148 replies to this topic

[Joseph Antley]

I've found mixed opinions on this. As a Latter-day Saint, do you believe that those of black African descent are literal descendants of Cain or Ham?

[Kevin Christensen]

I've found mixed opinions on this. As a Latter-day Saint, do you believe that those of black African descent are literal descendants of Cain or Ham?

As a Latter-day Saint, I've seen the opinion uncritically expressed in the past, but critically and more recently it has been demonstrated that the opinion is not specifically LDS, but derives from attempts to justify slavery Biblically. There are two recent books on the topic of Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of Slavery and The Curse of Ham. BYU Studies has a good review of both books recently.

Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen, 03 November 2009 - 06:07 AM.

[Maidservant]

I put I'm not sure/ I don't know . . . and I could have added, I don't care. Also I could have added . . . Genesis doesn't say that (although I know there are other references).

I do know that persons of African heritage or citizenship have elect spirits (as do persons from all the earth's heritages). There is no difference that way.

Not to mention that we are all adopted into the house of Israel, anyway, upon baptism.

Edited by Maidservant, 02 November 2009 - 10:49 PM.

[talisyn]

IDK about Cain or Ham, but I'm fairly certain they are descendants of Noah, and thus Adam. Just like everyone else

[Sevenbak]

I've found mixed opinions on this. As a Latter-day Saint, do you believe that those of black African descent are literal descendants of Cain or Ham?

I think this question should be open to Baptists and other denominations too, as it was taught among them. It was a common assumption among several faiths. From Wiki:

Adoption by Protestant groups

The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations was over slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for the practice. In fact, most 19th and early 20th century Southern Baptist congregations in the southern United States taught that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks, and one for whites.[13]
The doctrine was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in the U.S. and Europe. The majority of Christian Churches in the world, the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them. Certain Catholic Diocese in the Southern United States did adopt a policy of not ordaining blacks to oversee, administer the Sacraments to, or accept confessions from white parishioners. This policy was not based on a Curse of Cain teaching, but was justified by any possible perceptions of having slaves rule over their masters. However, this was not approved of by the Pope or any papal teaching.[14]
Baptists and other denominations including Pentecostals officially taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services after the 1970s and 1980s when many official policies were changed. In fact, it was not until 1995 that the Southern Baptist Convention officially renounced its "racist roots."[15] Nearly all Protestant groups in America had supported the notion that black slavery, oppression, and African colonization was the result of God's curse on people with black skin or of African descent through Cain[citation needed] or through the curse of Ham, and some churches practiced racial segregation as late as the 1990s[citation needed]. Today, however, official acceptance and practice of the doctrine among Protestant organizations is limited almost exclusively to churches connected to white supremacy, such as the Aryan World Church and the New Christian Crusade Church.

[Joseph Antley]

I think this question should be open to Baptists and other denominations too, as it was taught among them. It was a common assumption among several faiths.

...so that makes it okay?

[Sevenbak]

...so that makes it okay?

No, it makes it a fair question to those of all faiths.

[Joseph Antley]

No, it makes it a fair question to those of all faiths.

For the purpose of this thread, I'm not concerned with how other faiths view this. I just want to get an idea of what proportion of Latter-day Saints on the board believes this.

[Maidservant]

Reminds me of the Jesus Jones' song lyric, "Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history . . ."

[Sevenbak]

For the purpose of this thread, I'm not concerned with how other faiths view this. I just want to get an idea of what proportion of Latter-day Saints on the board believes this.

Okeydokey, it's your poll.

[divinenature]

Well, this is what they teach in institute. At least, most of my institute class and teacher agreed with this from the current manual:

Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain ( Abraham 1:21–24 ), and so his sons were denied the priesthood.

I don't agree with it and I don't believe it is a correct interpretation of the scriptures. But that is just me. One other student was vocal in agreeing with me that there is no scriptural support for the idea that black people of African descent were cursed from the PH.

The rest of the class seemed to equate this curse with the modern PH ban of black Africans.

But, they are not participating in the poll so take it for what it's worth.

I'd love to see this statement stricken from the manual. There is one from JS about the "curse of Ham" that I'd like taken out of the seminary manual, too.

[Redefined]

I wonder what Brigham Young's vote would have been here. . . too bad we won't ever know that one, huh!

[Olavarria]

I think almost everyone is descendant from Cain by now.

[Olavarria]

I think almost everyone is descendant from Cain by now.

maybe not.........who knows and why should we care?

[sethpayne]

I've found mixed opinions on this. As a Latter-day Saint, do you believe that those of black African descent are literal descendants of Cain or Ham?

I would say neither, as both Cain and Ham are mythical, and not historical, figures.

[SlackTime]

I would say neither, as both Cain and Ham are mythical, and not historical, figures.

While I would say that both Cain and Ham are probably real individuals, though obviously much mythology has built up about them. And since they had progyny then they would be ancestors of virtually everyone currently on earth. Along with Ghengis Kahn, and a whole lot of other people that maybe we'd prefer to distance ourselves from.

This myth was developed long prior to the LDS Church and came to us with converts. Quit trying to saddle us with it.

(Although I replied using Seth's post, I do not imply that Seth is trying to saddle us with the myth. This comment actually applies more directly to the creator of the poll)

- Ed

Edited by SlackTime, 03 November 2009 - 08:28 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know, and don't care.

[Jason]

Hey, they had some descendents, didn't they?

[BCSpace]

As a Latter-day Saint, do you believe that those of black African descent are literal descendants of Cain or Ham?

I do. According to my understanding, the ancient Greeks were as well.

This myth was developed long prior to the LDS Church and came to us with converts.

You don't accept the BoA as scripture? Or perhaps JS was a true prophet for only a little while?

[SlackTime]

I do. According to my understanding, the ancient Greeks were as well.



You don't accept the BoA as scripture? Or perhaps JS was a true prophet for only a little while?

I absolutely love the Book of Abraham. What exactly has that to do with anything?