How could transitional Anabaptists stop being that way?

[HondurasKeiser]

I think the larger point (or my larger point) is that all 1st cousin marriages are bad from the point of view of genetic diversity and avoiding recessive genetic disorders. Parallel cousin pairings are slightly more risky due to the greater chance of inheriting X-chromosome recessive disorders. But all 1st cousin pairings carry increased genetic risks whether they are parallel cousin or cross cousin pairings.

In addition, when 1st cousin pairings are repeated generation after generation genetic diversity is further narrowed which makes future 2nd or 3rd cousin marriages within that group more risky as well and more the equivalent of 1st cousin marriages.

Your challenge with this statement is that first-cousin marriage is actually the norm for most of human society, and around most of the globe as well (although various taboos exist, such as what Neto has documented in Banawha society). The odd culture out is Western Europeans, who banned any kind of cousin marriage, even 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, because the Catholic Church elected to do so.

So, for whatever reason, cousin marriages actually are more "fit" (Western Europeans are showing rather poor fitness in the sense their population is declining and non-Western European peoples' populations are growing). If present trends continue, eventually everyone will be part of a cousin-marriage society. The few Western European groups that have rapidly growing populations practice cousin marriage (namely Hasidic Jews and Swartzentruber Amish).

This reminds me of a long-form essay by (I think) Scott Alexander of slate star codex/astral codex ten. Very interesting in that he explored the historical reasons for Western Europe banning 1st Cousin marriage and the consequences there of. If I can find it I’ll post a link.

It’s actually Richard Hanania reviewing a book called “The WEIRDest People”, where the thesis that banning cousin marriage made Western Europe what it is today, comes from.
Here’s the essay: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/how-mo ... email=true

[Marylander]

In the valley, you have:
Progressive Mennonites
- At least 1 church part of MC-USA. This and a few other churches affiliated with other MC conferences in the 1940s and 1950s before the W-F split. The other churches are now LMC.

Evangelical Mennonites
- 2 Rosedale Network churches. Forced out in the 1960s by conservatives and left Franklin Conference because they were too slow to leave MC-USA.
- At least 8 LMC Mennonite churches originally W-F. These churches were forced out in the 1960s because the conservatives had the majority.

Conservative Mennonite (majority of members originate from original W-F Conference in the last 60 years.)
- At least 11 Washington-Franklin
- 2 EPMC (former W-F originating before and after split)
- 1 Nationwide Fellowship - a split off an Eastern congregation I believe
- Pilgrim - founded by former Eastern members; now majority former W-F
- Northeast - mostly ex-Eastern and W-F
- 7 Cumberland Valley churches - split off Franklin Conference several years after W-F split
- 4 Shippensburg Fellowship and affiliates - founding members from Cumberland Valley
- City Light Christian Fellowship (founded by ex-WF, similar to Shippensburg Fellowship?)
- Mid-Atlantic church - split off Franklin Conference in late 1970s
- a small moderate conservative church split off the Mid-Atlantic church
- a BMA church split off Mid-Atlantic church
- a small independent BMA-like church that split off a Cumberland Valley church
- a small moderate conservative church that split off a Cumberland Valley church
- BMA church - founding members from Cumberland Valley

That's the general idea. I'm sure I don't have everything right. The origin stories for many of the Conservative Mennonite groups is a bit more complicated. Many conservative Mennonites without origins in W-F moved to the area.

It is painfully obvious that W/F churches that are still very plain/conservative are indeed the origin of the majority of the rest of the conservative groups. The rest of the conservative groups seem to have no insight about this: they never stop to consider that perhaps they should embrace the positive values of W/F instead of simply being transitional groups, even as they are busy denouncing people less conservative than they are.

I would, for example, be willing to point the finger at City Light in that list: never before have I encountered a group of people with cultural barriers so thick to outsiders, yet with almost no awareness that such barriers exist. (For example, they all seem to speak with a distinct accent. Perhaps W/F people have their own accent?) Nearly every person is from a W/F background. So why have they chosen to disaffiliate from W/F? What future does the group hold? Unfortunately, we can almost reliably predict based on past experience with... every other group that has gone in this direction.

I was not aware there was this much variety in the Cumberland Valley. Which congregations are Rosedale? I will have to look up Rosedale on Gameo.

[cooper]

I was not aware there was this much variety in the Cumberland Valley. Which congregations are Rosedale? I will have to look up Rosedale on Gameo.

Chambersburg Mennonite Church and Pond Bank Community Church.

[Marylander]

I was not aware there was this much variety in the Cumberland Valley. Which congregations are Rosedale? I will have to look up Rosedale on Gameo.

Chambersburg Mennonite Church and Pond Bank Community Church.

TY

[temporal1]

Your challenge with this statement is that first-cousin marriage is actually the norm for most of human society, and around most of the globe as well (although various taboos exist, such as what Neto has documented in Banawha society).

The odd culture out is Western Europeans, who banned any kind of cousin marriage, even 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, because the Catholic Church elected to do so.

So, for whatever reason, cousin marriages actually are more "fit" (Western Europeans are showing rather poor fitness in the sense their population is declining and non-Western European peoples' populations are growing). If present trends continue, eventually everyone will be part of a cousin-marriage society. The few Western European groups that have rapidly growing populations practice cousin marriage (namely Hasidic Jews and Swartzentruber Amish).

This reminds me of a long-form essay by (I think) Scott Alexander of slate star codex/astral codex ten. Very interesting in that he explored the historical reasons for Western Europe banning 1st Cousin marriage and the consequences there of. If I can find it I’ll post a link.

It’s actually Richard Hanania reviewing a book called “The WEIRDest People”, where the thesis that banning cousin marriage made Western Europe what it is today, comes from.
Here’s the essay: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/how-mo ... email=true

Fascinating essay. You find the most interesting reads.
As i read, i kept thinking, Richard Hanania must be a cousin to this forum’s Franklin.

i was just reading a bit of local (conservative) Quaker history that described some “acceptable marriage” challenges they had. Altho once a thriving group, all that remains is their meeting house on the prairie.

i respect caution.
On earth, outward appearances may seem as tho things are set and will last .. when, in truth, so much comes+goes, and is quickly forgotten. People love to say, variations of, “we’ll never forget,” but “we” do forget. Often, quickly.




Friends Meeting House stands as a reminder of Bentown’s Quaker past
https://pantagraph.com/special-section/ ... 963f4.html

https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=157153

.. Some of Benjaminville’s structures were placed on skids and moved to one of the new depot and grain elevator towns.
For a while at least, the hamlet’s decline didn’t adversely impact Quaker life, since most Friends were farmers and not shopkeepers or townsfolk.

Yet in the end, this community proved too small to be self-sustaining, given the passing of the stout pioneer generation,
as well as the increase in mixed (denominationally speaking) marriages and the inevitable removal of Friends to other locales. ..

It’s important to use caution when “ya go tamperin’” with others’ ways of life.
Life on earth is fragile, at best. Only 1 God. Creator of all.

[HondurasKeiser]

This reminds me of a long-form essay by (I think) Scott Alexander of slate star codex/astral codex ten. Very interesting in that he explored the historical reasons for Western Europe banning 1st Cousin marriage and the consequences there of. If I can find it I’ll post a link.

It’s actually Richard Hanania reviewing a book called “The WEIRDest People”, where the thesis that banning cousin marriage made Western Europe what it is today, comes from.
Here’s the essay: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/how-mo ... email=true

Fascinating essay. You find the most interesting reads.
As i read, i kept thinking, Richard Hanania must be a cousin to this forum’s Franklin.

i was just reading a bit of local (conservative) Quaker history that described some “acceptable marriage” challenges they had. Altho once a thriving group, all that remains is their meeting house on the prairie.

i respect caution.
On earth, outward appearances may seem as tho things are set and will last .. when, in truth, so much comes+goes, and is quickly forgotten. People love to say, variations of, “we’ll never forget,” but “we” do forget. Often, quickly.




Friends Meeting House stands as a reminder of Bentown’s Quaker past
https://pantagraph.com/special-section/ ... 963f4.html

https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=157153

.. Some of Benjaminville’s structures were placed on skids and moved to one of the new depot and grain elevator towns.
For a while at least, the hamlet’s decline didn’t adversely impact Quaker life, since most Friends were farmers and not shopkeepers or townsfolk.

Yet in the end, this community proved too small to be self-sustaining, given the passing of the stout pioneer generation,
as well as the increase in mixed (denominationally speaking) marriages and the inevitable removal of Friends to other locales. ..

It’s important to use caution when “ya go tamperin’” with others’ ways of life.
Life on earth is fragile, at best. Only 1 God. Creator of all.

Spot on with your connection between Hanania and Franklin.

[mike]

It is painfully obvious that W/F churches that are still very plain/conservative are indeed the origin of the majority of the rest of the conservative groups.

My wife is from the valley. I don't think this is quite right. Rather I would say that the W/F churches of today share common roots with many of the other conservative groups. The large exodus of W/F members into other groups is, I think, a pretty recent phenomenon. For example the Pilgrim church in the valley, as cooper noted, would have been majority ex-Eastern (or possibly simply Pilgrim transplants) until more recently when they got a large influx of W/F members.

The Cumberland Valley churches (Strasburg, Rowe, etc.) that split from the W/F conference might have a few W/F people join recently but not as many. Again I wouldn't say that their origins are from the W/F churches of today, but that they share common roots with them. The W/F churches have moved to be more conservative since the days prior to that split, while the CV churches remained much as they were back then. That's my understanding anyway.

[Josh]

It is painfully obvious that W/F churches that are still very plain/conservative are indeed the origin of the majority of the rest of the conservative groups.

My wife is from the valley. I don't think this is quite right. Rather I would say that the W/F churches of today share common roots with many of the other conservative groups. The large exodus of W/F members into other groups is, I think, a pretty recent phenomenon. For example the Pilgrim church in the valley, as cooper noted, would have been majority ex-Eastern (or possibly simply Pilgrim transplants) until more recently when they got a large influx of W/F members.

I should have been more specific. They are the source for most recent (last 20 years) growth.

The Cumberland Valley churches (Strasburg, Rowe, etc.) that split from the W/F conference might have a few W/F people join recently but not as many. Again I wouldn't say that their origins are from the W/F churches of today, but that they share common roots with them. The W/F churches have moved to be more conservative since the days prior to that split, while the CV churches remained much as they were back then. That's my understanding anyway.

At issue with your analysis is that the CV churches continue to move in a more assimilated direction (as moderate conservatives always do).

About 9 years ago, a girl who was a preacher’s daughter discussed with me that she didn’t use some social media because her dad didn’t like it, but she did use some like Snapchat or Twitter or Instagram (can’t remember the particulars right now).

Nowadays that CV church uses all social media including Facebook.

It is safe to say W/F has not yet fully embraced social media.

[mike]

At issue with your analysis is that the CV churches continue to move in a more assimilated direction (as moderate conservatives always do).

About 9 years ago, a girl who was a preacher’s daughter discussed with me that she didn’t use some social media because her dad didn’t like it, but she did use some like Snapchat or Twitter or Instagram (can’t remember the particulars right now).

Nowadays that CV church uses all social media including Facebook.

It is safe to say W/F has not yet fully embraced social media.

But if you look at what those congregations were like back during the split, you would find, I think, that they were open to moderate change/assimilation back then, which is at least in part why the W/F split likely happened, and which is why I say they are basically the same as they were back then. The CV churches were largely still of a quite conservative mindset, which is why they didn't end up with Lancaster conference/Rosedale congregations today. Far from it. It seems they have always been open to slow, measured adaptation while remaining staunchly conservative in mindset.

[Josh]

But if you look at what those congregations were like back during the split, you would find, I think, that they were open to moderate change/assimilation back then, which is at least in part why the W/F split likely happened, and which is why I say they are basically the same as they were back then. The CV churches were largely still of a quite conservative mindset, which is why they didn't end up with Lancaster conference/Rosedale congregations today. Far from it. It seems they have always been open to slow, measured adaptation while remaining staunchly conservative in mindset.

Overall, W/F stopped accepting changes to be more like evangelical churches in the 1920s. You are right that some congregations didn’t like this. What is interesting is that 100% of the ones that left are “transitional Anabaptist churches” now, that is, they source members from more conservative groups and in turn lose members to less conservative groups.

W/F is unique in that they don’t rely on sourcing new members from a more conservative/plain/strict/traditional group.