Are black Africans descendants of Cain or Ham?

[BCSpace]

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?

I don't think such a specific statement in scripture is necessary to reasonably deny the priesthood to Africans on a doctrinal basis as the descendents of Ham repopulated the area. The problem is, they also repopulated other areas so other peoples are also subject to the curse as pertaining to the priesthood.

[BCSpace]

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?

You appear to be confusing dark skin with descent.

[ttribe]

You appear to be confusing dark skin with descent.

Really? You appear to assume you know what I am thinking. Care to clarify how that scripture clinches anything? Since, of course, you are the self-proclaimed "right divider of LDS Systematic theology".

[BCSpace]

You appear to be confusing dark skin with descent.

Really? You appear to assume you know what I am thinking. Care to clarify how that scripture clinches anything?

Sure. How do you think the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land?

Since, of course, you are the self-proclaimed "right divider of LDS Systematic theology".

Actually, that title was given to me by the mods some years ago in jest. But yes, the LDS Church has a systematic theology based on the definitions given in that debate and yes, I strive to be a right divider of it. You should too.

[ttribe]

Sure. How do you think the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land?

Perhaps you could demonstrate that it was preserved in the land before we talk about the how?

Actually, that title was given to me by the mods some years ago in jest. But yes, the LDS Church has a systematic theology based on the definitions given in that debate and yes, I strive to be a right divider of it. You should too.

I should do what? Act like a condescending know-it-all when it comes to matters of LDS doctrine?

[SlackTime]

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

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?

Sounds to me like they spent too much time in the sun, that will darken skin you know. Why I think they even have businesses that cater to helping people darken their skin by being exposed to ultraviolet light! Doesn't really sound like a race issue to me though.

[BCSpace]

Sounds to me like they spent too much time in the son, that will darken skin you know. Why I think they even have businesses that cater to helping people darken their skin by being exposed to ultraviolet light! Doesn't really sound like a race issue to me though.

That's right. At best, black skin is an indirect curse because it was the land that was cursed although it was directed at the Canaanites. This matter is one of descent and it so happens that those of this descent are black and African. But, as I've pointed out, there are also many others of this descent who are not black or African. Therefore, the original flaw of the priesthood ban imho, is that it was not fully inclusive and as has been pointed out at other times, descent is not always clear when based on skin color. However, the Church was quite doctrinally sound on the matter.

[BCSpace]

Sure. How do you think the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land?

Perhaps you could demonstrate that it was preserved in the land before we talk about the how?

Yes I will.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

Abraham 1:22

[SlackTime]

That's right. At best, black skin is an indirect curse because it was the land that was cursed although it was directed at the Canaanites. This matter is one of descent and it so happens that those of this descent are black and African. But, as I've pointed out, there are also many others of this descent who are not black or African. Therefore, the original flaw of the priesthood ban imho, is that it was not fully inclusive and as has been pointed out at other times, descent is not always clear when based on skin color. However, the Church was quite doctrinally sound on the matter.

The problem there is that you simply assert the lineage with no demonstration that it is so. The Caananites are not equivalent to "Black Africans" the two are not synonyms. Your assertion that they are does not make it so. That many early Saints thought they were does not make it so.

- SlackTime

[ttribe]

Yes I will.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

Abraham 1:22

Do you believe that "preserved" means that it was isolated? Do you also believe that "preserved" meant purely so?

[BCSpace]

Do you believe that "preserved" means that it was isolated? Do you also believe that "preserved" meant purely so?

I asked first. Where do you think it came from?

[ttribe]

I asked first. Where do you think it came from?

Where do I think "what" came from?

[BCSpace]

The problem there is that you simply assert the lineage with no demonstration that it is so. The Caananites are not equivalent to "Black Africans" the two are not synonyms. Your assertion that they are does not make it so. That many early Saints thought they were does not make it so.

Like ttribe, you need to answer the question, how is it that the blood of the Canaanites was preseved?

[BCSpace]

I asked first. Where do you think it came from?

Where do I think "what" came from?

The blood of the Canaanites. How was it preserved?

[ttribe]

The blood of the Canaanites. How was it preserved?

All I see is a scripture that says the "blood of the Canaanites was preserved" at least until that point at which the BoA was written; I see nothing which indicates that it was "preserved" beyond that point. Furthermore, I asked you the "preserved" questions for a reason - to establish a common understanding of what the word means in this context. I'm not interested in having you lead me around by my nose as if I were a callow child. Spit it out already.

[katherine the great]

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.

I don't have a "chip on my shoulder" against you. I think you are just overly sensitive. I would have asked any poster to clarify a claim that "Abraham 1: 23-26 is pretty clear about it being a doctrinal thing" but you just happened to be the poster that made this claim. I ask you again to please spell out how this scripture is "clear" that it means that all people of black African descent are disqualified from holding the priesthood. I am challenging your statement because that is what we do on the discussion board. It doesn't mean someone has a "chip on their shoulder." If you don't want a statement challenged then you'd probably be better off posting it in the social hall where debate is not allowed.

[BCSpace]

The blood of the Canaanites. How was it preserved?

All I see is a scripture that says the "blood of the Canaanites was preserved" at least until that point at which the BoA was written; I see nothing which indicates that it was "preserved" beyond that point.

So, for example, Pharaoh had no descendents? That's a separate question and one in which you seem to be seriously reaching. The real question is how do you think the blood of the Canaanites was preserved? Once you answer that we can proceed from there.

I'm not interested in having you lead me around by my nose as if I were a callow child. Spit it out already.

Changing the subject is a sign that you are uncomfortable with your position. Frankly, I don't see why you would have a problem with anything I've claimed unless you disagree with LDS doctrine and scripture. I disagree with some LDS doctrine myself, but I'm arguing from the standpoint of LDS doctrine nevertheless. Perhaps after answering the question, you should point out exactly what it is you disagree with me about.

[katherine the great]

That's right. At best, black skin is an indirect curse because it was the land that was cursed although it was directed at the Canaanites.

I would argue that black skin is not a curse at all unless it occurs in a cold, dark environment that lacks a good source of vitamin D. It is a blessing in a particularly sunny climate.

[BCSpace]

I ask you again to please spell out how this scripture is "clear" that it means that all people of black African descent are disqualified from holding the priesthood

"Black Africa" is just a subset and since is based on descent, more than just "black Africa" is included in the curse. I suppose one could argue based on a local Flood notion (and I would be sympathetic) but the problem with that is the doctrine of the LDS Church is a global flood. So based on doctrine and scripture; where the sons of Ham settled and what parts of the earth they repopulated, many Arabians for example, would ostensibly be included.

[BCSpace]

That's right. At best, black skin is an indirect curse because it was the land that was cursed although it was directed at the Canaanites.

I would argue that black skin is not a curse at all unless it occurs in a cold, dark environment that lacks a good source of vitamin D. It is a blessing in a particularly sunny climate.

Sure. That's why I said "at best". I have never made the argument that black skin was was the reason for the ban. Descent is the only reason given. Black skin was only used as an identifier and we know the problems with that; not inclusive of all under the curse originally, and less indicative of actualy or purity of descent as time goes by.

[ttribe]

So, for example, Pharaoh had no descendents? That's a separate question and one in which you seem to be seriously reaching. The real question is how do you think the blood of the Canaanites was preserved? Once you answer that we can proceed from there.

Come now...thousands of years after the fact, this is about as meaningful as saying that the blood of Adam was "preserved" in everyone. Or, for me to claim a right to the British crown because of some genealogical link to royalty even hundreds of years ago. That statement could be fulfilled with a single cell.

Changing the subject is a sign that you are uncomfortable with your position.

I wasn't changing the subject. I was asking for clarification of meaning of a word so that the subject could continue.

Frankly, I don't see why you would have a problem with anything I've claimed unless you disagree with LDS doctrine and scripture. I disagree with some LDS doctrine myself, but I'm arguing from the standpoint of LDS doctrine nevertheless. Perhaps after answering the question, you should point out exactly what it is you disagree with me about.

Frankly, you were the one that stated disagreement with me about my comment on someone else's post that I happen to think was a decent summary of the matter.

[SlackTime]

Like ttribe, you need to answer the question, how is it that the blood of the Canaanites was preseved?

No, actually I don't. The thing is that Egypt is not this single race construct that you want to apply, in fact you have not demonstrated any link whatsoever between it and Black Africans. There were periods of different tribes in Egypt when Hittites overran it, when Akkadians overran it, and many changes in the people there. The fact is that the "blood" of the Caananites, which was preserved in Egypt does not equate it with Africans no matter how you want to slice it. Africa is a huge continent and Egypt is a small and over emphasized piece of it. You have to demonstrate the the lineage falls the way you want it to. I don't have to, for I believe that God has the right to give His priesthood to whomever He pleases and withhold it from whomever He pleases. During the Mosaic law no one but Levites and the posterity of Aaron could have the priesthood. Were the rest of the tribes "cursed"? Let it go, the Church (through Elder McConkie) has said:

... Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]...

Reference: Blacks and the priesthood/Understanding pre-1978 statements

[ttribe]

No, actually I don't. The thing is that Egypt is not this single race construct that you want to apply, in fact you have not demonstrated any link whatsoever between it and Black Africans. There were periods of different tribes in Egypt when Hittites overran it, when Akkadians overran it, and many changes in the people there. The fact is that the "blood" of the Caananites, which was preserved in Egypt does not equate it with Africans no matter how you want to slice it. Africa is a huge continent and Egypt is a small and over emphasized piece of it. You have to demonstrate the the lineage falls the way you want it to. I don't have to, for I believe that God has the right to give His priesthood to whomever He pleases and withhold it from whomever He pleases. During the Mosaic law no one but Levites and the posterity of Aaron could have the priesthood. Were the rest of the tribes "cursed"? Let it go, the Church (through Elder McConkie) has said:

Reference: Blacks and the priesthood/Understanding pre-1978 statements

Agreed.

[katherine the great]

"Black Africa" is just a subset and since is based on descent, more than just "black Africa" is included in the curse. I suppose one could argue based on a local Flood notion (and I would be sympathetic) but the problem with that is the doctrine of the LDS Church is a global flood. So based on doctrine and scripture; where the sons of Ham settled and what parts of the earth they repopulated, many Arabians for example, would ostensibly be included.

The curse was directed only at Canaan--not all of Ham's descendants. It makes no sense to me because it was Ham who committed the "no no", but that is what the scriptures say. We don't even know what, exactly the curse was or for how long. According to the bible, it would be a curse that included enslavement of the Canaanites (which was fulfilled happily by the Israelites.) The Book of Abraham mentions (very vaguely) some kind of a curse in respect to the priesthood, but we already know that these rights would only be carried out by certain the descendants of Shem. Even that was only a part of the Mosaic law and was fulfilled with the atonement.

[jkfrost]

any who was not allowed to have the priesthood would be included.

Moses 7:22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam;

and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain,

for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

One thing is for sure we are all children of Adam

and because of Adam ALL mankind has a curse.

In the time of Moses only the tribe of Levi could be called to work in the temple of God.

and the sons of Aaron were the leaders - the rest of the tribes were not allowed.

It started out a only the firstborn and then God changed the law to include the sons

of Levi instead of the firstborn.

all people will be given the blessings of the Temple if they would accept them.

The only lasting curse will be given to those who do not follow God's ways.