Are Mormons "super mad" about this?

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your family must have very long lives.  

There are many many greats in front of those terms, but I was being lazy.   

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, thanks bluebell. You're much more knowledgeable than I on this and other matters. I shouldn't have said worthless, sometimes I exaggerate. Good to know that my great grandmother could still be part Cherokee. She is from Kentucky, and all. She is why I'm born in the covenant I believe. She had an illegitimate child in Kentucky with a high ranking colonel there. But she happened to have met the LDS missionaries and listened to their singing/teachings and she felt the spirit strong that she should join the church. Well, the father of my grandmother wouldn't join. And my great grandmother wanted to come to Utah and leave him and rode the train with her little 3 year old daughter, my grandma, to Fayette Utah!  She had long black hair and dark brown eyes, and the high cheek bones. Good to know that she still could be Cherokee even though me, her great grand daughter doesn't. I'll let my daughter know, since she had her DNA done and it showed the same thing, so she'll be happy to know that!

I hope I didn't sound like I was arguing with you about the services worth.  I was sincerely wondering why you saw it as worthless.  I don't have a lot of opinion about it myself.

I've heard that they update the findings of everyone has they get more DNA samples in and the data gets better, so maybe cherokee will show up on yours somewhere in the future!

(That's a really cool story about your great grandmother).

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I hope I didn't sound like I was arguing with you about the services worth.  I was sincerely wondering why you saw it as worthless.  I don't have a lot of opinion about it myself.

I've heard that they update the findings of everyone has they get more DNA samples in and the data gets better, so maybe cherokee will show up on yours somewhere in the future!

(That's a really cool story about your great grandmother).

Not at all, I didn't think you were arguing. I think I know you by now to know that.  Thanks! ❤️

[LoudmouthMormon]

In Elder's quorum one week, we all downloaded various Family Tree apps and were learning about the cool genealogy things. There was a "who am I related to that's close by" function, and half of us were distantly related somehow.  (Like, 4th cousins thrice removed, and whatnot.)

Our Jewish convert elder whose family had escaped Ukraine during WWII had absolutely nothing in common with any of us, genealogically speaking.  He was the only one in the room without some sort of connection.   We cracked a few jokes about being adopted into the Abrahamic covenant, and went on with the lesson. 

Just about all of us had Native American blood in our veins.  I'm told it's incredibly common for Americans who have lived in America for 3-4 generations.  Looks like Pocahontas is my 1st cousin eleven times removed.  

 

 

Edited August 26, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I thought the church bought it and that’s why all the members can use it for free. But I’ve never looked into it.

Ancestry has a long-standing agreement with the Church for a free membership -- and I'd not be surprised if the Church paid ancestry a large annual fee for the privilege, owned a chunk of Ancestry, or both. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

if ancestry.com has no connection to the church, why does this guy think that all the Mormons are mad??

Because he's ignorant. And putting out clickbait. Outrageous topics about Mormons are always good for clickbait. I've watched his videos from time to time, and sometimes he has interesting and possibly insightful things to say. And other times he's a twit. This particular twit video caught my attention (obviously), and I wanted to get reactions here. Or I may be clickbaiting.

 

[Stargazer]

27 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

In Elder's quorum one week, we all downloaded various Family Tree apps and were learning about the cool genealogy things. There was a "who am I related to that's close by" function, and half of us were distantly related somehow.  (Like, 4th cousins thrice removed, and whatnot.)

We did that in Elders quorum too a few years ago, and it turned out our bishop and I were 9th cousins, despite me being American and him being Scottish.

27 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Our Jewish convert elder whose family had escaped Ukraine during WWII had absolutely nothing in common with any of us, genealogically speaking.  He was the only one in the room without some sort of connection.   We cracked a few jokes about being adopted into the Abrahamic covenant, and went on with the lesson. 

If you log in to https://www.relativefinder.org/ with your FamilySearch account you can get a really nice list of famous people you're related to. I do have quite a list, including King Charles III, who is my 14th cousin 3 times removed. My closest famous relative is former POTUS and SCOTUS justice William Howard Taft, to whom I am 2nd cousin 4 times removed. My wife is disappointed that she isn't related to anyone.

27 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Just about all of us had Native American blood in our veins.  I'm told it's incredibly common for Americans who have lived in America for 3-4 generations.  Looks like Pocahontas is my 1st cousin eleven times removed.  

Pocahontas is my 11th great grandmother. Supposedly.

But I have a closer relationship to Native Americans than that. My great great grandmother is full-blood Maidu Concow. That's a Northern California tribe that lived around Butte County. But I knew that when I was kid, because my non-member Dad was a genealogy enthusiast. He actually looked Native American, but my mother was full-blood German, so I look pretty average European.

ETA: I am also related to all 17 presidents of the church. They are all cousins of mine, in various degrees, the closest being George Albert Smith, my 6th cousin 2 times removed.

Edited August 26, 2024 by Stargazer

[Malc]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

We did that in Elders quorum too a few years ago, and it turned out our bishop and I were 9th cousins, despite me being American and him being Scottish.

...

So, if you have a cousin who is Scottish, you can't be all bad 🙃 

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Just about all of us had Native American blood in our veins.  I'm told it's incredibly common for Americans who have lived in America for 3-4 generations.  Looks like Pocahontas is my 1st cousin eleven times removed.  

Pocahontas is my 11th great grandmother. Supposedly.

Yep.  Pocahontas is 11th great grandmother to an astonishingly large number of Americans.   Visualizing it helps me.  This is my link to Pocahontas.  The line travels through Patrick Henry (Of "give me liberty or give me death" fame):

 

[blackstrap]

My siblings and I are adopted from different families, so technically I'm not even related to the people I'm related to.🥴

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’ve also read that it’s completely possible for your grandmother, for example, to have Cherokee DNA, but for you not to get any.  It turns out that DNA isn’t a 50-50 thing when it comes to inheriting stuff from our parents.

My post here  is pedantic especially because I may be misreading your second statement. Women get exactly 50 percent of their dna from each parent. Men get slightly more from their mothers due to the size difference in the XY chromosome pair. 
 

Your main point is spot on though. Siblings typically share between 40 and 60ish percent of their DNA due to random recombination. Likewise it’s possible to get much more of one grandparents dna than the other. And it’s definitely possible to lose specific ancestral dna markers after several generations. 

Edited August 27, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

The idea that someone can “own” your DNA is a conspiracy theory thing. Basically that people will use this one weird trick to enslave all of humanity.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is pedantic especially because I may be misreading your second statement. Women get exactly 50 percent of their dna from each parent. Men get slightly more from their mothers due to the size difference in the XY chromosome pair. 
 

Your main point is spot on though. Siblings typically share between 40 and 60ish percent of their DNA due to random recombination. Likewise it’s possible to get much more of one grandparents dna than the other. And it’s definitely possible to lose specific ancestral dna markers after several generations. 

I explained myself poorly.  I do know that we get pretty much 50% of our DNA from each parent.  What I was trying to say is that, the genes we get from each one can be really varied.  We might get 60% of our mother's irish genes and 40% of our father's german genes rather than the 50/50 that most people think of when they think of gene inheritance.

You hear people say that they are a quarter Italian, for example, because they believe that their mother was 50% Italian and that since they get half of their DNA from her, that makes 25%.  But like you said, genes don't really work that way.  They get 50% from their mom, but maybe only 10% of those are her Irish genes.

Hopefully that makes more sense.  

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that someone can “own” your DNA is a conspiracy theory thing. Basically that people will use this one weird trick to enslave all of humanity.

I haven't heard that one yet.  Mostly people seem to be concerned about law enforcement using DNA and lack of DNA privacy laws.

[Calm]

For those who don’t want to watch the video, upgraded click bait

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blackstone-private-equity-ancestry-com-dna/#

Edited August 27, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I haven't heard that one yet.  Mostly people seem to be concerned about law enforcement using DNA and lack of DNA privacy laws.

That is a much saner take. There are also discussions to be had about people using your DNA data without consent and the like.

When someone is ranting incoherently I assume they think that a group of Jewish bankers or the Illuminati is going to own their DNA and own them.

 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is a much saner take. There are also discussions to be had about people using your DNA data without consent and the like.

I can see using the DNA data without your consent. Like using it to advertise to you. "Oh this person has the diabetic gene. Let's send weightloss ads featuring losing weight so you don't get diabetes." But I think you might be talking about something else?

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

When someone is ranting incoherently I assume they think that a group of Jewish bankers or the Illuminati is going to own their DNA and own them.

 

 

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

I can see using the DNA data without your consent. Like using it to advertise to you. "Oh this person has the diabetic gene. Let's send weightloss ads featuring losing weight so you don't get diabetes." But I think you might be talking about something else?

 

There are also some insurances which won’t cover you if you have genetic dispositions to certain illnesses or diseases. This kind of genetic information could theoretically be used by such companies to deny coverage.

[Rain]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are also some insurances which won’t cover you if you have genetic dispositions to certain illnesses or diseases. This kind of genetic information could theoretically be used by such companies to deny coverage.

Yes, this is the main reason I haven't done it. Not that I'm really worried about it, just that I am unsure of laws that may or may not have been laid down yet to prevent that. We already have questions about health to determine eligibility or rates with life insurance so I don't see this that different for it and health insurance. I just got the impression Nehor was talking about something more.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is a much saner take. There are also discussions to be had about people using your DNA data without consent and the like.

When someone is ranting incoherently I assume they think that a group of Jewish bankers or the Illuminati is going to own their DNA and own them.

 

And then there are fingerprints. My service in the Army with my secret security clearance and law enforcement employment, my prints are all too available. I don't dare do anything wrong without wearing gloves. Oh, yes, and my British citizenship application also puts my prints over here. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

And then there are fingerprints. My service in the Army with my secret security clearance and law enforcement employment, my prints are all too available. I don't dare do anything wrong without wearing gloves. Oh, yes, and my British citizenship application also puts my prints over here. 

Fingerprints at least limit searches to you.  DNA, you have to worry about your family members too.