The words Falk wrote more or less echo my own understanding that the Church of Latter Day Saints set out to approach every church in the 1980's to ask permission to photograph the books kept on the church premises.� In Britain, many priests/pastors/vicars agreed but many priests would not allow this.
Right, but none of this is new news. This is true everywhere LDS does its thing, since they began filming records decades ago, for both church and state. As I mentioned earlier - and Bob Doerr illustrated - you see this same thing in the States too.
Lots of good suggestions, but we haven't really pinpointed the hang up Brouwsers is facing in the Netherlands, or moved to much past what Werner originally put forth. My question remains: if the German privacy laws, which "protect" folks in Germany from accessing records dating back only 100 years, and the German census records do not fall under the jurisdiction of the churches (or so I presume! could it be different?), what exactly is the hang up? If it lies with LDS itself, it seems hard to believe, as those folks are looking to save souls by getting ALL FORMS of information out freely for one and all to access, so others can discover more familial souls to save. After all, the furthering of the availability of this kind of information is one of the staples of their creed.
If anyone knows anything more, speak up!
=> Brouwsers, if you're still following along, I've done what I can to push this but we still don't have a precise answer for you, though a good number on the list have come up with plausible explanations. Perhaps you should call a FHC in your area and ask the head honcho in charge there EXACTLY WHY they will not bring those films in, that is, the EXACT nature of the proscription. Sometimes on matters like these it is best to go straight to the source of the conflict.
Let us know what you find if you do - oh and supply us your first name mate if Brouwsers is merely a pseudonym.
Braunschweig Lutheran Archivist recently informed me that she would write out some official baptism records for me - the books being too old to film. I know of 3 people researching this village church record - this means the archivist is handling this 'too old' book many times when it would be safer to take digital images for public use.
That is often a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" proposition. The requirements to properly film, digitally or otherwise, old ledgers often call for the dismantling of these old registers, which for some is unacceptable. To what extent LDS offers to reconstruct or rebind them I do not know, it may be too expensive, but that is obviously a big consideration. The largest "carrot on a stick" LDS carries is the obvious one - the purveyor receives a permanent copy of these records in an analog/digital format for purposes of posterity (security) and easy reference, which indeed would lessen the wear of constantly accessing the original source records.
I've always felt if our elected officials, in all their infinite wisdom, weren't so given to dispensing of our precious tax contributions on all the wrong folks (and causes), there'd be a lot more to go around to help strapped institutions like archives and libraries in their struggle to preserve their old and irreplaceable holdings. But don't hold your breath here of course - these elected heads always tend to protect that precious class of corporate big shots whose whole raison d'existence is to seeks profits at all cost, often obscenely, and to strategically filter the right amount of dollars into these officials' election war chests. This assures far too many of the same old faces will remain secure in high places far past their prime. [SOS]
Jb