X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.3 5/22/91)
Newsgroups: soc.roots
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:06:53 MST
Reply-To:     Bob Wier <rrw@SUNSET.CSE.NAU.EDU>
From:         Bob Wier <rrw@SUNSET.CSE.NAU.EDU>
Subject:      "Proper Genealogy"
Comments: To: ROOTS-L@VM1.NoDak.EDU

This is a subject I've been wrestleing with for some time.  My interest
in genealogy originally came from my being executor of my folk's estate.
It turned out that back in my grandfather's time (20's) he had bought
some oil property in Texas.  Down through the years it had been divided
and divided again.  Some divisions were clear since they were done thru
wills and some were not for my relatives who died intestate.  Particularly
troublesome were two of my aunts who were twin girls, both schoolteachers
who never married.  Both died intestate.

Anyway, it fell to me to try to decipher who was who amoung the relatives
and to GET THEM TO AGREE who owned what percentages of the property
coming down from grandfather's time.  It finally turned up that there
were 13 heirs (of which I am one).  It took about 1.5 years to go back
through all the records and clearly understand the cousins, half cousins,
etc.

Mostly I've been researching my direct paternal line, mostly because
it's easiest and having the same name I strongly identify with it. However,
I find that in a number of cases my paternal ancestor lost one parent
and the other parent remarried, bringing in "half" relatives - who
are 1/2 genetically linked.

I myself am not overly concerned about the directness of lines, though,
since probably the major part of my interest in genealogy is how "the
family" relates to history.  That's one of the nice things about
genealogical research.  You can be interested from a number of standpoints.
Some people like to play detective.  Some people like to solved puzzles.
Some people like to look for famous (or infamous - I'd love to discover
a hanged horse theif in my background!) ancestors.  Some people (like me
) like to look at their "personal" history played against the background
of very large events (I have my own version of "Gone with the Wind"
with my g-grandfather, one of the signers of the ordanace of secession
which took Texas out of the Union at the beginning of the war - and
was killed in the Red River Campaign in 1864 in Louisiana).

One interesting thing which bears on this topic is that I picked up a
2 volume set of Genealogy research handbooks published by the LDS
in the mid 50's.  This was a time when there was a great deal of
genealogical activity trying to tie persons into a relationship with
American Revolutionary War ancestors (and generated the somewhat
tarnished view of genealogy as a DAR exercise with fradulant
pedigrees, etc).  Since in the LDS, genealogy is a theological
issue, the question of adopted children was being debated hotly.
The particular author of these books argued that great care had to
be exercised in establishing true relationships (what we would call
today proper research techniques and primary source documentation)
in order to avoid sealing a deceased individual to the wrong family.
This author then also made a strong case that adopted children, although
not perhaps blood-line related were still a valid part of the family
unit, and thus should be sealed to those parents rather than (or perhaps
in addition to) the biological parents (especially in cases where the
biological parents were not known).

Not being a member of the LDS, I'm not in a position to say what the
current view on this might be.  I know some LDS members do check in
here, and I'd be curious to know the situation if they'd care to post.

THANKS!

- Bob Wier

  ---------- insert favorite standard disclaimers here ----------
                   College of Engineering
      Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff Arizona
  Internet: rrw@naucse.cse.nau.edu | WB5KXH | fax:602 523 2300