Are black Africans descendants of Cain or Ham?

[ttribe]

Oh, nice. Except I don't see black african's mentioned there at all. In fact, I see no skin color mentioned at all. So, I reject your interpretation of the scripture. I point out that Joseph married an Egyptian and fathered both Ephriam and Manasseh, sons who were given the birthright, through her. I also point out that Joseph Smith ordained several blacks to the priesthood and I throw the question right back at you. Was he a Prophet or not? I think he was. I will humbly admit however that many members, post Joseph Smith, tried to explain the Priesthood ban by way of this scripture. I grew up with the explanations and heard them often. Doesn't make them right. I agree with Elder McConkie that we should forget all those useless and erroneous explanations and interpretations. They were wrong. All we know about the priesthood ban is that it was the policy of the Church from some date post 1846 until 1978 with some few exceptions. That it was removed by revelation from God and that we can rejoice with all members of all races in the opportunity to serve within the Priesthood of God.

Very well said.

[BCSpace]

Sorry to answer for BC Space but I could not restrain myself, I also believe this answers the OP.

That is what I was referring to.

Very well said.

Not really. I should have also mentioned Moses 7:22. But we have to remember that it's not black skin that is the curse. Not having the priesthood was the curse and it's determined by lineage not skin color.

[SlackTime]

That is what I was referring to.

Not really. I should have also mentioned Moses 7:22. But we have to remember that it's not black skin that is the curse. Not having the priesthood was the curse and it's determined by lineage not skin color.

And Moses 7:22 does not say it refers to skin color either, it could easily refer to the darkness of being separated from Light, or from God and God's people. I don't deny that there was a lineage that was cursed as to the priesthood in Adam's time and down to Noah's time. In fact most of Israel was "cursed as to the Priesthood" during the time of Moses when only Levites and the family of Aaron were given the priesthood. I just disagree that you can trace that lineage to a particular race or show any connection to modern Black Africans.

I recommend this article for your enjoyment:

Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"

[BCSpace]

And Moses 7:22 does not say it refers to skin color either, it could easily refer to the darkness of being separated from Light, or from God and God's people.

Possible based on another Biblical verse set, but I don't think it's very easy at all, especially considering Moses 7:8. But that's why I mentioned that other groups of people were also descendents of Cain, black skin is not necessarily an identifier of this lineage. However, if Africans are descendants of Cain, and it seems that they are, it is not unreasonable to use as an identifier though it is unequal as seemingly others of lighter skin are also descendents of Cain.

Bottom line for me: I don't think the Church was wrong about the priesthood ban, but it was erroneously not applied to all whom it should have been applied to.

[ttribe]

Not really.

Yes...really, your strident opinion notwithstanding.

[Luigi]

Kind of on topic I personally found it fascinating to discover that whereas I'd been taught within the Church to believe that black skin came after white skin and that all humans originated from white skinned ancestors that science suggests the exact opposite-we all descend from black ancestors in Africa and white skin came later to adapt to northern climates.

[Pilgrim]

They may be; they may not be. By now, any such heritage is so mixed that it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that Black Africans are joining the Church in significant numbers. That makes them children of Abraham and the House of Israel. As is anyone who makes the authorized covenants with the Lord NS - and keeps them.

[alter idem]

IMO, early church leaders belief that black africans were descendants of Cain was a carry over from their old protestant faiths they had converted from. They brought it into our church and their attitudes may even have been responsible for the policy--we do not know for certain because there was no revelation that we can point to to explain the policy, hence the reason the explanation "We don't know" is appropriate. The policy was well entrenched and HAD to be removed through revelation--when the members of the church were enlightened enough to accept and allow this change.

I believe in trying to explain and defend the policy over the years, some have used the Book of Abraham--problem is that there is no exact statement linking black skin to no priesthood. We know Cain's descendents were not allowed to hold the priesthood and that this prohibition fell upon some of the Egyptian peoples. However, we also know that the Canaanites were also not allowed to hold the priesthood and they were not black or africans. So...as I see it, there is not enough information to be certain on this and I'm certainly not going to promote or repeat something that protestants taught; especially since they used this belief to justify enslaving an entire race.

IMO, we, as a church will never be able to build a Zion society until we can divest ourselves of racial prejudices and become one people, black, white, male, female, bond, free, etc. The 1978 revelation meant we were ready and capable of doing this. Now, there is no excuse for that kind of thinking among members of the church.

[DanGB]

Since the ban was lifted, has the Church ever provided it's own knowledge, guidance and conclusions on this topic and what was said by past prophets on this?

[katherine the great]

IMO, early church leaders belief that black africans were descendants of Cain was a carry over from their old protestant faiths they had converted from. They brought it into our church and their attitudes may even have been responsible for the policy--we do not know for certain because there was no revelation that we can point to to explain the policy, hence the reason the explanation "We don't know" is appropriate. The policy was well entrenched and HAD to be removed through revelation--when the members of the church were enlightened enough to accept and allow this change.

I believe in trying to explain and defend the policy over the years, some have used the Book of Abraham--problem is that there is no exact statement linking black skin to no priesthood. We know Cain's descendents were not allowed to hold the priesthood and that this prohibition fell upon some of the Egyptian peoples. However, we also know that the Canaanites were also not allowed to hold the priesthood and they were not black or africans. So...as I see it, there is not enough information to be certain on this and I'm certainly not going to promote or repeat something that protestants taught; especially since they used this belief to justify enslaving an entire race.

IMO, we, as a church will never be able to build a Zion society until we can divest ourselves of racial prejudices and become one people, black, white, male, female, bond, free, etc. The 1978 revelation meant we were ready and capable of doing this. Now, there is no excuse for that kind of thinking among members of the church.

Well said. (She always says it so much nicer than I can!)

[ttribe]

Since the ban was lifted, has the Church ever provided it's own knowledge, guidance and conclusions on this topic and what was said by past prophets on this?

From Elder Bruce R. McConkie -

Forget everything I have said, or what

[DanGB]

IMO, we, as a church will never be able to build a Zion society until we can divest ourselves of racial prejudices and become one people, black, white, male, female, bond, free, etc. The 1978 revelation meant we were ready and capable of doing this. Now, there is no excuse for that kind of thinking among members of the church.

Amen! Unfortunately I do not believe this will ever happen, either within the Church, or from the perspective from the outside until we act on reflection and forgiveness as a Church. Perhaps not popular, but very real considering the continued controversy in determination amongst members alone! Just imagine how hard the community outside the Church still has in accepting this historical practice. Just be'n real here brothas n sistas!

[divinenature]

Since the ban was lifted, has the Church ever provided it's own knowledge, guidance and conclusions on this topic and what was said by past prophets on this?

It is still taught that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain. There is no scriptural support for this, that I am aware of. Yet it is perpetuated in a few places.

See Ensign Article here:

"34. EGYPTUS

[Analytics]

It

[DanGB]

It is still taught that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain. There is no scriptural support for this, that I am aware of. Yet it is perpetuated in a few places.

See Ensign Article here:

"34. EGYPTUS

[Sevenbak]

I guess I was asking if the Church has ever provided modern explanation or insight to recncile the curse of Cain/Ham discussion to the blacks that were denied the priesthood?

I have not found anything.

I think Abraham 1:23-26 is pretty clear about it being a doctrinal thing.

That said, even Brigham Young, who has been maligned by so many for his statements on the subject, also knew it would eventually be lifted.

Brigham Young said that the "time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more" (Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives, Feb. 5, 1852)

[John D the First]

There are many good things that come from such confidence in the brethren as many display here, but holding on to a vestage of the American slavery apologetic is not one of them. But I suppose the good that comes with an inerrant veiw of God's oracles can't always exclude the embarrasing and down-right hurtful. Though I wish it could.

[BlueDreams]

i voted no, but I should specify to say that they are not in the sense that they are no more descendants of cain/ham than most of humanity on earth today. Sooner or later there's a big likelihood most people would have some connection in descent.

Lightbearer:

But I also must say that it is quite irrelevant in light of the 1978 revelation on the priesthood.

You're technically correct, it is irrelevant. But that the idea still holds place in some people's minds irritate's the crap out of me. The idea, to me, is demeaning to african ancestry.

It would be interesting to see what their partriachal blessing would say. I suspect it would say that they were of Joseph through Ephraim... and that they would be adopted into that tribe. The law of adoption applies to those who accept the fullness of the Gospel so whether they are not of Abraham I suggest it not really the point.

I'm only half black african in descent (but back during the height of the one drop rule that didn't matter much) and I can tell you exactly what mine says about this. It says that I'm apart of the House of Israel by birthright, specifically the tribe of Ephraim. I can't speak for everybody who may have African ancestry of some amount, but that's me.

Although many want to handicap the revelations of God and say that the official declaration was merely a correction of some sort of mistake, it was and is a binding revelation on the Church and I receive it with gladness inasmuch as the fullness of the Gospel can go to all nations, including those who were descended from Cain or Ham.

I take it as both....it's a binding revelation that was a correction of a grievous mistake called systematic racism.

Dan:

Unfortunately I do not believe this will ever happen, either within the Church, or from the perspective from the outside until we act on reflection and forgiveness as a Church. Perhaps not popular, but very real considering the continued controversy in determination amongst members alone! Just imagine how hard the community outside the Church still has in accepting this historical practice. Just be'n real here brothas n sistas!

Personally, I think problems to growth rely more with issues of race and culture in today than the struggles LDS have had with it in the past.

Analytics

With the advantage of being the only church lead by Jesus Christ himself, were Mormons ahead of the curve in figuring out that this particular doctrine is dross?

I wouldn't expect it at all....certainly didn't happen with the Issraelites.

With luv,

BD

[katherine the great]

I think Abraham 1:23-26 is pretty clear about it being a doctrinal thing.

Where is the doctrine? Where does it say that the curse of Canaan is a curse that forbids black Africans from holding the priesthood or for how long? Canaanites were the residents of the land of Canaan. They were not descendants of Cain (I'm still not sure where that one came from) and it doesn't appear that they were particularly black. They were not even Africans. I think that what is clear is that the curse of Canaan is what the Israelites used as justification for wiping out and enslaving the Canaanites when they got to the land of their inheritance. The rights of the Priesthood at that time seemed to be reserved for select descendants of Shem, but it seems pretty clear now that that arrangement was only temporary.

[katherine the great]

I'm only half black african in descent (but back during the height of the one drop rule that didn't matter much) and I can tell you exactly what mine says about this. It says that I'm apart of the House of Israel by birthright, specifically the tribe of Ephraim. I can't speak for everybody who may have African ancestry of some amount, but that's me.

Interesting. I was raised with an Ethiopian sister (full blooded) and her Patriarchal blessing declared her to be from the tribe of Judah.

[Sevenbak]

Where is the doctrine? Where does it say that the curse of Canaan is a curse that forbids black Africans from holding the priesthood or for how long? Canaanites were the residents of the land of Canaan. They were not descendants of Cain (I'm still not sure where that one came from) and it doesn't appear that they were particularly black. They were not even Africans. I think that what is clear is that the curse of Canaan is what the Israelites used as justification for wiping out and enslaving the Canaanites when they got to the land of their inheritance. The rights of the Priesthood at that time seemed to be reserved for select descendants of Shem, but it seems pretty clear now that that arrangement was only temporary.

Please don't put words in my mouth Katherine. It clearly says the curse comes through Ham. I said nothing about Cain, Africa, or for how long. I just quoted scripture. You've really got a chip on your shoulder against me lately, I'm not sure why.

[BlueDreams]

Interesting. I was raised with an Ethiopian sister (full blooded) and her Patriarchal blessing declared her to be from the tribe of Judah.

That is interesting...sort of makes sense though. There was a strong jewish presence in ethiopia for quite some time (most of them immigrated to Israel, though).

My bio-dad is from nigeria that is worlds away from ethiopian people (though, if I had to take a guess I don't think the ephraim birthright thing comes from him...but it could). They even look very different from each other. Which actually is another reason why I'm pretty skeptical about talk of egyptus' curse taking effect over all africa. Africa, genetically speaking, is far more diverse than europeans and the ancient egyptians have probably about as much connection to an igbo in nigeria as an irish person does to a person in Afghanistan.

With luv,

BD

[kamenraider]

I voted "Yes", however since I believe that black Africans were here before Adam, I'm not 100% sure whether all of them would be descendants of Cain. Race may have been used as the main criterion for descent due to a desire to simplify the process, and/or due to the racial prejudices that were common at the time.

Here's a link to a thread where I posted a "lineage lesson" that was taught by LDS missionaries prior to OD 2: LINK

[BCSpace]

Not really.

Yes...really, your strident opinion notwithstanding.

No. I'd say Moses 7:8 clinches it.

[ttribe]

No. I'd say Moses 7:8 clinches it.

Let's look at that for a moment, shall we?

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

I see a curse ON THE LAND which creates barrenness "forever"...ON THE LAND. I see blackness on the children of Canaan - THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. How, exactly, does this supposedly clinch anything in the now?