Mormons descended from Cain?

[Alan]

Most mormons are, according to their Patriarchal Blessing, of the tribe of Ephraim. There are exceptions, but these mainly prove the rule.

Ephraim was the son of Joseph who was the son of Jacob (Israel). Ephraim's mother (Joseph's wife) was Asenath, an Egyptian. In fact, Asenath was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis (Gen. 41:45 and 46:20) and "hence of the pure line of Ham" (see Nibley's "Abraham in Egypt" p.215). Abraham says that all Egyptians in his day were of that line:

Abraham 1:21,22 says "Now this king of Egypt was from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians."

So if Ham had the blood of Cain then so do most members of the church, whether by birth or adoption. Or am I missing something?

[SkepticTheist]

Give that man a cigar!!!!!!!!!!!

It is precisely these types of inconsistencies that pre-1978 LDS apologists tried to explain away, but which are obviously inconsistent. But other scholars like Armaund Mauss were quite aware of.

Another one of these is the fact that the Land of CANAAN was the land that the Israelites settled in, and many intermarried with them, including the sons of Judah from whom the Savior descends from. And of course, there is the wives of Ishmael, the son of Abraham who was the sire of the Arab race. In other words, modern day Israel and the Arabs ARE modern day Canaan. So, of course, we may ask, why did not the Curse of Cain extend to the Savior himself, or to the Arabs if it was truly scriptural? this kind of stuff demonstrates how it is NOT scriptural.

The fact remains however, that there is some doubt that the pre-flood Canaanites were actually descendants of Cain. Whatever the case, the mythical curse of Cain can be put to rest, and we can realize that the Curse of Cain is actually synonymous with spiritual death in the sense of separation from God's presence (i.e. loss of the gift of the Holy Ghost, temple blessings, priesthood, etc.), and comes upon any apostate regardless of his blood.

Most mormons are, according to their Patriarchal Blessing, of the tribe of Ephraim. There are exceptions, but these mainly prove the rule.

Ephraim was the son of Joseph who was the son of Jacob (Israel). Ephraim's mother (Joseph's wife) was Asenath, an Egyptian. In fact, Asenath was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis (Gen. 41:45 and 46:20) and "hence of the pure line of Ham" (see Nibley's "Abraham in Egypt" p.215). Abraham says that all Egyptians in his day were of that line:

Abraham 1:21,22 says "Now this king of Egypt was from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians."

So if Ham had the blood of Cain then so do most members of the church, whether by birth or adoption. Or am I missing something?

[Jason]

A patriarchal blessing does not necessarily indicate literal descent. I've heard of children who had a different tribe than either of their parents.

The priesthood ban, on the other hand, was based on literal descent.

[oMtonic]

So that would explain all that unsightly hair...

[semlogo]

Most mormons are, according to their Patriarchal Blessing, of the tribe of Ephraim. There are exceptions, but these mainly prove the rule.

Ephraim was the son of Joseph who was the son of Jacob (Israel). Ephraim's mother (Joseph's wife) was Asenath, an Egyptian. In fact, Asenath was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis (Gen. 41:45 and 46:20) and "hence of the pure line of Ham" (see Nibley's "Abraham in Egypt" p.215). Abraham says that all Egyptians in his day were of that line:

Abraham 1:21,22 says "Now this king of Egypt was from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians."

So if Ham had the blood of Cain then so do most members of the church, whether by birth or adoption. Or am I missing something?

That's very interesting. I think that confirms my opinion (based on my internal moral compass) that the priesthood ban was a mistake. Now we have the genealogical proof that if the ban were right, then it would have applied to Jesus, the apostles, and most Latter-day Saints. Thanks for this!

[Jeff K.]

The priesthood ban may have been a mistake. It may not have been one. I am less sure of the position though I would assume that many prophets have prayed and asked for its removal. I wonder why then the Lord would be silent when they have asked?

[Calm]

I am sure if I don't mention it someone will sooner or later, but there are claims that Asenath was not Egyptian, but was Dinah's daughter (from her rape by Shechem), also another speculation popular in the church in my experience is that at the time of Joseph's marriage, the Hyskos, a nonHamite group, were in power and thus again we have Asenath not being a descendant of Ham.

Wiki:

The Midrash Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer records a view that Asenath was actually the daughter of Joseph's sister Dinah, conceived in her rape by Shechem.^[1]

From the comment section of the Ensign:

Asenath an Egyptian?

In his article entitled

[David T]

The priesthood ban may have been a mistake. It may not have been one. I am less sure of the position though I would assume that many prophets have prayed and asked for its removal. I wonder why then the Lord would be silent when they have asked?

It wasn't a substantial issue worth note, consideration, or even much practical application until the presidency of David O. McKay, and the great world-wide expansion of the Church. I highly suggest reading David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism for great insight into this period.

David O. McKay had no idea where the ban started, and referred to it as a 'policy' - but because he had no idea where or how it began, he wouldn't remove it without revelation. His successors were content with accepting it as having a divine origin, and didn't press the issue. It wasn't until President Kimball's presidency that full out research was done producing no evidence that the ban was supported by scripture, or could be traced to Joseph Smith or any other revelation. With this conclusion of study and prayer brought to the Lord by President Kimball, it was confirmed. see Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood.

[Sevenbak]

Most mormons are, according to their Patriarchal Blessing, of the tribe of Ephraim. There are exceptions, but these mainly prove the rule.

Ephraim was the son of Joseph who was the son of Jacob (Israel). Ephraim's mother (Joseph's wife) was Asenath, an Egyptian. In fact, Asenath was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis (Gen. 41:45 and 46:20) and "hence of the pure line of Ham" (see Nibley's "Abraham in Egypt" p.215). Abraham says that all Egyptians in his day were of that line:

Abraham 1:21,22 says "Now this king of Egypt was from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians."

So if Ham had the blood of Cain then so do most members of the church, whether by birth or adoption. Or am I missing something?

Might I add a couple other scenarios... just food for thought...

1. Potipherah, the priest of On, father of Asenath, might not have been of the lineage of Cain...

2. Asenath might not have been the only wife of Joseph.

3. Were the rulers of Egypt always and complete descended from Ham, or did the seed of Japheth or Shem ever have influence there?

[SkepticTheist]

Or we can simply accept the simple explanation and dismiss the misplaced apologetics of yester-century.

Might I add a couple other scenarios... just food for thought...

1. Potipherah, the priest of On, father of Asenath, might not have been of the lineage of Cain...

2. Asenath might not have been the only wife of Joseph.

3. Were the rulers of Egypt always and complete descended from Ham, or did the seed of Japheth or Shem ever have influence there?

[Sevenbak]

Or we can simply accept the simple explanation and dismiss the misplaced apologetics of yester-century.

Or we could just make that #4.

[SkepticTheist]

Or not.

Or we could just make that #4.

[Sevenbak]

Or not.

Well, since you've got it all figured out, and know for sure that every Egyptian dynasty and every upper class citizen of every dynasty was of Hamitic descent, I guess your take is carved in stone, so to speak. Sure glad you're open to discussion...

[bookofmormontruth]

[SkepticTheist]

I'm open to discussion. Say anything you like. It is misplaced apologetics to make suggestions that were designed to defend a defunct doctrine.

That's part of the discussion. Let's discuss it. I'm open, just very opinionated.

Well, since you've got it all figured out, and know for sure that every Egyptian dynasty and every upper class citizen of every dynasty was of Hamitic descent, I guess your take is carved in stone, so to speak. Sure glad you're open to discussion...

[TAO]

I'm open to discussion. Say anything you like. It is misplaced apologetics to make suggestions that were designed to defend a defunct doctrine.

That's part of the discussion. Let's discuss it. I'm open, just very opinionated.

Skeptic Theist... I don't think God's reasoning behind the ban is quite as simple as people are making it. In fact... I think though the ban may have been placed over 'African' members, it's purpose had nothing to do with the fact that they were African, but with the fact that God put them there to overcome a specific type of trial. Kind of like how I have Autism and Tourrette's not of my own fault, but of the knowledge and wisdom of God to give me such as trials. Just a trial I have to overcome, because it will teach me good things, not necessarily because of my pre-existance (though it could be that too). I think the Priesthood Ban covers the same thing, but for specific souls that God put where they were in the world (he could have put a different soul there if he wanted to, I think) specifically to have a trial to deal with. A test of sorts.

But yes... that's just a theory I have behind it and such... in no sense scriptural... and really more deep than that.

[Sevenbak]

I'm open to discussion. Say anything you like. It is misplaced apologetics to make suggestions that were designed to defend a defunct doctrine.

That's part of the discussion. Let's discuss it. I'm open, just very opinionated.

Well, I suppose if you can explain why King Tut had reddish brown hair and Western European DNA, that might be a good start to a discussion. Then you can explain why various dynastic hieroglyphic art shows the ruling class of different skin and hair color. There is no all or nothing answer. There are more questions than answers, so again, be careful about such blanket statements against apologetics.

[Nathair/|\]

From what I understand, the reason Pharaoh couldn't have the priesthood was because he tried to claim it through his mother, not because he was the descendant of Caanan. I can't find the documentation tonight, but if anyone wants me to, I will look after I get some sleep.

My provisional belief, which is based on intuition rather than argument, is that the ban was put into place because doing otherwise would have opened the church up to more persecution than it could handle at the time. Of course that could change given good reason or stronger intuition. It wouldn't bother me if I found out I was wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

Or it could have been a trial of the White Saints to see how they would treat their Black brothers and sisters.

Just my non-Scriptural opinion.

[Jeff K.]

If that were true, then we know they treated them better than most other groups in the US.

[semlogo]

The priesthood ban may have been a mistake. It may not have been one. I am less sure of the position though I would assume that many prophets have prayed and asked for its removal. I wonder why then the Lord would be silent when they have asked?

Maybe He thought it was a dumb question. Pres McKay figured out that it was a policy, never a revelation. You don't need to ask God to remove a policy - you just do it.

[erichard]

... Or am I missing something?

Hi Alan,

Have you ever hear of the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings?

quotes from this article:

The Hyksos ... were an Asiatic people who took over the eastern Nile Delta in the Twelfth dynasty of Egypt... By the Fifteenth dynasty of Egypt,

they ruled lower Egypt

, and at the end of the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt, they were expelled. ... Modern scholarship usually assumes that the Hyksos were likely

Semites who came from the Levant

. ... In spite of the prosperity that the stable political situation brought to the land, the native Egyptians continued to view the Hyksos as non-Egyptian "invaders." When they were eventually driven out of Egypt,

all traces of their occupation were erased

.

If the Hyksos were in power when Joseph, and then later Jacob and all his family, lived in Egypt, then there is no reason to believe that Joseph married a native Egyptian.

Richard

[LeSellers]

[quote name=Alan' timestamp='1299710475'

post='1208982754]Most mormons ...

[Uncertain]

Hi All,

It is a virtual certainty that if Cain was a real person and he has any descendants alive today that every person living including all LDS are descended from Cain. This would also be the case in the days of Brigham Young.

Basing blessings/cursings on the basis of heredity is extremely problematic this includes such ideas as the "curse of Cain" or "curse of Ham". Such concepts are greatly weakened if not falsified outright by population genetics. For example as you go back in time you reach a point where if someone has any living descendants they are the ancestors of everyone currently living. Estimates place this point within historical times i.e.(2,158 B.C. - 5,353 B.C.) ref( Rohde D, Olson S, Chang J (2004) Modeling the recent common ancestry of all living humans. Nature 431:562

[semlogo]

Hi All,

It is a virtual certainty that if Cain was a real person and he has any descendants alive today that every person living including all LDS are descended from Cain. This would also be the case in the days of Brigham Young.

Basing blessings/cursings on the basis of heredity is extremely problematic this includes such ideas as the "curse of Cain" or "curse of Ham". Such concepts are greatly weakened if not falsified outright by population genetics. For example as you go back in time you reach a point where if someone has any living descendants they are the ancestors of everyone currently living. Estimates place this point within historical times i.e.(2,158 B.C. - 5,353 B.C.) ref( Rohde D, Olson S, Chang J (2004) Modeling the recent common ancestry of all living humans. Nature 431:562