hfojvt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-28-06 04:11 PM
Original message |
| fun with my mormon relations |
|
I recently made a couple of discoveries that were kinda cool. First, that I am related to Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons. I am not sure if that is good or bad - if mormonism has been a positive force in the world or not.
But it definitely is a positive force for genealogy. :bounce:
Also, in the same branch, I finally found some distant relatives in my hometown. Ironically enough, one person that I found in that regard was one of my younger sister's first boyfriends. It would have been cool if I could have known that when they were dating. Of course, as 8th cousins it would not have been incestuous if they had married.
What I just found in the censuses struck me as so hilarious that I had to run right over here and share it. Looking at Don Carlos Smith in the 1910 census his 3rd son was listed, pretty clearly, as "Esses". I thought that just must be an odd name from the Book of Mormon or something. Then I checked the 1900 census, where he was listed as "Spencer S" :rofl:
|
Cybergata
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-29-06 12:31 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Most people don't even know who is their 8th cousin. |
|
There was a time that it was hard to marry a person who didn't have at least one shared ancestor, even if it was a GGG grandparent. If it is anything from 5th or 6th cousin on, I don't think it would be consider incestuous, at least according to the Catholic church.
|
Spider Jerusalem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-02-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
at least in the context of the Catholic Church, marriages within the fourth degree of consanguinity (third cousins and closer) required an episcopal dispensation; those outside this degree of relationship didn't--my great-grandmother's sister married her third cousin once removed (related in the fifth degree) without a dispensation. (Not sure whether this has changed since Vatican II.)
|
hfojvt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-04-06 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. I have misplaced my chart |
|
but one of the problems with that is the multiple connections. I have an ancestral couple which has 3 connections 3.1,3.1, and 4.1. If you add those up their connection to each other is closer than 2nd cousin once removed. Another problem might be that people are so dispersed that they have very little idea who their 3rd cousins are. I just talked to a 3rd cousin today who seemed unaware of her great grandfather's name even though her mother was still alive and even though she has a first cousin who is named after him. That's not unusual.
|
Spider Jerusalem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-04-06 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 4. Yes, but there aren't always those multiple connections... |
|
and anyway Protestants (and probably Mormons) don't have the same rules on consanguinous marriages that Catholics do.
|
kestrel91316
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-17-06 10:37 PM
Response to Original message |
| 5. I recently found out my parents were 10th cousins.......lol! |
|
With my dad's side Mormon, and a great genealogy researcher on my mom's side, it still took me putting things together to figure it out............
Those 18th century New England roots are tangled like spaghetti.
|
Cybergata
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-01-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 6. I expect most people are atleast their own 11th cousin! |
|
Anyway, 10th cousins isn't a big deal at all. I'm my own 5th and 6th cousin. Those #%$ Luceros. Most of my Hispanic ancestors followed by church law to be at least 5 times removed to get married. Of course, if you afford to do penance and deliver a few hundred adobe bricks to the local church, you could get away with marrying your 2nd cousin.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Dec 23rd 2025, 04:25 AM
Response to Original message |