Forums
I have a photocopy of a page from a baptismal register of a church that has recently closed. The photocopy was given to me by the church office staff when I visited the church several years ago. When I learned that the church had closed, I tried to track down what had happened to the original record books. They are not at the church's branch location or at its denominational office; I was told that they were given to a nearby library with a large genealogical collection for the local area. I visited the library and was able to view the card file version of the church's records, but the librarian did not know whether or not they had the original registers, and if they did have them, she did not know where unless they were somewhere in a backlog of uncataloged items received.
It seems to me that I can begin to cite the page via 7.19 "Church Records: Photocopies of Individual Records" as described on EE 2nd ed. pp. 334-335. Should I add a comment that the location of the register is currently unknown but that it may be at the library? Should I mention in a comment the film number of the LDS microfilm that should contain the register, even though I did not use that film myself? In this case, there is a conflict between citing what I actually used and directing a reader to a source that the reader could use.
Emy, EE7.19 would be
Emy, EE7.19 would be appropriate. To your citation, in your working notes, after you record the essentials, you can add absolutely anything in the world you want to add that you think will help you going forward. Certainly a statement that the records have been removed, allegedly to a library that has told you it does not hold the originals, would be a piece of information you'd like to save. If you have good cause to believe that the FHL microfilm covers the same set of records, then yes: You can add that to your note as well--stating it in a way that makes it clear you have not personally used the film and have not confirmed that it is the same set of records.