A Deep Dive Into Forgotten Name Changes In Early LDS Records
Most people researching early Church history never stumble across the kind of document Scott Anthony Redford was reading when he noticed something was off. It was a baptismal or confirmation record from the 1830s where the name on file didn't match any other reference to that person in the same volume. That single inconsistency is what eventually opened up a whole layer of names that were changed, recorded differently, or simply assigned without the person's formal consent, and it has been sitting in various Church Archives and family history collections for decades. Here is how the whole situation actually plays out when you are working through it yourself, because the standard index records will not guide you through this. You start by locating early membership or baptism registers from Kirtland, Far West, or Nauvoo periods. Then you cross-reference those names against Ward or Stake records from the same individual's later life in Utah, and you will frequently find the same person listed under two or three different names. That is not a data entry error. It is usually a name change, a nickname adopted for business purposes, or a recording discrepancy caused by multiple scribes working from oral reports during fast-moving periods like the migration west. I ran into this exact problem about three years ago while trying to confirm the lineage of a great-grandmother whose father appeared as "William" in one 1847 immigration roster and as "Willard" in every subsequent record from Cache Valley. The standard pedigree chart showed a clean line. The actual documents did not. The workaround I used was simple enough that I wish more researchers applied it from the start: pull the original image of every document rather than relying on indexed transcripts. The original handwritten register showed the clerk had corrected "Willard" to "William" with a single strikethrough, and another clerk in a different ward had transcribed it differently. That margin correction is the kind of detail indexing systems strip out completely. If you are doing this level of research, download the original images from the Church History Library catalog and work from the primary document, not the transcription.
The counter-intuitive part that most beginners miss is that a name appearing in multiple registers does not automatically mean the same person. Early LDS record-keeping often involved multiple scribes copying from oral declarations, and scribes would standardize spellings according to their own preferences. You also need to account for the practice of giving new names during confirmations or sealings, which was not uncommon in certain wards during the 1840s and 1850s. A man named Joseph might be recorded as Josiah in a neighboring ward simply because the scribe preferred that spelling. Without checking dates, locations, and witness lists, you can easily merge two distinct individuals into one family line. Another nuance that trips people up is the assumption that a name change in LDS records was always a spiritual or covenant-based event. Most of them were not. Some were practical adjustments made because a person struggled with a difficult pronunciation, wanted a more commercially viable name, or simply adopted a name they preferred in professional settings. Others were clerical conventions where a father's first name became the son's middle name and the son was then known by his middle name exclusively. I found one instance where a man listed as "Parley P." in every official record was actually known to his children and neighbors as "Perry," and his wife referred to him by that name in diary entries I located separately. When you are tracing these name changes, the most useful tools are the original manuscript records held at the Church History Library, the FamilySearch digitized collections, and the various territorial manuscripts project files. The key is to look for consistency in spouse names, children's names, and location data across the different records. If the spouse and children match but the given name shifts, you are likely dealing with a name variation rather than a different person. If the location matches but the family structure does not, you are probably looking at two different people with similar names.
There are downsides to this approach that deserve to be stated plainly. The original records are fragmented. Some volumes are incomplete, some are illegible, and some were never microfilmed or digitized. You will spend hours on documents that yield nothing. The indexing databases have improved significantly over the last decade, but they remain inconsistent, especially for records from the 1830s and 1840s. Researchers who rely solely on online indexes will miss a substantial portion of these discrepancies. The only reliable method involves checking the original images whenever possible, and that requires either visiting the archives in Salt Lake City or having access to the digitized collections through a temple or family history center subscription. What makes this area of LDS historical research particularly valuable is that it reveals the everyday reality of early Church members rather than the institutional narrative. The names on paper do not tell the whole story. The variations show us how people actually lived, moved, and identified themselves across decades of displacement and reorganization. The Redford findings, and the broader pattern they represent, demonstrate that early LDS records are far more complex than a straightforward genealogical chart suggests, and that complexity is where the real history lives.
Get the Full Details
