Hacker News Reader

Ex-mormon and ex-partner of a (secular) genealogist reporting in.

Every bit of non-archival information the Mormons have should be annotated with [citation needed]. There is an appalling amount of wishful thinking and supposition in their genealogy data. You are in effect looking at research on a par with a high school research paper. It's all sourced from people who have been doing this for a short time and are seeking out indications that they are done, not that they are correct.

Though I do agree that anyone who is willing to build a bomb-proof archival facility is worthy of a degree of respect.

(Those salt dome film archives we have in the great plains are amazing too)

What non-archival information are you talking about? Everything I see on familysearch is primary documents or text indexed directly. Anything else are simply trees that others have created. And I definitely wouldn't trust that info blindly because users do really get overzealous in trying to trace their lineage. But family search allows you to attach primary documents to all names so you can easily confirm whether that info is valid or not.

Yes, I agree here. The beauty of FamilySearch is that they've done an amazing job archiving and cataloging the primary documents they have. Ancestry does have some good stuff too, but FamilySearch can feel more like an online research library.

I know they do auto-generate some tree information which can be incorrect, but that can largely be ignored or used as hints, etc.

I get the sense that not many people realize just exactly how much stuff they have actually accumulated. It's truly amazing for the areas that I've been looking at which are primarily US, Canada, Britain and Ireland.

I tend to think of it as one of the pillars of online data collections along with things like, archive.org and, say, Google Books. It's incredible the amount of material that is at our fingertips now.

The one biggest missing pieces for me is the staggering number of microfilmed historical newspapers that have yet to be digitized. I know the library of Congress has put a lot on line but there are still 10s of thousands of rolls of microfilm that haven't been processed and I'm not sure if there is any push to do it.

> The one biggest missing pieces for me is the staggering number of microfilmed historical newspapers that have yet to be digitized.

Blackstone just bought the best resource for this, newspapers.com

Costs between $8 and $20/month.

Genealogist was constantly getting upset because someone would see a John Johnson in the same town in roughly the same age bracket and say that's him, make the link and move on without a second thought.

Problem is, our fascination with unique names is very recent. Our forebears were highly unoriginal with names, language barriers (including illiteracy + accents) would sometimes unintentionally see a person get a slightly different name in a new town. She had a guy with three names, and a suspicion that when he disappeared that he didn't die in a ditch, but instead finally changed his name on purpose.

Looking through my mother's research, I found what I thought were first cousins marrying, so I backed away slowly. Genealogist saw this a lot. Just mark it done and don't think about it any more.

After some more time with genealogist I finally looked at it more closely. This guy found himself a wife who was six days younger than his paternal cousin of the same name, from an unrelated family. Apparently nobody in this fucked up little town could figure out how to name their kids. Everyone named a kid after grandma, or married someone with grandma's name, and half of them had a sister named after her. Nine. There were nine women, by birth or marriage, in 3 generations, with the same first name, in the same town. I can't imagine family gatherings.

Ever wonder how you get 'Peggy' from Margaret? I don't anymore. Somewhere there was Grandma Margaret who just wanted to nap in peace and so she nicknamed her granddaughter Peggy so people would stop yelling her name.

>I found what I thought were first cousins marrying, so I backed away slowly.

This was and, to an extent, still is quite normal, so I'm not sure why people have such an issue with it. Genetic issues build up if you keep doing it for generations, but unless the first cousins were raised together there is none of the power imbalances at play. Those who were raised together have an effect kick in so that they see each other as siblings and don't marry.

Even though in your case it didn't happen, it isn't something worth worrying even had it occurred.

If both parents have a recessive gene for a recessive genetic disorder, their offspring will inherit that disorder. That's why people have such an issue with it. It doesn't take multiple generations for this to happen. But I agree that it'll get much worse if it keeps happening, as heterozygous couples will eventually produce these recessive offsprings, who, when mated, will produce children with these disorders.

> If both parents have a recessive gene for a recessive genetic disorder, their offspring will inherit that disorder. That's why people have such an issue with it. It doesn't take multiple generations for this to happen.

But that's only relevant to the immediate offspring. A single generation of outbreeding reduces the level of inbreeding to zero. So if you see a cousin marriage several generations back... so what?

>That's why people have such an issue with it.

I see that as a common claim, but given the lack of similar concern to non related individuals with recessive genetic disorders, even in cases where both parents have it, or in cases where parents have dominant genetic disorders, I find myself seeing this as a more after the fact rationalization than the actual reasoning. And as for the actual increase it risk, it seems quite minor compared to many other behaviors that increase risk which society doesn't frown upon nearly as much (with drinking and drug use being the notable exceptions that are routinely condemned).

> If both parents have a recessive gene for a recessive genetic disorder, their offspring will inherit that disorder.

Nope, if both parents have the gene and neither has the disorder (e.g., both are heterozygous), offspring will get the disorder 1/4 of the time, be a carrier half of the time, and be clear 1/4 of the time.

If both have the disorder, the child will also have the disorder, but that's usually not the concern.

Ah, sorry. I should have said if both parents are homozygous recessive. Good catch.

> If both parents have a recessive gene for a recessive genetic disorder, their offspring will inherit that disorder. That's why people have such an issue with it.

This is simply not accurate. Or rather, it's partially accurate, and it's only part of the story. The increase in risk isn't huge, and the amount it happens effectively leads little to be concerned about.

"Contrary to widely held beliefs and longstanding taboos in America, first cousins can have children together without a great risk of birth defects or genetic disease, scientists are reporting today. They say there is no biological reason to discourage cousins from marrying."

"'In some parts of the world,' the report says, '20 to 60 percent of all marriages are between close biological relatives.'"

"Dr. Motulsky said researchers did not know why marriage between cousins was viewed with such distaste in the United States. He said some of the revulsion might have stemmed from the eugenics movement, which intended to improve the human race by deciding who should be allowed to breed. The movement flourished in this country early in the 20th century." [1]

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-...

"In some parts of the world,' the report says, '20 to 60 percent of all marriages are between close biological relatives."

Probably isolated areas, like small islands or remote settlements in the wilderness where there is not much to choose from.

I've lived a year in such a place and, while there weren't genetic illnesses that I was aware of, I wouldn't use that place as evidence of how inbreeding is innocuous. Let's leave it at that.

> I've lived a year in such a place and, while there weren't genetic illnesses that I was aware of, I wouldn't use that place as evidence of how inbreeding is innocuous. Let's leave it at that.

So you... didn't see any genetic issues, thought that they were sub-par humans, and are blaming inbreeding? That's not a great look on your part.

I suggest we stick to studies and data, and leave it there instead.

Curiousity is killing me, what is this cursed place? I want to form my own opinion.

I brought that up less as an 'eww inmarriage' and more of a "these are not the same people if you are paying attention".

We don't have the people around anymore to corroborate. Just the records. And those are tiny little vistas into the lives of billions of people.

> Ever wonder how you get 'Peggy' from Margaret?

The nickname "Peg" was chosen as a rhyme to the more obvious (also extant) nickname "Meg".

When Ancestry.com was youngish, the genealogy community started pushing back against the quality control problems. It's entirely likely that in the intervening time they mostly succeeded in improving the quality of the data. But she spent a lot of energy on refuting evidence that turned out to be circumstantial.

Collection of some of the posters you were talking about: https://www.deutsche-kinemathek.de/en/collections-archives/d...

Yeah, I went on there a year or two ago, looking for census records for my house and found that they'd listed my grandmother as deceased. The person who made the record found birth/marriage records and presumed she was dead because of her age.

...Is this famed ‘eventual consistency’?

I used research records from the LDS, twenty years ago. I ordered film from Salt Lake City once, too, and waited a month for it. I also used other sources that are not LDS, but long ago. I used Ancestry email listserv at that time.

I believe the parent comment misrepresents what I saw, at that time. Some sources that were "family Bible" sort of records, were marked as such. Authoritative sources, like the microfilm of late 1800's US Census, were also marked for what they were. US Daughters of the American Revolution a bit, too.

The late 90s saw a coalescing of previously disparate sources, and even "high quality" records turned out to have important errors, in some cases. The lower quality was DAR, which was (for me) shown to be inconsistant. I have not looked at these sources in any recent era, so things may have changed with monetization.

Surely there must be a solution to this problem which involves neither privatization of massive amounts of personal data nor vicarious baptism.

The vicarious baptism is going to happen regardless.

You will 1) be dead, so probably not care, and 2) in the unlikely event that you do still care, they believe that you have the opportunity to opt out.

Yup. I very much want the Mormons to posthumously baptize me!

I mean, it will probably do absolutely nothing. But, if it does have an effect, I will be eternally (literally) grateful for their help in the afterlife.

I got your back. I'll be on the lookout for function_seven and take care of it for you!

> I mean, it will probably do absolutely nothing. But, if it does have an effect, I will be eternally (literally) grateful for their help in the afterlife.

This is Pascal's Fallacious Wager, the idea that (as you've instantiated it here) Mormonism is the only religion that might potentially be correct. Either the Mormons are right, or everyone is wrong.

But if you believe the Mormons might be right, you have no way to exclude the possibility that the Mormons are wrong, but somebody else is right. In which case the baptism might cause you eternal harm.

This is close, but not really Pascal's Wager. For one, I do not currently practice any religion. But if I did, I'd have to pick one exclusively, to the detriment of the others. So of course his wager is a weak argument.

But with posthumous baptism, it is someone else doing the thing. And multiple different religions can all claim me as their own. There can be overlap, maybe. (Or maybe not, who knows? We're in angels on the head of a pin territory here)

So, if the Mormons baptizing me causes me eternal harm, then both of the following would be true:

1. They do have supernatural powers after all. (i.e. Mormon rituals have an effect on souls, deities, etc.)

2. But their belief system is wrong.

I guess one can construct a system where both #1 and #2 hold, but I don't see it as being nearly as likely as either one in isolation.

You forgot #3: if posthumous baptism actually caused harm, it would mean that whichever belief system is "right" punishes people for choices outside their own control (i.e., the actions of others).

Even if that's in the realm of possibility, it sounds pretty unreasonable in the context of deciding one's eternal fate.

Wouldn't it be as unlikely that a deity would reward you for the deeds of others?

Oh this is a rabbit hole I don't think we want to climb down.

I know I invited 'unlikely' in but let's not make it too welcome or we'll be here all week, or until dang tells us to knock it off.

Mormonism's belief is not that you will be rewarded because some one posthumously baptized you, but because you accepted that baptism in the after-life. All are rewarded according to their own decisions/desires.

Edit:

Well actually, Mormonism is a Christian faith that teaches that salvation comes in and through Jesus Christ, so it really isn't your actions or their actions- but the actions of Jesus Christ- taken on your behalf, that leads to salvation- if you accept it. But it isn't so much a reward as it is an act of mercy.

That is still rewarding you for the combined effort why wouldn't an infinitely powerful being redeem you himself?

Right, I am sorry, as soon as I hit reply I realized the mistake I made and edited my comment. I was so focused on the baptism thing I wasn't seeing the whole picture :)

I am pleased that it is possible to have so reasonable and pleasant a discussion here even on contentious topic.

Me too :) Theology can be a very fascinating topic when it is discussed in a reasonable and pleasant manner!

Um, I mean, the contention of Mormonism (and Christianity in general) is that He did.

That same being endorsed baptism by undergoing it himself.

This may seem contradictory, but becomes much more tractable if you're open to the idea that "redemption" is just an abstraction, with multiple inputs, some provideable by Providence, some provideable by others, and some provideable only by the subject in question.

The idea that the actions of a stranger can have permanent harmful effects on you is both (1) historically common as applied to supernatural effects, and (2) completely normal in ordinary life.

The very common beliefs that your soul might be damaged by someone mutilating your corpse, or stepping on your grave, aren't noticeably different from the belief that your soul might be damaged by someone anointing your corpse or a representative of your corpse.

The commonality of these beliefs doesn't affect how likely I think they are to be true.

The Principle of the Excluded Middle is something software developers marinate ourselves in. I was going to say, "are familiar with" but we just do it, we don't see it.

"What pendulum swing can we ride on going 'WHEEEEEEE' today?"

He says sarcastically, uncomfortably eyeballing the JAMStack bookmarks he has queued up to read...

What does the principle of the excluded middle have to do with this?

This idea has me curious. What religions believe that the independent actions of others can cause you eternal harm? If I unilaterally declare every person who has ever lived to be adopted into my religion (founded 30 seconds ago), does the religion that a person conscientiously chose for themselves now declare them to be harmed by my action? If so, does a second individual or institution claiming them posthumously add to the harm?

I would be very interested to be educated on such beliefs.

Well - not me personally. I'm already in the system. (The one way to be sure Mormons won't have you baptized after your death: join up beforehand!) I didn't mean to imply that proxy baptism is a bad thing. I just meant it's going to happen regardless of any other data-extraction schemes any other organizations come up with.

I think this is an application where Google could help. Google Ancestry. Archive digitalization like Google Books plus genealogy tree generation (it could build diverging trees and people could help to fix them like in Google Maps)

I’m pretty sure my Dad has worked at the records facility where they are scanning that microfilm for almost 30 years now. He’s not an engineer but he actually helped with their assembly line and designed modifications to the fancy scanners they use. He’s always bragging about the huge amount of bandwidth they have. But last time I heard him talk about it they are still decades away from having all the information scanned and uploaded.

Ancestry.com was founded by BYU grad students and is based in Provo. It couldn’t be more “Mormon”.