Rootsweb weird? Mormons? Maybe.

[MichaelHarris]

I'm doing my semester paper on Religion and Missionaries: The Loss of Tradition and History for the Anthropologist. One of the sections includes some fairly recent research into Native American DNA, one of the researchers was from BYU. Needless to say the DNA evidence disproved The Book of Mormon's claim that Indians would have DNA that can be traced to Middle-eastern ancestry. The BYU researcher published and was quietly excommunicated.

I also discuss the Book of Mormon and it's claim Quetzalcoatl as evidence to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon tells the story of Christ being resurrected in America shortly after crucifixion, they claim this reincarnation was Quetzalcoatl. Their "proof" is based on Spanish descriptions that in reality describe Hernan Cortes, the white, bearded Spanish explorer famous for conquering the Aztec empire. The only description we have of Quetzalcoatl came from Spanish missionaries driven to convert the conquered. Any story post contact should be considered suspect, no native description exists that depicts Quetzalcoatl with a flowing robe and white skin. In truth, the pre-contact glyphs and steles show the exact opposite, nothing known of Aztec legend implies that he had been a white man in his human form on earth. Pre-contact art depicts either a feathered serpent or a human wearing a mask. Depictions without a mask consist of a black face, sometimes with yellow stripes and a red mouth.

Back to the DNA, while researching some northern Idaho reservations I can across Rootsweb, part of ancestry.com. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~idreserv/ The site has two links to the DNA research, both broken. One attempts to go to the BYU research. Would it be a stretch to consider Rootsweb as being part of the LDS? Will future historians have to sift through faith-altered histories? Will faith-based research hinder future scholars? These are the questions my paper tries to answer. Thoughts?

[sudopod]

1. MOAR nt

[KingFlorez]

2. Rootsweb isn't part of LDS

I use many genealogy resources and Family Search is the Mormon Library's resource. Some Mormon information leaks into other sources, but it's always very accurate from my experience.

[donco6]

3. It's almost impossible NOT to link up to Mormon stuff eventually, tho.

As long as you stick to your standards for verification, I guess it doesn't matter what crazy links they come up with.

[MichaelHarris]

4. I agree

I find it odd that the DNA links are now disabled AFTER the results came back disproving that part of the Book of Mormon.

[kestrel91316]

5. I was under the impression that the LDS church owned Ancestry.com,

and that Rootsweb was part of the stuff that came with it. I don't know where I got the idea, maybe I just assumed it?

[MichaelHarris]

7. it would

definitely answer the question as to why the DNA links are now dead. If you don't like the history change it, if you don't like the lab results suppress if.

[Bitwit1234]

6. Rootsweb is owned by Ancestry.com

AND Ancestry.com is part of LDS> For the present Rootsweb is still free. Ancestry is for pay. If you want information about DNA a good site is
www.familytreedna.com. They have a lot of information about YDNA and mtDNA. And the site is free. If you want to go into the DNA part you have to have a password and kit number. Kit number is for people who are connected to or took a DNA test. They have several sites connected to DNA but there again you have to have a password to get in. The site itself is free. On Ysearch you can search by last name. I don't know if you need a password or not. But you can get a password.

[MichaelHarris]

9. It's becoming the church of

If you don't like the history change it, if you don't like the lab results suppress if.

[kestrel91316]

14. Becoming???? ROFLMAO. The LDS church has ALWAYS been about

an alternate version of history. Joe Smith completely fabricated the whole thing, the story of how he came by the plates, and the text of the Book of Mormon itself. It's fiction, and BAD fiction at that.

Read Fawn Brodie's book No Man Knows My History. You will never look at the LDS church in the same way.

[MichaelHarris]

15. LOL

I was trying to be sensitive, I don't think I will try anymore, LDS is just that crazy. Thanks for the book tip also, I'm sure I can use it, hope it's on Kindle so I can get it now.

[drm604]

8. Whois info for ancestry.com

http://whois.domaintools.com/ancestry.com

Domain Name: ANCESTRY.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
The Generations Network, Inc.
360 W. 4800 N.
Provo, UT 84604
US
801-705-7000 fax: [phone]

The UT address is interesting though hardly conclusive. Anyone know anything about "The Generations Network"?

[MichaelHarris]

11. I really feel for the future

historians and researchers, they will have to wade though swamps of misinformation. I've only scratched the surface. Maybe this is the "master-plan" flood the archives with false information. If you create enough false data, the truth becomes harder to find.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. What I do know is that you can't trust any genealogical data without

verifying it yourself. A lot of people will just take someone else's data and include it in their own family tree, without any attempt to look at census records, parish registers, wills, or, more recently, birth and death certificates, to see if they line up with the claims of descent. I think the LDS records emphasize quantity over quality. They're looking for ancestors they can baptize as Mormons by proxy so the more the merrier, even if some aren't really related to them at all.

[MichaelHarris]

12. the importance here

is the suppression of the DNA evidence. They excommunicated one of their own over it. I do not know if he still teaches at BYU, I would be surprised if he did.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. It fits with the general sloppiness. It's not

just Mormons who are careless, of course. I have seen info that I put on Rootsweb incorporated into someone's family tree with no evidence of a connection and with mistakes in the data, which I have from primary sources. It's frustrating. I think I'm going to quit working on genealogy, be happy I have one line back to the 1500s, let the brick walls stand, though I'd like to know more about my other lines.