Are black Africans descendants of Cain or Ham?

[BCSpace]

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

No, actually I don't.

You do if you want to speaking logically about the priesthood ban.

The thing is that Egypt is not this single race construct that you want to apply,

I've not made it out as such a construct. "Black African" is merely a subset as I've pointed out before.

in fact you have not demonstrated any link whatsoever between it and Black Africans.

The establishment is in the fact that (doctrinally) the Flood is global. Now all you have to do is answer the question as to where the sons of Ham settled.

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.

Non sequitur as I've accounted for this already as the reason why "black skin" is not a good indicator of lineage.

for I believe that God has the right to give His priesthood to whomever He pleases and withhold it from whomever He pleases.

And for LDS, God deigned not to give it to those of African descent for awhile in the latter-days. No specific revelation is required as the prophets are THE interpreters of scripture.

Let it go, the Church (through Elder McConkie) has said:

Let what go? What is it that you think I believe that is so odious? I have no problem with what BRM said.

[BCSpace]

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.

I think you've answered your own dilema. The curse was not directed only at Ham's son Canaan. The scripture is simply showing how the king of Egypt was related to Ham.

[katherine the great]

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.

Good point. Africa IS much more genetically diverse than any place on earth which is why it is almost universally believed to be the cradle of our species. It's funny how certain physical features affect us. I can remember being a missionary in Korea and how the Korean people all "looked alike" to me at first and I couldn't tell the difference between Northern Asians and Southeast Asians. Over time, they came to look completely different to me and I even started to look Korean to myself! (Strange, I know...) My Ethiopian sister (very long story how she came to live with us) was actually one of the most prejudiced people I've ever met. She looked African to me (she was stunningly beautiful btw), but she considered her "race" to be "superior" to other Africans, Asians, Europeans, etc. To her, Ethiopians look completely different than Kenyans who look completely different than Nigerians, etc. I suppose most human beings are somewhat partial to their own culture, language, food, and physical features.

[katherine the great]

I think you've answered your own dilema. The curse was not directed only at Ham's son Canaan. The scripture is simply showing how the king of Egypt was related to Ham.

What dilemma? After reading the text, It looks to me like the curse was only directed at Ham's son Canaan. Where does it say that the curse was directed at all of Ham's descendants. (maybe I'm missing something in the scriptures.)

[BlueDreams]

Non sequitur as I've accounted for this already as the reason why "black skin" is not a good indicator of lineage.

So then how is it that all black africans can be considered descendants for Ham or Cain when there's no indication the Igbo in nigeria, pigmy in the congo, or the khoisan in south africa have any connection to egypt in the first place?

This is the major problem I, personally, see in extrapolating a very old curse on the canaanites to all of africa

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Good point. Africa IS much more genetically diverse than any place on earth which is why it is almost universally believed to be the cradle of our species. It's funny how certain physical features affect us. I can remember being a missionary in Korea and how the Korean people all "looked alike" to me at first and I couldn't tell the difference between Northern Asians and Southeast Asians. Over time, they came to look completely different to me and I even started to look Korean to myself! (Strange, I know...) My Ethiopian sister (very long story how she came to live with us) was actually one of the most prejudiced people I've ever met. She looked African to me (she was stunningly beautiful btw), but she considered her "race" to be "superior" to other Africans, Asians, Europeans, etc. To her, Ethiopians look completely different than Kenyans who look completely different than Nigerians, etc.

Can completely relate....to me, the kenyans, nigerians, and ethiopians do look very different from each other and I can usually tell them apart. Though at first I wasn't all that good with it....it does take a while to get used to seeing different facial features when you're used to looking for certain looks.

I suppose most human beings are somewhat partial to their own culture, language, food, and physical features.

Definitely so. Tis human

With luv,

Bd

[BCSpace]

So then how is it that all black africans can be considered descendants for Ham or Cain when there's no indication the Igbo in nigeria, pigmy in the congo, or the khoisan in south africa have any connection to egypt in the first place?

Sure. However, originally, all Africans are descendents of Ham according to the scriptures as to where the sons of Ham settled. For a local flood person (such as I), the mixture occurs more quickly and there is the likelyhood of others being there before the descendents of Noah. But I'm arguing from the LDS doctrinal position which includes a global Flood.

This is the major problem I, personally, see in extrapolating a very old curse on the canaanites to all of africa

I agree.

I think you've answered your own dilemna. The curse was not directed only at Ham's son Canaan. The scripture is simply showing how the king of Egypt was related to Ham.

What dilemma?

The dilemna of Ham being the purp, not Canaan.

After reading the text, It looks to me like the curse was only directed at Ham's son Canaan.

Genesis, yep.

Where does it say that the curse was directed at all of Ham's descendants. (maybe I'm missing something in the scriptures.)

You haven't missed anything from the scriptures yet, but the doctrine is that Ham's wife is a descendent of Cain (for example, Edward J. Brandt,

[katherine the great]

You haven't missed anything from the scriptures yet, but the doctrine is that Ham's wife is a descendent of Cain (for example, Edward J. Brandt,

[katherine the great]

Sure. However, originally, all Africans are descendents of Ham according to the scriptures as to where the sons of Ham settled.

The only son of Ham that was cursed was Canaan.

[BlueDreams]

Sure. However, originally, all Africans are descendents of Ham according to the scriptures as to where the sons of Ham settled.

I'm not seeing it....scripturally speaking. I've read the scriptures you've mentioned so far and I'm still not seeing this. It takes a huge amount of extrapolating to get all africans (and particularly black Africans) to be of Ham.

For a local flood person (such as I), the mixture occurs more quickly and there is the likelyhood of others being there before the descendents of Noah.

Would you mind clarifying a little, I don't get exactly what you mean.

But I'm arguing from the LDS doctrinal position which includes a global Flood.

That's the thing, I think if you go by a global flood the theory is still shot by geneological and intermixing realities. It's simply impossible that these populations stay genetically free from Hamitic blood lines up into today so that the population of earth could be split into three categories of the three sons of Noah. If the doctrine was really based on lineage, there would have been almost no one on earth who would have passed the test. Sooner or later they would have found a particle or drop along the lines.

With luv,

BD

[alter idem]

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

The odd thing is that the scriptures say Egyptus was the founder of Egypt, not Africa. I am more and more certain that some people took their protestant beliefs(philosophies of men) and 'mingled' them with scripture to come up with what they cited for years as the explanation of the policy against Blacks holding the priesthood. And we should not assume that the church is immune from elements of apostasy taking hold--if we are to liken ourselves to the Book of Mormon people, we know that apostasy is possible and that is why we have Prophets--to get us back on course when necessary. To root out these elements of apostasy, we must have a strong working knowledge and be firmly grounded in our scriptures--then we can see what is fact and what has been inferred or implied which may inaccurate.

Even if the policy was NOT established by a revelation from God, does not mean it was not 'allowed' or even condoned by God. He knew that the majority of members of the faith were not ready to accept blacks as full members of the gospel, heck, they couldn't even accept them as full members of society! While racial prejudice was accepted by most of society, I am pleased that over the years church leaders did revisit the ban, softened it in incremental steps and even tried to lift it, but the time was not right until 1978.

Also, people confuse the 'canaanites' with descendants of 'cain' which they were not.

Personally, I expect that many Nigerians are from the house of Ephraim. I visited there in 1984 and it was incredible the spirit of the people and their ready acceptance of the gospel. They were truly like the 'sheep' who hear the voice of the shepherd...they knew it was true and sacrificed in ways we cannot fathom to become members of the church. I hope they can have a stable govt, free of corruption one day.

I'm sure you are proud of your heritage--I would be.

[BCSpace]

What doctrine says that Ham's wife was a descendant of Cain? The scriptures don't say that. (Who is Edward J. Brandt?)

The scriptures don't have to say it to be doctrine. Published by the Church. The Church has not repudiated or changed this doctrine though it's importance is dimisnished much because blacks and the priesthood is no longer much of an issue.

Sure. However, originally, all Africans are descendents of Ham according to the scriptures as to where the sons of Ham settled.

I'm not seeing it....scripturally speaking. I've read the scriptures you've mentioned so far and I'm still not seeing this. It takes a huge amount of extrapolating to get all africans (and particularly black Africans) to be of Ham.

I'm not saying they all are now though I would say (based on LDS doctrine) that likely they mostly are with a good deal of purity in most lines.

For a local flood person (such as I), the mixture occurs more quickly and there is the likelyhood of others being there before the descendents of Noah.

Would you mind clarifying a little, I don't get exactly what you mean.

With a local flood, Africa is not wiped clean of people, so it's inhabitants in that case would mostly not be descendents of Noah and Ham. However, since LDS doctrine is that there was a global flood, Africa is repopulated initially by that lineage.

But I'm arguing from the LDS doctrinal position which includes a global Flood.

That's the thing, I think if you go by a global flood the theory is still shot by geneological and intermixing realities.

I agree completely. But in that case, I'd say that, with varying degrees of purity, most Africans could probably trace their lineage to Ham.

If the doctrine was really based on lineage, there would have been almost no one on earth who would have passed the test. Sooner or later they would have found a particle or drop along the lines.

Sure. And thus the problem of detecting who is a descendent of Ham (and therefore a descendent of Cain through Ham's wife). What degree of purity is required? Is black skin a good indication of such purity? etc.

The doctrinal basis for the ban was sound, the application was not.

[alter idem]

Sure. However, originally, all Africans are descendents of Ham according to the scriptures as to where the sons of Ham settled. For a local flood person (such as I), the mixture occurs more quickly and there is the likelyhood of others being there before the descendents of Noah. But I'm arguing from the LDS doctrinal position which includes a global Flood.

This is not true. According to the scriptures Ham had four sons. And these are the places they settled.

Mizraim--settled in Egypt

Cush--settled Sudan, Ethiopia

Put-- settled Lybia

Canaan-- most in the lands of Palestine and around there: Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorties, Arkites, Sinites, Hitites, Sidonians, Perizites, Zemanites

So, unless we are reading into the scriptures more than is there, we do not know if only Ham's descendants settled Africa. We know they settled a couple of areas in Africa, but that's all we know.

To me, this is the danger of relying on commentaries and not going back and reading the scriptures.

Like the student manual and the article in the Ensign from 1973, someone made the assumption that Egyptus was descended from Cain--but where is this stated in scripture? I don't believe it is, but someone used a commentary to write the article or manual without proof texting it with the scriptures--they accepted it without checking it.

[alter idem]

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

[BCSpace]

This is not true. According to the scriptures Ham had four sons. And these are the places they settled.

Notice your list contains African locations.

So, unless we are reading into the scriptures more than is there, we do not know if only Ham's descendants settled Africa. We know they settled a couple of areas in Africa, but that's all we know.

But we do know in the doctrinal sense that, because of the global flood, other areas of Africa were not settled prior to their arrival.

To me, this is the danger of relying on commentaries and not going back and reading the scriptures.

Like the student manual and the article in the Ensign from 1973, someone made the assumption that Egyptus was descended from Cain--but where is this stated in scripture? I don't believe it is, but someone used a commentary to write the article or manual without proof texting it with the scriptures--they accepted it without checking it.

You're implying a definition of LDS doctrine that does not exist in reality. Even blackmormon/blacklds websites recognize what the doctrine is and that it has not changed or been repudiated.

[BCSpace]

I've known manuals to be inaccurate and I don't give them the same value as scripture

Sure, nevertheless, the doctrine is the doctrine. I personally don't consider the overall doctrine in question to be inaccurate, not of God, or racist.

[alter idem]

The only son of Ham that was cursed was Canaan.

Yes, and it's interesting to note that one of the groups of people not allowed to hold the priesthood were his descendants (see my post above)--so, the 'cursing' most likely had to do with priesthood.

And once again, they were NOT black. Have I said that enough? They were NOT black Africans.

But, if you look at the scriptures, you can see how protestants might have taken that 'cursing' of Canaan, tied it in with Cain and since there were some early beliefs that Cain's descendants were black that may have been passed down hundreds of years; they made the assumption that the 'mark' of protection for Cain(which could have been dark skin, but there is no definitive statement in the scriptures we can cite to prove this) was also a curse--which it was not.

Skin color is darker for those who live near the equator--it is a protection against the damaging rays of the sun for peoples who live in that area. It is not a 'curse', it is a blessing, one which people would need if they were to live in that part of the world!

[BCSpace]

And once again, they were NOT black. Have I said that enough? They were NOT black Africans.

It doesn't matter. Since doctrine ties it all back to the "Curse of Cain", Africans are logically and not unreasonably considered to be part of that lineage (Cain through Ham). Doctrinally, all the descendants of Ham should have been denied the priesthood. The problem in these latter days was identifying such lineage.

Skin color is darker for those who live near the equator--it is a protection against the damaging rays of the sun for peoples who live in that area. It is not a 'curse', it is a blessing, one which people would need if they were to live in that part of the world!

Well, hopefully you don't believe that I am saying black skin was the curse, especially after many statements to the contrary.

[BlueDreams]

Very well put Alter. Personally I think the change was apart of the Church's growth as a people. I honestly do believe that the revelation was meant to come at the time it did for basically the exact same reasons you do as well. When I think back on the history of the church I picture sort of this growth that took baby steps, growing stronger and more united as a people and entity each step of the way. It is a history that truly fulfills the idea of building precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. As I look at the church's change when it came to racial issues I have a sense of pride that they have so for done so pretty cleanly. I think there are many things to still go as we become that one people, but in general I think we continue to move in the right direction.

The odd thing is that the scriptures say Egyptus was the founder of Egypt, not Africa. I am more and more certain that some people took their protestant beliefs(philosophies of men) and 'mingled' them with scripture to come up with what they cited for years as the explanation of the policy against Blacks holding the priesthood.

I'm about 100% certain that this is what happened. In fact if you follow the thoughts and and ideas documented in the church to those occuring in the rest of the U.S., they parallel each other very well. Not only in descent, but also in thought with the one drop idea and considerations on the natural proficiencies of blacks. It's like looking at a mormon-colored racial mirror. And I honestly think that it's the reason the ban was not only put in place, but kept there for so long even though Prophets and Apostles like McKay desired to get rid of it. You really can't force altering people's hearts and minds. That's a process that takes time.

And we should not assume that the church is immune from elements of apostasy taking hold--if we are to liken ourselves to the Book of Mormon people, we know that apostasy is possible and that is why we have Prophets--to get us back on course when necessary. To root out these elements of apostasy, we must have a strong working knowledge and be firmly grounded in our scriptures--then we can see what is fact and what has been inferred or implied which may inaccurate.

Very true.

Personally, I expect that many Nigerians are from the house of Ephraim.

Could be true. I'm only hesitant to say so because my bio-dad is not a member and, thus, doesn't have a PB to go by.

I visited there in 1984 and it was incredible the spirit of the people and their ready acceptance of the gospel. They were truly like the 'sheep' who hear the voice of the shepherd...they knew it was true and sacrificed in ways we cannot fathom to become members of the church. I hope they can have a stable govt, free of corruption one day.

I would agree, though I haven't had the pleasure of going there myself (it's on the list of things to do within the next decade)

I'm sure you are proud of your heritage--I would be.

I am very proud of all of my family, which the immediate members are a very big melting pot of latin american, african (Nigerian and moroccan), white american, and native american people. It's given me an interesting oppurtunity to have a more intimate view of different cultures and perspectives that few get to have. I believe this has also influenced how I see the church and its future. It has also changed how I see the past.

With luv,

BD

[cinepro]

Even if the policy was NOT established by a revelation from God, does not mean it was not 'allowed' or even condoned by God. He knew that the majority of members of the faith were not ready to accept blacks as full members of the gospel, heck, they couldn't even accept them as full members of society! While racial prejudice was accepted by most of society, I am pleased that over the years church leaders did revisit the ban, softened it in incremental steps and even tried to lift it, but the time was not right until 1978.

That is absolute hogwash.

Since when has God cared whether people were "ready" to accept something? Especially something as important as equality of the races, or the exclusion of an entire class of blessings from a group of people based on their skin color and assumed ancestry?

Keep in mind that racism is a learned attitude, usually passed from generation to generation. Thus, God would know that in order to erase racism from the Church, it would only take 2 or 3 generations of teachings. So if he instructed Brigham Young to preach against racism, there may be people in his day that wouldn't accept it, but those teachings would be disseminated through the culture and within a few generations, LDS wouldn't be generally (or institutionally) racist.

For example, what if Brigham Young had stood and said the following?

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

Let us treat everyone with respect and dignity, with full access not only to all the blessings of the Gospel, but to education, places of worship and social recreation, and every benefit of society.

What if he said it over and over. What if each subsequent prophet had said it? What if it were in the manuals of the Church?

Sometimes the Church is a leader, and sometimes it's a follower. It would have been really great if, in this case, the Church had been a leader.

[BCSpace]

When I think back on the history of the church I picture sort of this growth that took baby steps, growing stronger and more united as a people and entity each step of the way. It is a history that truly fulfills the idea of building precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. As I look at the church's change when it came to racial issues I have a sense of pride that they have so for done so pretty cleanly. I think there are many things to still go as we become that one people, but in general I think we continue to move in the right direction.

I think the ban certainly had a good and wise purpose and that could include most any of that which has been presented in other places. It certainly wasn't racist though is not difficult to see why people on the outside would initially think it was.

[BCSpace]

Since when has God cared whether people were "ready" to accept something?

The higher priesthood being denied to the Israelites comes to mind.

[alter idem]

Notice your list contains African locations.

\

I noted that. Those who believe in a global flood are assuming all Ham's descendants were black and they spread out, but clearly they are not(if you look at all the sons), so I discard that notion.

If I am speaking as a globalist, I'd more assume that over time, genetics affected the skin color of the people--those who had more melanin lasted longer to reproduce their own kind and those with lighter skin most likely got cancer and died without reproducing. Whether they were all Ham's descendants, unless we are being dogmatic about it, we don't know...there is nothing in the scriptures to rule out other descendants of the sons of Noah moving into that area over time. But it's not unreasonable to see that darker skin colors that show up through recessives are more able to withstand the area, and so we should expect those peoples to have darker skin.

But we do know in the doctrinal sense that, because of the global flood, other areas of Africa were not settled prior to their arrival.

But you aren't a globalist. Why are you promoting a globalist view? My understanding is that LDS can be local flood or global flood believers, so we don't have to accept that version of events.

You're implying a definition of LDS doctrine that does not exist in reality. Even blackmormon/blacklds websites recognize what the doctrine is and that it has not changed or been repudiated.

Not sure what you are saying..I don't believe I said anything about LDS doctrine on this topic. I said that beliefs that are not supported by scripture can be found in the manuals. That was my point, nothing more.

[cinepro]

If the doctrine was really based on lineage, there would have been almost no one on earth who would have passed the test. Sooner or later they would have found a particle or drop along the lines.

Bingo. I believe the policy was man-made not because of my views on God, but because of my views on statistics and population genetics.

The absolute absurdity of it all is that if God had a group of spirits whom He truly didn't want to have the priesthood, He would just have to send them to Earth in a time and place where they can't get the priesthood. He doesn't need to send them to a body with a certain assumed characteristics, and then tell the leaders of the Church to generally try and exclude people based on these assumed characteristics (and then after a certain period of time say that it is now OK for these same people to have the priesthood..).

He just needs to say "OK, you spirits don't get the priesthood on Earth, so you're going to live in China in 1000 AD." Problem solved.

[katherine the great]

The scriptures don't have to say it to be doctrine. Published by the Church.

BCSpace, you are avoiding my question. PLEASE quote the doctrine for me. I've been nicely asking you for a couple of pages now. Is there really "doctrine" that is not supported by scripture?