DiscussMormonism.com

I was reading an article at the on-line section of the New York Times and noticed an ad in the upper right section dealing with genealogy. I thought it was an LDS church ad. Here is the link -

http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/?gcli ... agodHzETpA

karl61 wrote:I was reading an article at the on-line section of the New York Times and noticed an ad in the upper right section dealing with genealogy. I thought it was an LDS church ad. Here is the link -

http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/?gcli ... agodHzETpA

likely so given the word "gene" is in the word genealogy.

karl61 wrote:I was reading an article at the on-line section of the New York Times and noticed an ad in the upper right section dealing with genealogy. I thought it was an LDS church ad. Here is the link -

http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/?gcli ... agodHzETpA

I don't understand your question Karl. Also I saw no ad when I linked to that site. The Out of Africa theory which the majority of scientists involved accept has, using genetic data, modern humans originating out of Africa at a minimum 100,000 years ago and has approximate times when splits and migrations occurred. Spencer Wells has an excellent book on this. I believe it's called Out of Africa...well worth reading.

According to LDS Theology we know there were people around other than Adam and Eve. Who did their sons marry?

Per Joseph Smith, "if it true, it is part of our religion". This means that evolution is part and parcel of LDS theology. Probably be more accepted once it gets settled down a bit.

marg wrote:

karl61 wrote:I was reading an article at the on-line section of the New York Times and noticed an ad in the upper right section dealing with genealogy. I thought it was an LDS church ad. Here is the link -

http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/?gcli ... agodHzETpA

I don't understand your question Karl. Also I saw no ad when I linked to that site. The Out of Africa theory which the majority of scientists involved accept has, using genetic data, modern humans originating out of Africa at a minimum 100,000 years ago and has approximate times when splits and migrations occurred. Spencer Wells has an excellent book on this. I believe it's called Out of Africa...well worth reading.

Hi Marg: I think :) what I was trying to say is that there may be a new definition of genealogy in the future and if LDS think it only has to do with finding written records of ancestors they may be on a different page than someone who says they are getting really interested in genealogy but is taking it from a genetic view

karl61 wrote:

Hi Marg: I think :) what I was trying to say is that there may be a new definition of genealogy in the future and if LDS think it only has to do with finding written records of ancestors they may be on a different page than someone who says they are getting really interested in genealogy but is taking it from a genetic view

Hi Karl :) Yes perspectives on what ancestry entails differ. From a genetic perspective we are all related, not just to every other human that has ever existed, but to every single living thing that exists and existed on the planet. I'm not sure what the value is to determining or keeping track of who one's ancestors are over recent generations. It appears to me to be a narrow minded perspective.

I disagree.

I'm not sure what the value is to determining or keeping track of who one's ancestors are over recent generations. It appears to me to be a narrow minded perspective.

Genetics is not as important, unless we are talking about genetic disorders, proving paternity, and other issues.
Studying family history, good and bad, is much more than collecting names and birthdates. It is important in understanding the culture of the family in which we were raised, and can be therapeutic.

MCB wrote:I disagree.

I'm not sure what the value is to determining or keeping track of who one's ancestors are over recent generations. It appears to me to be a narrow minded perspective.

Genetics is not as important, unless we are talking about genetic disorders, proving paternity, and other issues.
Studying family history, good and bad, is much more than collecting names and birthdates. It is important in understanding the culture of the family in which we were raised, and can be therapeutic.

Genetics is important for the theory of evolution and explaining not only the diversity of life but why new species evolve and in many cases when they evolved.

As far as knowing the family tree back a few generations, you say it is important to understand the culture of the family. What is the value of that? Why is it important? Wouldn't that tend to mentally define a person, in terms of their past relatives? Wouldn't it be more important to understand if they are part of a racial group (which is what I assume you are getting at) how that group was mistreated at a point in time or over a period of time, so as to avoid it not occurring again based on racial prejudice? Knowing one descended from a particular racial group let's say in the last 500 years, is not the same thing as determining who one's recent relatives are. I think there is a tendancy for those who identify with the past injustices to their racial group to get stuck in a victim mentality based upon experiences of past relatives, not on their own experiences. The more that people move to different parts of the world and the more interracial marriages occur the less will be the observable physical differences in people. When that happens how will people identify as they do now with a race? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)

1. Genetics is important for the theory of evolution and explaining not only the diversity of life but why new species evolve and in many cases when they evolved.

2. As far as knowing the family tree back a few generations, you say it is important to understand the culture of the family.

3.Wouldn't that tend to mentally define a person, in terms of their past relatives?

4. Wouldn't it be more important to understand if they are part of a racial group (which is what I assume you are getting at) how that group was mistreated at a point in time or over a period of time, so as to avoid it not occurring again based on racial prejudice?

5. I think there is a tendancy for those who identify with the past injustices to their racial group to get stuck in a victim mentality based upon experiences of past relatives, not on their own experiences.

6. When that happens how will people identify as they do now with a race?

You present some good questions.

1. Acknowledged. We are all members of the human family.

2. To work through some negative experiences of the family. Trauma can be transmitted through family culture. Even though the circumstances are no longer there, the fears remain. To realize that those fears are unjustified, or learning how to defend oneself from the perpetrators.

3. Mormons carry it to an extreme. The individual should be recognized for his or her individual characteristics, not those of his/her family. You get into the false assumptions of a monarchial society when you carry it to an extreme.

4. Exactly. My father and I were raised among racist Mormons, and our Native ancestry was denied, to try to blend into white society. My mother caught it too, even though she was raised in S.D., where mixed and acculturated Native-White families were generally accepted. It boomeranged against me, I did not know why some people rejected and stereotyped me.

5. Need I say anything about the "white privilige", masked in victimhood, of Mormon culture? Yes, some Blacks do claim "Black privilege". And they are often caught on it by other members of the Black community.

6. Have you ever heard of calling oneself bi-racial, multi-racial, other, or mixed or A.I./W? Somehow computers or people with computer-like brains just boggle at the idea that the races are not species. We are all human, and mixed people are not mules.