How could transitional Anabaptists stop being that way?

[Marylander]

My group is quite similar in that we never adopted prayer meetings.

And similar in that recordings aren't allowed, photography is considered idolatry by some, and more traditional minded brides do not wear a white dress. Different in that they have no Dutch Mennonite influence other than the Dordrecht and they have retained a plain costume.

[Ken]

I do not recall now where I first read this, but it's really quite logical.

But I'll just quote from one source that touches on this question:



https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... f/download

Your source says the same exact thing that I said. They are only talking about X-linked genes:

In the first cousin level, there is expected to be differences in the X-linked genes in the Male 3A and the Female 3A’. (At the second cousin level, the expected differences in the X-linked genes in the Male 4E and the Female 4D’are even greater than those of their respective parents, the Male 3A and the Female 3A’.) On the other hand, there is less differences in the X-linked genes in the Male 3A and the Female 3C because the X-linked genes of Female 3C are pretty close to those of Male 3A’s sister, Female 3A. The salient point is that the expected differences in the X-linked genes in Female 3A’ are greater than those of Female 3A. In other words, Mendelian inheritance principles show that parallel first cousins are closer genetically than cross first cousins. A parallel cousin is one from a parent's same-sex sibling, while a cross cousin is from a parent's opposite-sex sibling.

What they are saying is that there are a subset of genetic diseases or recessive traits that are carried on the X chromosome such that you only inherit them from your mother if you are a boy but can inherit them from either your mother or father if you are a girl. So yes, parallel cousins are going to be more likely to share those traits than cross cousins. But that is only going to be the case for genetic disorders carried on the X chromosome.

For genetic disorders carried on any of the other 22 chromosomes there is going to be no difference between parallel and cross cousins since there is equal chance that you will get the trait from either your mother or father. So if I'm doing the math right, and if genetic disorders are evenly distributed across all the chromosomes, then you would be 1/23 more genetically linked if you are parallel cousins rather than cross cousins. That means that parallel cousins are 4% more genetically linked than cross cousins and only for traits on the X chromosome. I think the math is more complex than that, but that is the gist. It is a measurable difference but not a huge one. And only relevant for disorders carried on the X chromosome.

OK. I'm obviously not a geneticist. But the researchers who wrote that paper felt that it was/is important enough to suggest a far reaching cultural change, one that would bring about a severe cultural upheaval if the reverse track were pursued among the Banawa. Parallel-cousin marriages are not just discouraged, they are considered incestuous, the same as if an actual blood brother married his sister. It must have been enough of a difference that the Banawa somehow noticed the difference. (Of course no ethnographers were there observing the formation or development of the Banawa culture, and once formed it becomes extremely difficult to establish cause & effect.) So the current marriage pattern could be due to a higher prevalence of disorders linked to the X chromosome in their genetic background, OR it is also possible that it has nothing at all to do with genetics, but is a result of their emphasis on the brother-sister relationship. In this culture, a man never goes to visit his brother at his brother's home, nor does he ever share meat with his brother, because that would mean that he was providing food for his brother's wife, who was also culturally designated as a preferred potential spouse for himself. (In fact, the kinship term for a cross-cousin is 'other wife', or 'other husband'. And the kinship term for all of one's father's sisters is 'mother-in-law', and all of one's mother's brothers are called 'father-in-law'. It could of course be argued that the reverse is the case, that one's father's sister is called 'paternal aunt' or some such, and there are simply no distinctive terms that mean 'mother-in-law' and 'father-in-law'.)
But this is all a circular reasoning process, as either cultural rule could be a result of the other. That is, if the culture didn't favor cross-cousin marriage, but rather parallel-cousin marriage, then it would simply involve a different set of 'cousins' - in parenthesis because they do not recognize cross cousins as relatives at all; they are simply the preferred group from which to choose a mate, thus all referred to as 'wife' or 'husband'. However, the fact that there is no kinship term for one's same sex cross cousin suggests that the kinship classifications are not driving this distinction for a potential spouse. (I have always found kinship terminology of particular interest, so I explored this extensively, even though it was not at all necessary from the standpoint of Bible translation.) [One further comment, then I'll let it go: This distinction is not a matter of Patrilineality vs Matrilineality, because everyone has cross-cousins on both sides of their family - the men are not always choosing a wife from their father's family; they might just a likely chose a wife from their mother's family.]

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.

[Josh]

Mike, maybe Ernie can better speak to the contemporary state of this, but living over here in Franklin Co and interacting with a lot of them for the better part of a decade, the WashCo's seem to be a feeder group themself as much or more than receiving influx from others...

Washington/Franklin Conference (W/F) is functionally an Old Order group

So I don't think this is correct. They are an Old Mennonite group, not an Old Order group. They had nothing to do with the Old Order division. So riding around in a horse and buggy is a foreign concept and they know very little about the Amish cuz they aren't in their area either.

"Functionally". (For reference, Hornings are generally considered Old Order, even though they drive black cars.)

WF never participated in a split regarding the Old Orders and the Fundamentalists dividing, generally speaking, in such splits the Old Orders became the modern-day Hornings and Wengers and so forth, and the modernists became the "Old Mennonites" (who eventually underwent a conservative Anabaptist vs. modernist split; the latter are further split today between theologically-conservative/evangelical Mennonites like Lancaster Conference or MC USA's Virginia Mennonite Conference vs. theologically modernist Mennonites like the Central District of MC US or certain Church of the Brethren).

Because of this, W/F Co. is unique. They still have everybody under one roof who would nowadays be Old Order, conservative Anabaptist, evangelical Anabaptist, and liberal/progressive. In some ways they are very comparable to Holdemans and Stauffers who also never had such a division as far as I know.

[Josh]

My group is quite similar in that we never adopted prayer meetings.

And similar in that recordings aren't allowed, photography is considered idolatry by some, and more traditional minded brides do not wear a white dress. Different in that they have no Dutch Mennonite influence other than the Dordrecht and they have retained a plain costume.

I had no idea W/Fs didn't sport white dresses at weddings. As far as I know, Hornings, Wengers, and Amish all do this. (Do Stauffers or Reformed Mennonites?)

Not allowing recordings ("tape recorders") used to be quite common in the plain world; the Beachys did not allow it until relatively recently (and then subjected themselves to a tidal wave of Denny Kenaston's "A Godly Home" cassette tape or CD collections). The Beachys around me actually didn't have photography (which they called "cameras") until relatively recently, around 10-20 years ago.

[Josh]

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).

[ken_sylvania]

My group is quite similar in that we never adopted prayer meetings.

And similar in that recordings aren't allowed, photography is considered idolatry by some, and more traditional minded brides do not wear a white dress. Different in that they have no Dutch Mennonite influence other than the Dordrecht and they have retained a plain costume.

I had no idea W/Fs didn't sport white dresses at weddings. As far as I know, Hornings, Wengers, and Amish all do this. (Do Stauffers or Reformed Mennonites?)

Not allowing recordings ("tape recorders") used to be quite common in the plain world; the Beachys did not allow it until relatively recently (and then subjected themselves to a tidal wave of Denny Kenaston's "A Godly Home" cassette tape or CD collections). The Beachys around me actually didn't have photography (which they called "cameras") until relatively recently, around 10-20 years ago.

I believe Weaverland Conference has a position against white weading dresses. I would be quite surprised if Meadow Springs Conference (Old Order) allows them.

[Josh]

I believe Weaverland Conference has a position against white weading dresses. I would be quite surprised if Meadow Springs Conference (Old Order) allows them.

That is interesting, particularly compared to the white dresses that have been popping up in Amish circles around here (I have been informed only more "worldly" Amish would be doing this, though).

[Ken]

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).

Not really. Because the vast majority of recessive genetic abnormalities are not deadly. So a population that that practices a high rate of first cousin marriage isn't necessarily going to experience a loss of fertility. They are just going to have a higher percentage of genetic abnormalities, reduced IQ, and higher incidences of mental retardation: Here is one study that reached that conclusion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196914/

Furthermore, surveys suggest that only about 10% of the world's population practices cousin marriage (2nd cousin or closer) so it is not the norm for most of human society around the globe: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28985

[RZehr]

If I remember right, the Palestinians in the West Bank have a high interbreeding rate, and consequently have a high rate of deformities, etc. I think C.A.M. has helped with some of that.

Maybe the mental acuity there is a factor in their constant fighting too.

[cooper]

Because of this, W/F Co. is unique. They still have everybody under one roof who would nowadays be Old Order, conservative Anabaptist, evangelical Anabaptist, and liberal/progressive. In some ways they are very comparable to Holdemans and Stauffers who also never had such a division as far as I know.

No Old Order split, but lots of diversity. The difference is that, unlike other conferences, the conservatives had the majority and kept the original institution.

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.