I had never heard of Orson Scott Card before today. I tend to only read non-fiction books especially history books. I was talking to a friend today about the Book of Mormon (she has never read it and is not LDS) And as I expliained the book to her she lit up and told me how it reminded her of one of her favorite books, "The Memory of Earth" and told me of the author. I went to the website to learn a little more about the book and read about the author. I wanted to find out if Orson Scott Card was LDS since the story line of his book mirrored the Book of Mormon's events so closely (I told her he just HAD to be LDS based on what she told me about the book) I called B Dalton Book store and order myself a copy of "The Memory of Earth" ...
I just discovered that I am distantly related to Orson Scott Card! Get this, his grandmother Zina Young Card was a daughter of Brigham Young (who is my 6th generation great uncle.) Mary Young was Brigham Young's sister (who is my 6X great grandmother) which makes that Zina Young's aunt and Orson Scott's great, great aunt. so that makes Orson Scott Card my 6th cousin! coolio! Isn't genealogy and family history a cool thing? My dad's side of the family (descendants of the Youngs) are from Utah which is also where Orson Scott Card grew up. Too cool.
Glad to have been introduced to Orson Scott Card's books. I am sure I will enjoy them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
... are you absolutely sure? It seems kinda far fetched, is OSC related to Brigham Young?
Posted by Desiree (Member # 8939) on :
"Born in Richland, Washington, in 1951, he was named "Orson" for his grandfather, Orson Rega Card, who was a son of Charles Ora Card, the founder of the Mormon colony in Cardston, Canada, and Zina Young Card, a daughter of Brigham Young. Orson Rega's childhood was spent in a pioneer household with American Indians as frequent visitors, and the family credits Blackfoot neighbors with saving his life as a baby"
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
And yes, The Memory of Earth (and the rest of the Homecoming Series)is, unapologetically and essentially, a science fiction 're-telling' of the basic Book of Mormon story.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Welcome to hatrack, Desiree! Just curious, what does your name mean?
Posted by Desiree (Member # 8939) on :
Desiree (My middle name) means "desired" my first name, Gina means "a little bird" LOL
Ya know I always thought the stories in the Book of Morman were so awesome that they'd make great movies and books. I can hardly put it doen when I read it! Glad to know someone has found a creative way to recreate history and re-tell it in an inventive way. I am looking forward to reading "the memory of earth" and more books from the series.
Posted by Desiree (Member # 8939) on :
oops, typos: doen = down
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
You can edit your message by clicking the pencil and paper icon right above it, you don't need to make a new thread to point out a typo. Just make sure you don't tick the "Delete Post check box". It's been known to happen by accident on more than one occasion here on hatrack.
Yeah when I first read the BoM, only last year, I chose to read it more as a story so I could get through it quicker and just have the messages and revelations in it seep into my mind subconsciously. That worked though, because now I know the names of the prophets better than anyone else in my age at the ward. And I still love reading it. I understand what you mean by hardly being able to put it down.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It seems kinda far fetched, is OSC related to Brigham Young?
Utah was originally settled by a very small number of individuals, many of whom practiced multiple marriages. A surprisingly huge percentage of "old-school" Mormons, therefore, are related to each other no farther than four generations back.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:A surprisingly huge percentage of "old-school" Mormons, therefore, are related to each other no farther than four generations back.
I'm assuming by 'old-school' you mean Mormons whose ancestors to the nth-generation were Mormons as well. As opposed to meaning 'old-school' in a doctrinal or stylistic sense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm unaware of a meaning for "old-school" that could be applied to doctrine, and I hesitate to suggest that any stylistic generalizations can be made, so yeah. Heck, Mormon or not, a surprising percentage of the populations of Utah and Idaho are related to each other.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
6th cousins? Dude, someone totally owes you a bundle of christmas presents.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: A surprisingly huge percentage of "old-school" Mormons, therefore, are related to each other no farther than four generations back.
Yup. I'm related to both OSC and Desiree as well.
Another reason why so many of us are related is that we keep track of our family history enought to be aware that we are related. For instance, Beverly and I are 9th cousins, twice removed. You have to go back to the early 1700s to find our common ancestor -- John Porter. Most people just aren't that aware of their ancestors.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
You know my aunt had something like this happen. Only it didn't involve a big list of ancestry or anything. She isn't LDS.
This particular instance made me happy I'm not related to her side of the family because, apparently, our present president, Mr. George W. Bush, is a relative. A seventh cousin or some such nonsense.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Interesting question: On average, how many generations back do you think one would have to look to find a common ancestor for ANY randomly selected pair of humans? I suspect that the number would be surprisingly low.
anyway, this in no way diminishes the coolness of being related to OSC, Desiree. It may not be worth much financially, but it's certainly a source of bragging rights!
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:On average, how many generations back do you think one would have to look to find a common ancestor for ANY randomly selected pair of humans?
I seem to remember seeing a documentary on television about that very topic. They were trying to figure out how far back you'd have to go to find an individual who was ancestral to all living humans. I wish I could remember how far back they said it was.
I do remember they were saying that a surprisingly large percentage of Mongolians were actually related to Genghis Khan. He was a powerful guy, and his genes were successful, apparently.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I can't remember the exact number, but in a surprisingly small number of generations back, EVERYBODY is related. Obviously, long separations of certain populations isolate them - but the isolation is over, and now we're all cousins, somehow. For most populations of the world, I think it's as recent as the 10th century, something like that; and for people in relatively homogeneous populations (i.e., "fourth-generation American" "European" "Chinese") it's much, much closer than that.
As for me: I'm actually descended from many prominent Mormons (as most of us "lifers" are - "lifer" as opposed to "convert"): Brigham Young, of course, and Charles Ora Card, but also Willard Richards and his son and grandson who were presidents of the Quorum of the Twelve, Franklin D. Richards (the original FDR) and George F. Richards. Also a schoolteacher who taught Butch Cassidy (who grew up Mormon, by the way), Richard Stephen Horne.
But I'm American, too, of course, and so I'm also descended from John Alden and Priscilla Mullins, as well as several other Mayflower passengers. But that's not really a shock - most Mormon lifers are, since the roots of the Church are really in New England stock - New Englanders who were emigrating out of that poor-soil, overfarmed area into the new western lands early in the 19th century.
But I'm descended from NO Civil War participants ... for the obvious reason that the Mormons had already left the U.S. before the CW started <grin>.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I read an article about that once, and in populations where there's a reasonable amount of inter-marrying (for example, most countries), practically everybody is descended from practically everybody else in just 200 or 300 years.
Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 8929) on :
If you're looking for interesting SF on Genetics and Genetic relation RAH's Time Enough for Love Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There was a fairly fascinating Discover article on genetic markers and Ghengis Khan not too long ago; apparently something like 10% of the population of Central Asia is descended from the same man as recently as eight hundred years ago.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
I've read that just about everyone of European descent is a direct descendant of Charlemagne (as well pretty much any other person around in A.D. 800 whose line is still around).
Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 8929) on :
Irregardless thats pretty bold. Could you cite it?
It holds large implications
1) Charlemagne had a large batch of children 2) That when his line lost they position in power they more than willingly interbreed with Slavs, Angles, Saxons, Moors, Etruscans etc 3) The powerful of the time put forth enough bastards to keep their genetic material into all of Europe. (this is pretty well known)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I come from a long line of peasants. Heck my maternal grandfather's job as a kid was to walk a German princess' dog.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Matt, here are a couple (of many) webpages that discuss the issue:
Supposedly Mohammed & Confucius are somewhere in our bloodlines, too...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Matt Lust -- it doesn't imply that at all if the article that I mentioned earlier is correct, and all europeans are descended from pretty much everybody that was alive back then (and had descendents).
Posted by MrMojoDriver (Member # 8852) on :
a LARGE number of mormons are descedents one way or another of Brigham Young, nothing "special" there.
"I can't remember the exact number, but in a surprisingly small number of generations back, EVERYBODY is related. Obviously, long separations of certain populations isolate them - but the isolation is over, and now we're all cousins, somehow. For most populations of the world, I think it's as recent as the 10th century, something like that; and for people in relatively homogeneous populations (i.e., "fourth-generation American" "European" "Chinese") it's much, much closer than that."
I think you are referring to a study done on Mitochondrial DNA in which researchers found, based on a large number of samples from around the world, about 40,000 years ago (before Christ anyway) there was a severe population drop to as few as 10,000 "humans" and as such we are all much much closer relatives than the researchers would have ever supposed.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
quote: a LARGE number of mormons are descedents one way or another of Brigham Young, nothing "special" there.
Well, poo on you, Mr Fact thruster
Maybe that LARGE number of mormons are ALL special. Ever think of that? Huh?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:If you're looking for interesting SF . . . RAH's Time Enough for Love
::chokes::
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I never really thought about that but it makes sense that New England is where the original stock of Mormonism is from. My own ancestor a certain William Bradford (I am directly descended from him) came over on the mayflower. I believe you were all recently devouring obscene amounts of food courtesy of the holiday he created while governor of Plymouth colony
So I guess none of my ancestors were involved in the civil war either. I don't know whether I should be sad that my ancestors didn't "Preserve the union" so to speak, or happy that none of them had to deal with the hell that was the civil war. Well enough out of me, I am going to watch a war movie.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: I've read that just about everyone of European descent is a direct descendant of Charlemagne (as well pretty much any other person around in A.D. 800 whose line is still around).
I know that my Grandparents have been able to trace a few of their lines back to Charlemagne. However, on my mother's side I have a great grandmother who was gypsy (before being sold off as a wife), so the line there pretty much vanishes.
Posted by MrMojoDriver (Member # 8852) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling:
quote: a LARGE number of mormons are descedents one way or another of Brigham Young, nothing "special" there.
Well, poo on you, Mr Fact thruster
Maybe that LARGE number of mormons are ALL special. Ever think of that? Huh?
sure in that EVERY one of us is special, so are these descendants of B.Y.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Yeah, everybody's special ... and all our children are above average ...
The mitochondrial study is not the one we're basing this on. It's much more recent degrees of genetic drift, partly, and partly it's just sensible mathematics.
It doesn't mean Charlemagne had a large number of descendants. Except for the relatively few lines that die out, having no children of male or female line, EVERYBODY from Charlemagne's time is the ancestor of EVERY European.
The remarkable thing about one study was the idea that all it takes is a single cross-connection before the point of complete intermingling to tie completely separate populations together into the same web of ancestry. ONE American Indian having a baby from ONE European conqueror, whose baby then joins the intermarriabe web, gives all of the population the baby takes part in a shared ancestry with the intruder population (in both directions; intruder being a neutral word in this context). No race remains pure. 800 years or so for complete intermingling is what sticks in my mind. But ... going from memory isn't all that reliable. It might have been 1200, or it might have been only three hundred or so ... I couldn't argue for or against any number.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My Japanese sister-in-law was shocked to discover that because of these things, she almost certainly has Portugese and Dutch ancestry, and is therefore descended from Charlemagne as well.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I thought I read somewhere that DNA science had shown that there is actually only 1 male and 1 female line left in humans, that all the others died out.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm descended from John Taylor, but through a different line descended from Alden/Muellins. So howdy, 'cuz. I've actually been studying with some Jehovah's witnesses for almost 2 years now because they are also descended from John Taylor. The funny thing is they are biracial also, but they are half Japanese and I am half Chinese.
I believe researchers have said that all humans have 1 common ancestor who is female, and 1 who is male. I don't know why this is suprising, though, since I severly doubt there could have been more than one speciation event. I'm familiar with the corral reef type genograph, but it doesn't explain how chromosome level speciation occurs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's sad that families don't keep better track of their family history. I know a lot of the history on my mother's side of the family because of my aunt, who spends a lot of time researching it. But I know almost nothing of my father's side, except that he swears we are directly descendend from Garret Hobart, who was the Vice President to McKinley.
When I'm older I want to trace both my family lines back to the year 1500, though that will be hard, as my mother's side of the family didn't come to Quebec until 1650, and not to America until 1900. I'd have to go to France to get any records from further back. And I don't even know where my father's side is from, England I think.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Heck, Mormon or not, a surprising percentage of the populations of Utah and Idaho are related to each other.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)