I have a natural interest in history, and my mild interest in genealogy probably stems from that basic interest. The more familiar I become with the practice of genealogy though, the more aware I am of the limitations of historical records.

For example, DNA from a skull that could possibly be that of Mozart was compared to the DNA that came from skeletal remains from a known Mozart family burial plot. The results? None of the remains were close biological matches to any of the others. In spite of what the records say, there was no shared biological connection among those individuals.

Humans are simply too unpredictable and way too promiscuous to say with any certainty, based only on written records, that a particular paper trail represents the reality of human reproduction.

I recently sent in my DNA for testing and am waiting for the results on the trail of my biological foreparents. I hope there are surprises in store, but regardless, we are all one family. A religion that is built on identifying and promoting particular bloodlines is not only on shaky moral and religious grounds, but on completely fraudulent grounds in terms of biology as well.

My TBM MIL insists, with all seriousness, that she has traced her genealogy directly to Adam and Eve.

This is silly on at least three counts:

1) As you have already noted, the limitations of historical records mean it would be almost impossible to reliably trace family lines earlier than the 4th or 5th century*; and even then, it would primarily apply only to royalty, many of whom were most likely padding their lineage to be more royal.

2) Assuming, as Mormons do, that Adam and Eve are literally the first humans, then every single person, by definition, is descended from Adam and Eve. So why the pride?

3) Adam and Eve never existed! So whoever claims to have traced their genealogy back to Adam and Eve is either a liar or a fool.

*Edited to correct my previous reference to "14th or 15th century" genealogy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2017 12:00PM by GregS.

Last year my family finally got to the bottom of a family mystery. My half-brother had wanted to know since his childhood more details about his father. All our mother would say was that it was a short marriage, they divorced, and the guy disappeared. After my mom died, we got up courage to ask her sole surviving sibling about it.

It turns out that the information on my brother's birth certificate about his father was fabricated by my mom. She had been engaged to a local man, they fought constantly and finally he couldn't take it and broke up with her. She was pregnant though, and at my brother's birth, she lied about the father's name and occupation. She went on to another very unhappy marriage while her onetime fiance went on to a long and successful marriage.

This birth certificate is what any genealogical researcher will find, but it is a complete deadend. There is no person with that name to be found in the historical record. The true story in this case is an oral history. Multiply this by hundreds of years of falsehoods and mistakes and you get what passes for genealogy.

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...and even then, it
> would primarily apply only to royalty, many of
> whom were most likely padding their lineage to be
> more royal.

Serious, credible genealogists know most old royal genealogies are bogus beyond three or four generations back.

My mother was adopted as an infant. No one knows who her biological parents were. Her mother was a young unwed girl who gave birth in a home for unwed mothers, and gave up the baby at birth. Her identity is unknown.

My entire Mormon family knows this. But their genealogical research includes the ancestors of her *adoptive* parents, even thought they are not our ancestors.

But we are SEALED to them, so they ARE our ancestors in the eyes of God.

Another fun fact:

The first child can come at anytime. All others take 9 months

My brother insists that the first child of a certain highly venerated, early Mormon ancestor couldn't possibly have been born only three months after the parents' wedding. There MUST be a mistake in the birth date.

Yeah, right, they would NEVER have had s-e-x out of wedlock.

Many years ago (before the internet and DNA testing) Dh and I stopped into the LDS genealogical library and looked up our family information out of curiosity. It turned out that the information was wrong for my grandmother -- an endowed Mormon woman born in 1896.

Dh's family history was also wrong and, again, the mistakes started only two generations back with his grandparents.

I decided at that point that genealogy was nothing more than a parlor game for bored housewives. I've never changed my opinion on it.

I was watching one of the genealogy TV shows, and the professional genealogists were using DNA as a tool to identify ancestors who were not always officially in the records.