YANCEY FAMILY INFORMATION ON THE LDS IGI
(most of this also applies to the LDS Ancestral File also)
compiled By Dennis J Yancey - firstname.lastname@example.org
Back to Home Page
The IGI (International Genealogical Index) is a database, genealogical in nature, created by the LDS Church - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - aka "Mormon Church". The IGI was once maintained on microfiche but has been for various years, now, accessible on PC's at local Family History centers throughout the world. It was only in 1999 that the databases were made available over the WEB.
The IGI is a listing of deceased individuals whose names have been submitted (usually by LDS church members) and for which LDS ordinances have been done (Baptism [for the dead] etc). The list is maintained by the LDS (Mormon) church. The fact that the name of a certain person is found on the IGI, however, does not by any means imply that such a person was LDS. The IGI usually lists either birth dates (with Parents names) or Marriage dates with Spouse names - of the deceased individuals whose ordinance work has been done. The LDS church does not perform any type of verification, validation, nor does it require any notation of source material for the genealogical information. It was not until recent years that the process of submitting to the IGI was computerized - before this "paper work" was submitted and there was some sort of process by which the records were input into the central church genealogical computers. The handwritten submission process as well as the process of extracting the info off the forms and inputting them into the computer resulted in a relatively high degree of errors being introduced into the IGI. And when errors did creep into the IGI, they usually stayed in and were never corrected. It should be noted that in NO way do the Mormons claim the IGI to be some sort of validated list of genealogical records - it is simply a list of names for which LDS ordinances have been done and the dates/places which were submitted with the names. Even if something is known to be in error it usually ends up staying on the IGI because an ordinance was indeed done for that name/date/place combination (even though it may be incorrect information). There has never been a clear and easy way to correct bad information listed on the IGI.
Even with the errors in the IGI, just due to its extensive nature and gigantic size, it is an extremely useful resource. It should, however, be used as a source of CLUES or indications where one can search for supporting/documentary sources. If, for example, one finds a marriage listed on the IGI with a specific date, and county/state combination, one should refer to either published works containing a list of marriages of that county or one could also contact the county court directly to verify that the marriage is found on county records. One can also refer to published genealogies, family records, court records, wills, deeds, military records etc to document as much as possible the information recorded on the IGI. It may occur, however, that no other source for the information listed is to be found. This, obviously, does not mean that the information is invalid or false. But one should use it with caution, and one should try, if possible, to ascertain, what type of information may have been available to the submitter of the information and how close the relationship was between the submitter and the person listed on the IGI. One should also try to ascertain, how well the information fits in with other documented information.
Most of the errors that exist on the IGI, for members of the YANCEY family are very simple errors (examples include misspellings of names, transposition of digits in dates etc). There are also many cases where submitters, in good faith, submitted information found in published reports, family records - but which records have been found to contain incorrect information. The amount of inconsistent information on the early Yanceys is rather large and has taken quite some time to straighten out - and a good amount of bad information on the IGI is just a result of bad information being copied from published sources. Once something gets published, even if its totally false information - trying to "stamp it out" becomes almost a never-ending process. People seem to assume just because its in print, it must be correct.
There are a few cases of bad information on the IGI concerning Yanceys that need to be discussed. One Mormon researcher who submitted names to the IGI probably during the 70's and 80's was one Aubrey Taylor Yancey. Information from this submitter is quite suspect. Case in point is the fact that he submitted to the list various children of Charles Yancey & (Mary Bartlett?) of Hanover County Virginia (Richard, Robert, Archelaus, James others - born during the early 1700's) He submitted them with FULL birth dates (as if he had access to some Family Bible record). He also submitted information which recorded the marriage dates of various children of Charles & Mary Yancey. Although, it seems quite unusual, it would seem that this information may have been "fabricated" - Its sounds extreme and illogical - but various of the children he recorded as children of Charles Yancey - were later proved not to be children. Also, No one else, in over 100 years of Yancey research has ever come across exact birth dates for these siblings, and most importantly, I have research notes, correspondence, etc of various people who corresponded and communicated with Mr. Aubrey Yancey during the time that he would have submitted this info - people who had done extensive research and would have been extremely interested in such information - and they were never told ANYTHING concerning information which would have documented the birth dates of these siblings.
I have no real logical explanation for this - other than the fact that Mr. Yancey was a little "over-zealous" in having the LDS ordinances done for these ancestors; and dates were necessary for this to be done. When one understands what Mormons believe about the reasons behind the ordinances they do in behalf of deceased ancestors, it becomes a little easier to understand, why in very isolated cases, people may have invented information that was lacking, but necessary for submission. Mr. Thomas Aubrey Yancey submitted quite a bit of information to the IGI and he seems to have introduced a lot of incorrect information on to the IGI, a lot of it just seems to be the result of sloppy research and relationships which he assumed, based on poor guesses in some cases. It is interesting to note that it would seem to be Mr. Aubrey Taylor Yancey who submitted info for Richard Yancey of Mecklenburg County marrying one Mary Colebreath (this is the same Richard Yancey who many people claim married Mary Bolling). It would also seem that he submitted information concerning children of one Absalom Yancey of Mecklenburg county which it would seem turned out to be in total conflict with various court records.
For more information on LDS records see the following sites:
Offical LDS Site
Family History Centers
Info on Family Search
Explanation of the Ancestral File
More info on LDS resources
Highly Suspect (Probably inaccurate) information on the LDS IGI submitted by one Aubrey Taylor Yancey. Information concerning Children of Charles & Mary Yancey of Hanover County, Virginia found on the LDS IGI:
ARCHELAUS YANCEY, married MARY
MARSHALL 4 AUG 1735
JAMES YANCEY, born 4 NOV 1704
ROBERT YANCEY, born 30 APR 1706, married TEMPERANCE ANN HARRIS/DUMAS 22 FEB 1736
RICHARD AUGUSTINE YANCEY, born 24 AUG 1708, married Mary Culbreath/Colebreath
[DJY - There is no evidance that his middle name was "Augustine", and there is clear evidence that he did NOT he marry Mary Culbreath]
CHARLES YANCEY JR., born 24 AUG 1711
STERLING YANCEY - recorded as son of Charles & Mary Yancey
WALTER YANCEY - recorded as a son of Charles Yancey
( DJY - Years and Years of research have not uncovered anything that would even support the dates here give for the children of Charles & Mary Yancey - in my opinion these dates should NOT BE USED in genealogical data files, without further evidence being found - their validity is VERY questionable )