forum.christogenea.org

Kentucky wrote:

bahr wrote:Mormonism is such a lie that I wouldn't trust their genealogical "researches" in the first place.

I have an aunt who is one of the foremost genealogist in the Pacific Northwest. If a client can afford it, she sometimes flies to the Royal Archives in England and frequently visits Salt Lake City and most frequently County Records departments.

One of the most intriguing articles on family trees was written years ago by Richard Kelly Hoskins at this link:

http://www.richardhoskins.com/2_hr0197.htm

Mark

Fascinating article Mark, thanks.

That is a GREAT article! Thanks Mark

Yes, thank you Mark, enjoyed this article......

wmfinck wrote:Well, Mormonism is a great lie, no doubt.

But Mormons believe it to the point where they are dead serious about somehow baptizing all of their dead ancestors. I do not know how they do that, and do not want to know, but that is their objective. So they built extraordinary genealogical databases researching their dead relatives back as far as they could get them. From what I have seen, their sources are the standard sources to which a genealogist may turn: church and school and town or county records.

From what I have heard, a lot of the information at ancestry.com actually came from Mormon records.

I have used them on occasion for my own genealogy, and compared them to real hard sources like Family Bibles record, town records, old grave records, etc. I have found most of it to be pretty accurate. But it is best to take all internet genealogy research like a grain of salt, until you find a second witness else where to back it up. Just to many people out there that can write whatever they want. One thing is for sure, the mormons take it very seriously.

Kentucky wrote:

bahr wrote:Mormonism is such a lie that I wouldn't trust their genealogical "researches" in the first place.

I have an aunt who is one of the foremost genealogist in the Pacific Northwest. If a client can afford it, she sometimes flies to the Royal Archives in England and frequently visits Salt Lake City and most frequently County Records departments.

One of the most intriguing articles on family trees was written years ago by Richard Kelly Hoskins at this link:

http://www.richardhoskins.com/2_hr0197.htm

Mark

I always enjoyed this article. Have read it many times!

wmfinck wrote:

Kentucky wrote:http://www.richardhoskins.com/2_hr0197.htm

I liked what I read of Hoskins, years ago. But it is quite disappointing that you cannot read him without paying for it. What a shame.

Mr. Hoskins has years of newsletters. A lot of great information from the ones I have read. I have been meaning to order all of them from him, but he wants $200 for all of them. I wish he had them all online for free, or at least easier availability. I talked to Mr. Hoskins about a week ago concerning his old sermons, and he is going to be sending me his old tapes to transfer them to mp3, so they can be online for free.

SvenLongshanks wrote:. With the inference that she was the mother of Canaan and not the grandmother of Canaan in the Old Testament, I thought there might be more about her somewhere.

I was just having a debate on jewbook with one "Bill Currie" who claims to have been a member here years ago, and is currently a member of the Christogenea facebook page. He is insistent that he read somewhere that Noah had a Kenite servant on the ark by the name of Naamah, and that is who Ham had sex with to produce Canaan, thus explaining why Canaan was cursed and how (supposedly) Christ could identify the Jews as the serpent seedline. Ironically, he freely admitted that he believes that the flood was only localized, so he had to admit that the flood couldn't have utterly destroyed the serpent seedline. I told him that I personally believe in a worldwide flood, and that the account was elucidated from a local viewpoint, but that those semantics did not matter at all. Understanding that Scripture was specific in pointing out that the flood was ONLY to wipe out God's children, is what needed to be focused on. Why would God corrupt the seed that he saved to repopulate the world? The point I'm trying to make about the truth of the curse of Canaan is that he was the product of incest between Ham and Ham's mother, Noah's wife, making her Canaan's mother AND grandmother. To "uncover your father's nakedness" meant to have had sexual relation with your father's wife according to the law as it written: Lev. 20:11