. The Family and Local History program, which was then under the direction of V. Ben Bloxham, was already doing an effective job of teaching genealogical classes and promoting genealogical studies on the BYU campus, and faculty members in that program had been regularly involved with the annual seminars. Therefore, taking over the seminars when the Genealogical Society stopped sponsoring them was a natural extension of the Family and Local History program. The Family and Local History program became part of the Department of History in 1977. For some historical background on Family and Local History at BYU, see V. Ben Bloxham, “Some Aspects of the Contribution of Local History Studies in England to the Establishment and Development of a Family and Local History Program at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A.” (Ph.D. diss., University of Southampton, 1980), chapter 4; Norman Edgar Wright, “History of the Genealogical Research Technology Program at Brigham Young University, 1960–1980,” manuscript in possession of Norman E. Wright and a copy in possession of James B. Allen.
77. Burton, interview, 49–50; Genealogical Society Minutes, 5 December 1967, 30 August, and 5 September 1968; “The World Conference on Records,” Improvement Era 72 (January 1969): 22–24; Smith, interview, 37–38.
78. Deseret News, 4 and 5 August 1969; Genealogical Society Minutes, 5 September 1968; The Genealogical Society Observer 5 (December 1969): 4–5; list of papers at the World Conference on Records provided by FHD.
79. The Genealogical Society Observer 5 (December 1969): 4–5; Deseret News, 6 August 1969; Burton, interview, 49–50.
80. The minutes of the Genealogical Society contain a balance sheet of the contents of the convention, dated 18 September 1969; Burton, interview, 49–50; Smith, interview, 37–38.
81. Genealogical Society Minutes, 18 September 1969, FHD.
82. Genealogical Society Minutes, 17 August, 28 September, 2, 9, and 16 November, and 5 December 1961, 25 January 1962, 26 November 1963, Fudge, 1976 interview, 30; Genealogical Society to Personnel Committee, 28 December 1961, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD.
83. Genealogical Society Minutes, 3 July 1962, 29 March 1963, 17 March 1964; Theodore M. Burton to Howard W. Hunter, 9 June 1964, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Henry Christiansen files, 1955–60, FHD; Burton, interview, 64–65.
84. Joseph Fielding Smith to First Presidency, 29 April 1949, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Deseret News Church Section, 9 July 1955; L. Garrett Myers to Joseph Fielding Smith, 4 November 1955, Genealogical Society correspondence.
85. Genealogical Society Minutes, 25 October, and 30 December 1949, 21 February 1957, 21 March 1958, 13 March, and 30 October 1959, 19 February 1960; L. Garrett Myers to Howard Barker, 21 February 1957, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD.
86. The minutes and correspondence of the Genealogical Society are filled, in this period, with concerns for space and with various proposals. For examples from the correspondence, see L. Garrett Myers to Church Building Committee, 9 August 1957; L. Garrett Myers to Wendell J. Mendenhall, 5 July 1960; Council of the Twelve Committee to the First Presidency, 30 December 1960; George H. Fudge to L. Garrett Myers, 25 May 1961; Genealogical Association to the First Presidency, 12 April 1962; George H. Fudge to Richard C. Miller, 8 March 1962; Junius M. Jackson, Lamont B. Gunderson, and George H. Fudge to Hugh B. Brown, 20 July 1962; George H. Fudge to N. Eldon Tanner, 10 July 1963; N. Eldon Tanner to Graham Doxey, 9 September 1963; George H. Fudge to N. Eldon Tanner, 21 November 1963. For examples from the minutes see Genealogical Society Minutes, 13 March 1959, 24 May 1960, 20 January, 3, 17 February 1961, 5 April 1962, 13 April 1966, 29 May 1969. All the above sources are located in the FHD. See also Church News, 30 June 1962.
87. N. Eldon Tanner to Hugh B. Brown, 29 March 1963, Genealogical Society correspondence; Theodore M. Burton, “The Four Key Men,” Fourth Annual Priesthood Genealogical Research Seminar, 1969 (Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society, 1969), 4–6; “Family Group Sheet Examiners,” 1964, Archibald F. Bennett collection, FHD; “The Ward Examination Program,” Improvement Era 69 (June 1966): 484–85.
88. Genealogical Society Minutes, 28 December, and 10 August 1961; N. Eldon Tanner to Executive Secretary of the Coordinating Committee, 10 April 1963, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Archibald F. Bennett to N. Eldon Tanner, 13 September 1963, Archibald F. Bennett collection, FHD; “Popular Education in Genealogy,” Improvement Era 67 (February 1964): 104–5.
89. Theodore M. Burton to A. Theodore Tuttle, 18 February 1964, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Theodore M. Burton to S. Dilworth Young, 12 June 1964, Genealogical Society correspondence; Theodore M. Burton to Edmond F. Woods, 9 June 1964, Genealogical Society correspondence.
90. Derek Harland, Genealogy in Action (Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society, 1964); A Continuing Program for Genealogy (Salt Lake City: The First Presidency, 1968); Burton, “The Four Key Men,” 18; Theodore M. Burton to the Quorum of the Twelve, 2 April 1964, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Henry E. Christiansen, “Priesthood Leadership: How the Class Fits into the Program,” Eighth Annual Priesthood Genealogical Research Seminar (Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society, 1973); Family Exaltation and You (Salt Lake City: The First Presidency, 1973).
91. Junius M. Jackson to Richard O. Grant, 23 February 1962, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Genealogical Society Minutes, 19 April, and 31 May 1962; Junius M. Jackson, Lamont B. Gunderson, and George H. Fudge to All Stake Presidents and Counselors, 19 July 1962, Genealogical Society circular letters, LDS Church Archives; Home Teaching Lesson Guides, LDS Church Library; Presiding Bishopric to All Stake Presidents, 22 January 1963, Archibald F. Bennett collection, FHD; Archibald F. Bennett to N. Eldon Tanner, 8 March 1963, Archibald F. Bennett collection; N. Eldon Tanner to Dale G. Olson, 18 September 1963, Genealogical Society correspondence; Junius M. Jackson to A. L. Tidlund, 12 March 1962, Genealogical Society correspondence.
92. Fudge, 1976 interview, 14; Church News, 29 December 1962, 11; Genealogical Society Minutes, 26 November 1962.
93. Fudge, 1976 interview, 14; Church News, 29 December 1962, 11; Genealogical Society Minutes, 26 November 1962; Archibald F. Bennett to David O. McKay, 2 February 1961, David O. McKay papers, LDS Church Archives; Junius M. Jackson and Henry E. Christiansen, Report of the New England Mission Convention, 16 April 1962, FHD; Genealogical Society Minutes, 29 March, 9 April 1962, 21 December, and 24 August 1961; Junius M. Jackson, Lamont B. Gunderson, and George H. Fudge to All Stake Presidents, 17 September 1962, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD.
94. Fudge, 1976 interview, 52.
95. Smith, interview, 29; Genealogical Society Minutes, 21 November, and 30 November 1961, 1 March, 9 October, and 9 November 1962; Theodore M. Burton to General Authorities, 1 June 1965, Genealogical Society circular letters, LDS Church Archives; Fudge, 1976 interview, 52; Thomas Daniels, oral history interview by James B. Allen, 1976, typescript, JMOHP, 2, 4–5.
96. Burton, interview, 15–16; Fudge, 1976 interview, 21; Theodore M. Burton to Harold B. Lee, 18 September 1968, Genealogical Society circular letters, LDS Church Archives; Theodore M. Burton to Geraldine Bowen, 27 August 1964, Genealogical Society correspondence, FHD; Genealogical Society Minutes, 19 January 1965.
97. Douglas D. Palmer, “Computer Tells You,” Church News, 7 November 1964; Douglas D. Palmer, “Research Can Be Real Team Work,” Church News, 23 October 1965; Douglas D. Palmer, “What’s Your Line,” Church News, 11 December 1965; Alvaretta K. Register to Genealogical Library, 23 February 1965, Archibald F. Bennett collection, FHD; The Genealogical Society Observer 4 (February 1968): 3; John J. Steward, “Try Climbing Your Family Tree,” Reader’s Digest 91 (September 1967), 103–7.
98. Burton, interview, 15–16; “PRS Revisions in Force,” Church News, 27 January 1968; Genealogical Society Minutes, 15 December 1964, 5 December 1967.
99. Burton, interview, 24; Fudge, 1976 interview, 21–23; Douglas D. Palmer, “Three Generations: Each Family to Submit Initial Group Sheets,” Church News, 13 March 1965; Douglas D. Palmer, “What’s Your Line,” Church News, 18 December 1965, 14; Jack E. Jarrard, “What’s Your Line,” Church News, 14 January 1967, 14.
100. “Stake Conference Program for 1966,” Henry Christiansen files, 1966, FHD; Jack E. Jarrard, “What’s Your Line,” Church News, 11 February 1967; “Priesthood Genealogy Program for 1966,” Improvement Era 69 (March 1966): 190–91; “The Book of Remembrance,” Improvement Era 69 (April 1966): 194–95; “The 1967 Challenge,” Improvement Era 69 (September 1966): 820–21; Continuing Program for Priesthood Genealogy.
101. Genealogical Society Minutes, 31 May, and 3 July 1962, 20 March 1963.
102. Christiansen, interview, 21; The Genealogical Society Observer 4 (June 1968): 5.
103. Theodore M. Burton, “Salvation for the Dead—a Missionary Activity,” Ensign 5 (May 1975): 71.