Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Doing the work (was: ? on reserving ordin)

Expand Messages
  • PCDirector
    I thought I better change the subject line before the conversation deviated further. Brother Tom-- I applaud your desire to do things as correct as possible.
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 31, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I thought I better change the subject line before the conversation deviated
      further.

      Brother Tom-- I applaud your desire to do things as correct as possible.
      Certainly doing things as *complete* as possible should be the standard we
      strive for. It is NOT however, the requirement for submitting names to the
      temple, nor I doubt, is having everyone's name/pob, death/pod, marriage/pob
      event filled out the only fulfillment of having a book worthy of all
      acceptation (in fact, I would disagree strongly on your interpretation of
      that scripture, but that is an entirely different conversation.)

      President Ezra Taft Benson made it clear that the *minimum** *acceptable
      information for a family group to be submitted was a *single* qualifying
      event for the entire family. One doesn't even need the names of both
      parents. Now, does that mean that we should rest there and submit the
      majority of the family blank? Of course not !!

      But neither should we revert back to the standard in the 1940s (yes, I'm
      old enough) when the standard was: a specific birth date (or christening)
      and place, a specific death (or burial) and place, a specific marriage date
      and place, and TWO PIECES OF MATCHING DOCUMENTATION for each event (and I
      mean, the spelling could not be off one iota), or the work could not be
      performed.

      That's how I ended up with 165,000 names which need to be input, verified,
      compared and done. I'm sure you have had enough experiences with those on
      the other side of the veil to know they care more about accepting their
      ordinance work, than whether or not you have a specific death date & place
      when you know they were born 2 Apr 1836 in New York City, New York, New
      York.

      My point in this is, it is great that you have a personal standard of
      completeness. I agree with you that we should strive for that rather than
      send in records wily niley, or worse, blank. But I disagree that we should
      present that opinion to others as doctrine, when President Benson directed
      otherwise.

      A case in point.

      I have an acquaintance in a former ward whose parents when he was small (4
      or 5) were involved with the mob. He *saw* them taken away at gunpoint.
      They never returned. A few weeks later, his mother's body was found on a
      deserted road out in the desert. His father's body has never been found. A
      decade+ later, this young man joined the church. Post mission and marriage
      (so we are now 35+ years after the event) he had a desire to do his
      parent's temple work.

      A well meaning, but ignorant, FHC worker told him that *without proof of
      death* his father's work could not be done. Now you and I know that is *
      technically* true. It is also extremely unlikely given the circumstances
      and the fact they were dealing with the mob, that his father is alive. This
      same person overstepped his/her authority and then told him EVEN IF he had
      his father declared dead, that because *there was no body*, the work could
      not be done.

      To this day (we are now 50 years after the fact), this poor man has still
      not had his work done (the member finally relented and did his mother's
      work without his father, he wanted to do them both at the same time.) He
      lives without being sealed to his parents (despite having dream visits from
      both of them), and all the blessings which flow from that. All because some
      FHC consultant decided to lay down his/her opinion as doctrine.

      I think most members find family history daunting enough that we don't need
      to add more obstacles in their path.

      But that's just my *opinion.*
      *
      *
      Kathy


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • thomas_nevin_huber
      Kathy, I appreciate your thoughts. I don t know if I mentioned this or not, but the scripture was brought up by the mission president of the Family and Church
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 31, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Kathy,

        I appreciate your thoughts. I don't know if I mentioned this or not,
        but the scripture was brought up by the mission president of the
        Family and Church History Mission under the direction of Elder Bednar
        of the council of the twelve. This was done in a special meeting in
        the chapel of the Salt Lake Temple.

        The guidelines for submitting work are spelled out in the instructions
        that are updated periodically and are located here:

        http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilySearch/FamilyTree/pdf/familyTreeUserGuidelds.pdf

        The specific instructions are found in that guide and it represents
        the current official instructions for submitting names to the temple.

        As I pointed out, we have had professional genealogists come through
        the training zone (the equivalent of the MTC for the Family and Church
        History Mission) and not one person has come in with a clean data
        file. Even those with "years" of experience who stated without
        reservation that they had no problems in their file. They were not
        happy when the problems were identified.

        So you can see my reluctance with this matter. As far as the young man
        whose parents were taken away at gunpoint, his mother's body is
        sufficient proof, but if his father was born within the past 110
        years, the work is _not_ to be done.

        There is no exception, but there are ways to gain permission to have
        the work done.

        First, if the man had been decalred dead by the courts or other
        authorities, then that date can be used in place of the actual death
        date.

        If there was no legal action declaring the person dead, then the
        convert should be instructed to write a letter to the First
        Presidency, explaining the situation.

        Regardless, the "technical" instructions are not to be bypassed. If
        there is ample reason to think that the person is deceased, but no
        proof has been forthcoming, there is a means to still have the work
        done.

        For the record, I have had two persons -- both related to me -- with
        proxy work completed. The work was done before they died! In both
        cases, the work had to be cancelled because the "technical"
        instructions were not followed and the death dates not established.

        Yes, one does not need more than a surname and approximated dates and
        places to have work done, especially when no vital records (of any
        kind) exist. I have done that myself for my father's sister for whom
        no record of her life (and birth and death) exists. It is a long
        story, but given the circumstances under which I learned about her and
        consulting with other members of the mission, we all felt impressed to
        go ahead and have her sealed to her family.

        As a side note, I received a response back regarding other spouses and
        children of non-blood-related husbands of relatives. There are not
        among those for which we are authorized to do the work. It really is
        as simple as that -- follow the instructions and yes, the work can be
        done.

        I am not impressed with your claim for 165,000 names. The sheer number
        alone suggests that these are not all related to you. That says to me
        that you should double check every name and their relationship, to
        make sure that they _are_ related to you.

        I come from Swiss Mennonite families who settled in the early 1700s in
        Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. To say I am related to most of those
        people is possible, but at the same time, I know that there were
        twenty-five separate and unrelated Huber families who settled in that
        County. Two of them had the same two given names and are not related
        (one is my ancestor). Three more share the same first name and are not
        related. Any work that I submit for my ancestors and their descendants
        has to be checked for accuracy. Fortunately, the Mennonites are very
        family conscious and therefore had many _good_ records. By using all
        available sources, I am usually able to determine family
        relationships. But it still takes work, and there is no shortcut.

        I keep seeing in what you are writing that you want to make this as
        simple and easy as possible. And to me, that's a problem like that
        member of the stake presidency who bragged about all the names that
        needed work that he discovered when Ancestral File was first released.
        Or the Bishop who simply gathered in a number of names so the yputh of
        his ward could have a "temple experience" -- never mind that the work
        had already been done.

        Do the right thing for the right reason and you'll be blessed -- I
        know that to be true, because many, many records are opening up for me
        -- far more than I can handle, and so I've engaged other family
        members, but even then, I seriously doubt that we will find all of
        those waiting to have their work done.

        I wish you well in your endeavors,

        Tom Huber

        On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:18:07 -0700, you wrote:

        >I thought I better change the subject line before the conversation deviated
        >further.
        >
        >Brother Tom-- I applaud your desire to do things as correct as possible.
        >Certainly doing things as *complete* as possible should be the standard we
        >strive for. It is NOT however, the requirement for submitting names to the
        >temple, nor I doubt, is having everyone's name/pob, death/pod, marriage/pob
        >event filled out the only fulfillment of having a book worthy of all
        >acceptation (in fact, I would disagree strongly on your interpretation of
        >that scripture, but that is an entirely different conversation.)
        >
        >President Ezra Taft Benson made it clear that the *minimum** *acceptable
        >information for a family group to be submitted was a *single* qualifying
        >event for the entire family. One doesn't even need the names of both
        >parents. Now, does that mean that we should rest there and submit the
        >majority of the family blank? Of course not !!
        >
        >But neither should we revert back to the standard in the 1940s (yes, I'm
        >old enough) when the standard was: a specific birth date (or christening)
        >and place, a specific death (or burial) and place, a specific marriage date
        >and place, and TWO PIECES OF MATCHING DOCUMENTATION for each event (and I
        >mean, the spelling could not be off one iota), or the work could not be
        >performed.
        >
        >That's how I ended up with 165,000 names which need to be input, verified,
        >compared and done. I'm sure you have had enough experiences with those on
        >the other side of the veil to know they care more about accepting their
        >ordinance work, than whether or not you have a specific death date & place
        >when you know they were born 2 Apr 1836 in New York City, New York, New
        >York.
        >
        >My point in this is, it is great that you have a personal standard of
        >completeness. I agree with you that we should strive for that rather than
        >send in records wily niley, or worse, blank. But I disagree that we should
        >present that opinion to others as doctrine, when President Benson directed
        >otherwise.
        >
        >A case in point.
        >
        >I have an acquaintance in a former ward whose parents when he was small (4
        >or 5) were involved with the mob. He *saw* them taken away at gunpoint.
        >They never returned. A few weeks later, his mother's body was found on a
        >deserted road out in the desert. His father's body has never been found. A
        >decade+ later, this young man joined the church. Post mission and marriage
        >(so we are now 35+ years after the event) he had a desire to do his
        >parent's temple work.
        >
        >A well meaning, but ignorant, FHC worker told him that *without proof of
        >death* his father's work could not be done. Now you and I know that is *
        >technically* true. It is also extremely unlikely given the circumstances
        >and the fact they were dealing with the mob, that his father is alive. This
        >same person overstepped his/her authority and then told him EVEN IF he had
        >his father declared dead, that because *there was no body*, the work could
        >not be done.
        >
        >To this day (we are now 50 years after the fact), this poor man has still
        >not had his work done (the member finally relented and did his mother's
        >work without his father, he wanted to do them both at the same time.) He
        >lives without being sealed to his parents (despite having dream visits from
        >both of them), and all the blessings which flow from that. All because some
        >FHC consultant decided to lay down his/her opinion as doctrine.
        >
        >I think most members find family history daunting enough that we don't need
        >to add more obstacles in their path.
        >
        >But that's just my *opinion.*
        >*
        >*
        >Kathy
        >
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • PCDirector
        I can see you have such a wry sense of humour Bro Tom !! Here I ve thought for nearly a century that my 2nd cousin 3 generations removed was my cousin !! Yet,
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 31, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I can see you have such a wry sense of humour Bro Tom !!

          Here I've thought for nearly a century that my 2nd cousin 3 generations
          removed was my cousin !!

          Yet, if I understood you correctly, they are no more related to me than my
          neighbor next door.


          Thank you for sharing.

          Kathy


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • thomas_nevin_huber
          No humor intended. You are related to your 2nd cousin, three generations removed and unless you are also related and can trace any relationship (as defined in
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 31, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            No humor intended. You are related to your 2nd cousin, three
            generations removed and unless you are also related and can trace any
            relationship (as defined in the instructions) to your neighbor, your
            responsibility as a member is to your cousin, not your neighbor.

            The following is from the Member's Guide to Temple and Family History
            Work (chapter seven):


            Determining Which Names to Submit

            You are responsible to submit names of the following individuals for
            temple work (the individuals must have been deceased for at least one
            year):

            • Immediate family members.
            • Direct-line ancestors (parents, grandparents,
            great-grandparents, and so on, and their families).

            You may also submit the names of the following individuals who have
            been deceased for at least one year:

            • Biological, adoptive, and foster family lines connected to
            your family.
            • Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their
            families).
            • Your own descendants.
            • Possible ancestors, meaning individuals who have a probable
            family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are
            inadequate, such as those who have the same last name and resided in
            the same area as your known ancestors.

            Do not submit the names of persons who are not related to you,
            including names of famous people or names gathered from unapproved
            extraction projects, such as victims of the Jewish Holocaust.

            You may submit the names of individuals with whom you shared a
            friendship. This is an exception to the general rule that members
            should not submit the names of individuals to whom they are not
            related. Before performing ordinances for a deceased individual who
            was a friend, you should obtain permission from the individual’s
            closest living relative.

            I'm not sure what you are concerned about. I've stated church policy
            in hopes that you will use caution in preparing names for the temple.
            This extends to all members and is often ignored. Somehow, some
            members seem to feel that the rules do not extend to them. One, in
            particular, had a habit of submitted names of deceased celebrities and
            their families. Letters to her local leaders did not stop her from
            continuing her unauthorized activity. As such, any time she submitted
            a name, it was flagged for review. Eventually, her activity led to the
            First Presidency's letter of February 29, 2012. It is found here:
            http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-issues-direction-members-names-ordinances

            In part, the letter states:

            We would like to reiterate the policies first stated in 1995
            concerning the submission of names for proxy temple ordinances:

            Our preeminent obligation is to seek out and identify our own
            ancestors. Those whose names are submitted for proxy temple ordinances
            should be related to the submitter.

            Without exception, Church members must not submit for proxy temple
            ordinances any names from unauthorized groups, such as celebrities and
            Jewish Holocaust victims. If members do so, they may forfeit their New
            FamilySearch privileges. Other corrective action may also be taken.

            I don't know if the brethren can be any more plain on what we can do
            and what we are _not_ to do. This is a very sacred work and not to be
            mocked.

            Sincerely with love,

            Tom

            On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:27:56 -0700, you wrote:

            >I can see you have such a wry sense of humour Bro Tom !!
            >
            >Here I've thought for nearly a century that my 2nd cousin 3 generations
            >removed was my cousin !!
            >
            >Yet, if I understood you correctly, they are no more related to me than my
            >neighbor next door.
            >
            >
            >Thank you for sharing.
            >
            >Kathy
            >
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Bob Penry
            I think that this discussion is getting a little too personal. Everyone doesn’t have the same level of skill in research. Duplicated ordinance work abounds.
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 31, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              I think that this discussion is getting a little too personal.

              Everyone doesn’t have the same level of skill in research. Duplicated ordinance work abounds. Originally this was caused because everything was done by paper and research was duplicated. There was no easy way
              to check for work done. However, in the last few years, duplication is mostly caused by sloppy research. Too many people don’t bother to check to see if work is already done. There are still way too many names
              that either need to be combined or separated.

              The larger our file becomes, the more corrupt it becomes. There will be individuals added where the only documentation exists in books. Birth, Death, Marriage records will be non-existent. I have some individuals
              whose information only exists in a compiled county history. I know where they are buried, but the tombstones are no longer readable. They settled the area in the early 1800’s. How accurate is the history book?
              Entries in country histories were done by subscription. You could put anything in that you wanted. It didn’t have to be verified. The more you paid, the more you could have entered. Since this is the only record,
              did I do the temple work? Absolutely. I asked the Temple President about it. His response. If you submit a name from the record and the person did not exist, only time has been wasted. But if the person did
              exist and you do not do the work, that individual is on the other side of the veil, perhaps in tears. I also asked him about how to do sealings for children whose father died and the mother remarried and was sealed
              to the second husband while living. His response. After they are all deceased, seal them every way possible. The Lord will choose and there will be no one unhappy with His choice. What wisdom!

              We just had an incident where a person submitted names knowing the work had already been done. I will call that person “A” Why? Did A simply want to do the work and think that A’s work will supplant the others?
              Does A think that the more times it is done, the more acceptable it is to the Lord? Did A know the individuals personally and figure the only way the individuals are going to get to a kingdom is by having the work
              done so many times, it will confuse the Book of Life and let the family sneak through the gate?

              However, all levity aside; if we follow the rules, we cannot go wrong. If you don’t have time to read the rules, stop until you do have time.

              Never, never, never assume that information on Family Tree is correct, just because it is there. Don’t get carried away building a tree just because it goes on and on for centuries. If I were to do this on one of my lines,
              guess what – My 39th great grandparents are King Arthur and Guinevere! But it’s on the tree – got to be right. Right? And please don’t tell me about your line that goes back to Adam and Eve!

              Please remember that Family History research is more an art then a science. Only through blood tests and DNA, can a birth relationship be absolutely proven. You can only assume that your great-grandparents were
              faithful to each other and that your great-grandfather is really the parent of your grand-father. Every relationship must be taken on faith that the documentation is correct.

              I have one line where a “professional” researcher in England made up a connection to royalty to satisfy an American client. This occurred in the 1800’s. Those of us who belong to a very large New England family
              organization are very familiar with this bogus research. I have another line where the family sailed to America from England and a historian in Virginia said they were from a parish near London and added the name
              of the parish as part of the surname. However, when I found that they went to the port in England from Wales and I found their information in the Welsh National Library in Aberystwyth, Wales. Again, you can
              never assume that information is correct unless you can see an official document, and even then there can be mistakes. My own Father’s name was misspelled on his birth certificate!

              Can you have a “perfect file”? I don’t think so. As both an indexer and arbitrator, I can assure you that 100% accuracy only exists in fairy tales and on TV. Examples:

              I have a relative who signed his name differently on a series of documents. Sometimes it was VanMeter, other times it was Van Meter. Which is correct? Birth Certificate says Van Meter.
              Marriage License says VanMeter. His father spelled it Van Metre. My Grandfather was a Gillum, with 11 children, my Aunts and Uncles - three Gillum, six Gillam, two Gilliam.

              The work is important, and we all need to do the best we can, but we should never point fingers or criticize. We can only instruct, assist, and be patient. We are all working for the same goal.

              EATIS IN PACE DATA GESIS (Go in peace and may all your words be processed)






              From: tomhuber.yah@...
              Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:21 PM
              To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] Doing the work (was: ? on reserving ordin)


              Kathy,

              I appreciate your thoughts. I don't know if I mentioned this or not,
              but the scripture was brought up by the mission president of the
              Family and Church History Mission under the direction of Elder Bednar
              of the council of the twelve. This was done in a special meeting in
              the chapel of the Salt Lake Temple.

              The guidelines for submitting work are spelled out in the instructions
              that are updated periodically and are located here:

              http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilySearch/FamilyTree/pdf/familyTreeUserGuidelds.pdf

              The specific instructions are found in that guide and it represents
              the current official instructions for submitting names to the temple.

              As I pointed out, we have had professional genealogists come through
              the training zone (the equivalent of the MTC for the Family and Church
              History Mission) and not one person has come in with a clean data
              file. Even those with "years" of experience who stated without
              reservation that they had no problems in their file. They were not
              happy when the problems were identified.

              So you can see my reluctance with this matter. As far as the young man
              whose parents were taken away at gunpoint, his mother's body is
              sufficient proof, but if his father was born within the past 110
              years, the work is _not_ to be done.

              There is no exception, but there are ways to gain permission to have
              the work done.

              First, if the man had been decalred dead by the courts or other
              authorities, then that date can be used in place of the actual death
              date.

              If there was no legal action declaring the person dead, then the
              convert should be instructed to write a letter to the First
              Presidency, explaining the situation.

              Regardless, the "technical" instructions are not to be bypassed. If
              there is ample reason to think that the person is deceased, but no
              proof has been forthcoming, there is a means to still have the work
              done.

              For the record, I have had two persons -- both related to me -- with
              proxy work completed. The work was done before they died! In both
              cases, the work had to be cancelled because the "technical"
              instructions were not followed and the death dates not established.

              Yes, one does not need more than a surname and approximated dates and
              places to have work done, especially when no vital records (of any
              kind) exist. I have done that myself for my father's sister for whom
              no record of her life (and birth and death) exists. It is a long
              story, but given the circumstances under which I learned about her and
              consulting with other members of the mission, we all felt impressed to
              go ahead and have her sealed to her family.

              As a side note, I received a response back regarding other spouses and
              children of non-blood-related husbands of relatives. There are not
              among those for which we are authorized to do the work. It really is
              as simple as that -- follow the instructions and yes, the work can be
              done.

              I am not impressed with your claim for 165,000 names. The sheer number
              alone suggests that these are not all related to you. That says to me
              that you should double check every name and their relationship, to
              make sure that they _are_ related to you.

              I come from Swiss Mennonite families who settled in the early 1700s in
              Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. To say I am related to most of those
              people is possible, but at the same time, I know that there were
              twenty-five separate and unrelated Huber families who settled in that
              County. Two of them had the same two given names and are not related
              (one is my ancestor). Three more share the same first name and are not
              related. Any work that I submit for my ancestors and their descendants
              has to be checked for accuracy. Fortunately, the Mennonites are very
              family conscious and therefore had many _good_ records. By using all
              available sources, I am usually able to determine family
              relationships. But it still takes work, and there is no shortcut.

              I keep seeing in what you are writing that you want to make this as
              simple and easy as possible. And to me, that's a problem like that
              member of the stake presidency who bragged about all the names that
              needed work that he discovered when Ancestral File was first released.
              Or the Bishop who simply gathered in a number of names so the yputh of
              his ward could have a "temple experience" -- never mind that the work
              had already been done.

              Do the right thing for the right reason and you'll be blessed -- I
              know that to be true, because many, many records are opening up for me
              -- far more than I can handle, and so I've engaged other family
              members, but even then, I seriously doubt that we will find all of
              those waiting to have their work done.

              I wish you well in your endeavors,

              Tom Huber

              On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:18:07 -0700, you wrote:

              >I thought I better change the subject line before the conversation deviated
              >further.
              >
              >Brother Tom-- I applaud your desire to do things as correct as possible.
              >Certainly doing things as *complete* as possible should be the standard we
              >strive for. It is NOT however, the requirement for submitting names to the
              >temple, nor I doubt, is having everyone's name/pob, death/pod, marriage/pob
              >event filled out the only fulfillment of having a book worthy of all
              >acceptation (in fact, I would disagree strongly on your interpretation of
              >that scripture, but that is an entirely different conversation.)
              >
              >President Ezra Taft Benson made it clear that the *minimum** *acceptable
              >information for a family group to be submitted was a *single* qualifying
              >event for the entire family. One doesn't even need the names of both
              >parents. Now, does that mean that we should rest there and submit the
              >majority of the family blank? Of course not !!
              >
              >But neither should we revert back to the standard in the 1940s (yes, I'm
              >old enough) when the standard was: a specific birth date (or christening)
              >and place, a specific death (or burial) and place, a specific marriage date
              >and place, and TWO PIECES OF MATCHING DOCUMENTATION for each event (and I
              >mean, the spelling could not be off one iota), or the work could not be
              >performed.
              >
              >That's how I ended up with 165,000 names which need to be input, verified,
              >compared and done. I'm sure you have had enough experiences with those on
              >the other side of the veil to know they care more about accepting their
              >ordinance work, than whether or not you have a specific death date & place
              >when you know they were born 2 Apr 1836 in New York City, New York, New
              >York.
              >
              >My point in this is, it is great that you have a personal standard of
              >completeness. I agree with you that we should strive for that rather than
              >send in records wily niley, or worse, blank. But I disagree that we should
              >present that opinion to others as doctrine, when President Benson directed
              >otherwise.
              >
              >A case in point.
              >
              >I have an acquaintance in a former ward whose parents when he was small (4
              >or 5) were involved with the mob. He *saw* them taken away at gunpoint.
              >They never returned. A few weeks later, his mother's body was found on a
              >deserted road out in the desert. His father's body has never been found. A
              >decade+ later, this young man joined the church. Post mission and marriage
              >(so we are now 35+ years after the event) he had a desire to do his
              >parent's temple work.
              >
              >A well meaning, but ignorant, FHC worker told him that *without proof of
              >death* his father's work could not be done. Now you and I know that is *
              >technically* true. It is also extremely unlikely given the circumstances
              >and the fact they were dealing with the mob, that his father is alive. This
              >same person overstepped his/her authority and then told him EVEN IF he had
              >his father declared dead, that because *there was no body*, the work could
              >not be done.
              >
              >To this day (we are now 50 years after the fact), this poor man has still
              >not had his work done (the member finally relented and did his mother's
              >work without his father, he wanted to do them both at the same time.) He
              >lives without being sealed to his parents (despite having dream visits from
              >both of them), and all the blessings which flow from that. All because some
              >FHC consultant decided to lay down his/her opinion as doctrine.
              >
              >I think most members find family history daunting enough that we don't need
              >to add more obstacles in their path.
              >
              >But that's just my *opinion.*
              >*
              >*
              >Kathy
              >
              >
              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.