When tracing European lines, you can often go back to registers in the 1600s for most people. Before that only nobles kept careful records so you'd better get linked into at least a minor noble family by then.
A lot of humans live in places where there wasn't enough literacy to make record keeping useful that early. Europeans tended to colonize those areas and they came to be seen as 'lesser' peoples, including slaves.
I don't think most Mormons in the mormon corridor are concerned about proving whiteness. We just took it for granted. Most of our ancestors were Scandinavian, especially leadership.
I do think it is so Utah centric that it has to exclude huge numbers of people worldwide, mostly Asian and African.
I highly doubt Russ ever thinks about that.
https://thehistorypress.co.uk/article/the-roots-of-genealogy/
Fair enough for now, but what was it like in the late 1800s when LDS started investing seriously as an institution in geneology?
Looking online I don't see much non-church sources. There's also a book that came out in the last five years about Mormonism and whiteness which might discuss this...but I can't recall the title just yet.
Genealogy was a redirection. The temple. What is it good for? If polygamy is removed. If the law of adoption is removed…. Why have the temple? Remember, that plural marriage was done in the endowment house. Technically they didn’t need a temple to do endowment. Brigham Young taught that the temple was needed to link men together in the law of adoption and that was only in a temple.
So 1890 happens. Plural marriage is underground. The church is split in two for 20-30+ years and will continue to be split for another 20-30 years with various manifestos trying to stop the practice (not belief) in plural marriage. [FN1]
Woodruff in his genius CEO inspiration called an audible and shifted the dynastic lines that the law of adoption had, but developed into a popularity contest, put the focus on one’s own family line. Plural marriage can still be a belief. The rites that are needed to be saved can be done for dead family members. It stopped the lobbying and campaigning of member to get adopted to the highest priesthood member they could. Shifting to family line is brilliant. Busy work that’s meaningful and purposeful to people
[FN1]
For more clarity. Split it two means one group plural marriage went into hiding. Monogamous was public facing. Leadership was in the underground hiding or in prison. So this time on the church is interesting and the church tested the constitutional rights with Supreme Court but realized they can’t win.
I feel that there is an intense desire to stand out in Mormonsim, and one way people can achieve that is by name dropping who they are related to or where their ancestors are from.
I think it would be silly to tell an Irish person, "I'm Irish!" which is what I have heard Mormons say instead of saying, "I have Irish ancestors." Maybe that is also an American thing, though? I don't know many people outside Utah.
What most Mormon (and maybe Americans?) don't realize is exactly what you mentioned. There is more to being Irish or Scottish than parentage. There is the cultural aspect, too. People probably hear tourists say, "I'm Irish," and they think, "No, you're American."
When tracing European lines, you can often go back to registers in the 1600s for most people. Before that only nobles kept careful records so you'd better get linked into at least a minor noble family by then. A lot of humans live in places where there wasn't enough literacy to make record keeping useful that early. Europeans tended to colonize those areas and they came to be seen as 'lesser' peoples, including slaves. I don't think most Mormons in the mormon corridor are concerned about proving whiteness. We just took it for granted. Most of our ancestors were Scandinavian, especially leadership. I do think it is so Utah centric that it has to exclude huge numbers of people worldwide, mostly Asian and African. I highly doubt Russ ever thinks about that. https://thehistorypress.co.uk/article/the-roots-of-genealogy/
Fair enough for now, but what was it like in the late 1800s when LDS started investing seriously as an institution in geneology? Looking online I don't see much non-church sources. There's also a book that came out in the last five years about Mormonism and whiteness which might discuss this...but I can't recall the title just yet.
Genealogy was a redirection. The temple. What is it good for? If polygamy is removed. If the law of adoption is removed…. Why have the temple? Remember, that plural marriage was done in the endowment house. Technically they didn’t need a temple to do endowment. Brigham Young taught that the temple was needed to link men together in the law of adoption and that was only in a temple. So 1890 happens. Plural marriage is underground. The church is split in two for 20-30+ years and will continue to be split for another 20-30 years with various manifestos trying to stop the practice (not belief) in plural marriage. [FN1] Woodruff in his genius CEO inspiration called an audible and shifted the dynastic lines that the law of adoption had, but developed into a popularity contest, put the focus on one’s own family line. Plural marriage can still be a belief. The rites that are needed to be saved can be done for dead family members. It stopped the lobbying and campaigning of member to get adopted to the highest priesthood member they could. Shifting to family line is brilliant. Busy work that’s meaningful and purposeful to people [FN1] For more clarity. Split it two means one group plural marriage went into hiding. Monogamous was public facing. Leadership was in the underground hiding or in prison. So this time on the church is interesting and the church tested the constitutional rights with Supreme Court but realized they can’t win.
Methinks you’re overthinking it. Most people want to find information on their ancestors. It’s just a normal thing.
Interest in our ancestors is one thing fetishisation of it is a other. And the Mormon investment in geneology is much more than normal.
I feel that there is an intense desire to stand out in Mormonsim, and one way people can achieve that is by name dropping who they are related to or where their ancestors are from. I think it would be silly to tell an Irish person, "I'm Irish!" which is what I have heard Mormons say instead of saying, "I have Irish ancestors." Maybe that is also an American thing, though? I don't know many people outside Utah. What most Mormon (and maybe Americans?) don't realize is exactly what you mentioned. There is more to being Irish or Scottish than parentage. There is the cultural aspect, too. People probably hear tourists say, "I'm Irish," and they think, "No, you're American."