Descendants Of Cain

[katherine the great]

In our Gospel Doctrine class yesterday, the good sister teaching the lesson stated that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain.  She stated this as if it was an indisputable fact.  I questioned this statement and asked for a scriptural reference that actually directly says this.  Instead, one of the brethren who is a neighbor and friend showed me several scriptures that deal with the descendants of Cain being "black" and also the Cannanites (who have nothing to do with Cain) being a cursed lineage and then concluded that there is no doubt that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain.  This just really rubbed me the wrong way.  Should this be taught in Gospel Doctrine?  I see this as blatantly racist and "folk doctrine" as best.  Am I wrong?

[Calm]

Agreed. Perhaps referring to the new Gospel Topic article would be helpful in encouraging caution, pointing out that LDS read into even our scriptures ideas that were brought into the Church and were not actual revelations:

"The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.9 According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.10 Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.11 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained....

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.23"

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

Folk doctrine all the way.

 

You might want to bring up your concerns to the Sunday school president, or the Bishop.  This is the type of teaching that needs someone in leadership to stand up and say 'it's not true so we can't be teaching it as if it is'.

 

Nicely, of course.  

[thesometimesaint]

In our Gospel Doctrine class yesterday, the good sister teaching the lesson stated that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain.  She stated this as if it was an indisputable fact.  I questioned this statement and asked for a scriptural reference that actually directly says this.  Instead, one of the brethren who is a neighbor and friend showed me several scriptures that deal with the descendants of Cain being "black" and also the Cannanites (who have nothing to do with Cain) being a cursed lineage and then concluded that there is no doubt that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain.  This just really rubbed me the wrong way.  Should this be taught in Gospel Doctrine?  I see this as blatantly racist and "folk doctrine" as best.  Am I wrong?

 

Dontcha just love Gospel Rumor sometimes?

[katherine the great]

Dontcha just love Gospel Rumor sometimes?

Not really.  I live in a ward of educated people and it just kind of bugged me that everyone was just kind of nodding their heads.  Other people must have been thinking the same thing!  (I hope!)

[Gray]

I believe the BOA says that "Egyptus" had a cursed lineage by way of Ham or the Canaanites  - something along those lines. The BOA is best understood, however, in terms of a delivery mechanism for theology, and not a literal history.

[Kevin Christensen]

You are correct. See Nibley's Abraham in Egypt, "A Pioneer Mother" for a great deal about Egyptus, including this:

Question: What about the name Egyptus?

Answer: Verses 21 through 25 in Abraham 1 must be read carefully to get straight a number of specific propositions:

1. Egypt is the "Chaldean" name for the land: "Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt" (Abraham 1:23). Here the Book of Abraham is right: Egypt is not the Egyptian name for the land,408 but was first applied to it by the Canaanites ("in the Chaldean"), making its first known appearance in Ugaritic as Ḥkpt, that being an adaptation of the old Egyptian name for Memphis, Ḥw.t-kɜ-ptḥ, which the Egyptians did not apply to the land as a whole, but only to the city.409 It was the "Chaldeans" who gave it to the land. Such is the prevailing, but by no means only, explanation of the name among scholars.

2. The Egyptians, like Pharaoh himself, were of mixed stock, being partakers "of the blood of the Canaanites" (Abraham 1:21—22). Unhindered by natural boundaries, the Canaanites at all times filtered into Egypt by the oldest road in the world, presenting a recurrent menace throughout all her [Egypt's] history, according to Gardiner.410 The Delta that attracted them was like the garden of the Lord, offering tempting grazing and farming lands from the earliest times. Examination of skulls from Canaan shows "an array of cranial characteristics surprisingly similar to those of ancient Egypt."411

Question: Who were the Canaanites?

Answer: "The title 'Canaanites,' if it be used at all, must be reserved for the third-millennium Semitic inhabitants of Syria-Palestine and their second-millennium descendants."412

3. There has been a great deal of hair-splitting on the subject of Egypt and Canaan, but one sure thing is that Canaanite blood was shared one way or another by almost every pharaoh whose line can be traced:413 "Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham" (Abraham 1:25) "and Egyptus" (Abraham 1:23). The name Egypt is a title, as was Pharaoh ("which . . . signifies king by royal blood"—Abraham 1:20), and was given to the land, just as the title of Pharaoh (like that of Caesar) was given to all who ruled after him. As in the Old Testament, "father" can mean ancestor, or "son" or "daughter" can mean "descendant";414 this is clear from Abraham 1:26, where Noah is called Pharaoh's father.

4. Pharaoh's claim to the priesthood was invalid, because he insisted with great force that it was the patriarchal priesthood of Noah, received through the line of Ham (Abraham 1:25—27). His earthly rule was blessed (Abraham 1:26), but he could not, of course, claim patriarchal lineage through his mother. There is an interesting parallel here with the case of Job, who, according to a newly found Testament of Job, though the most righteous of men and a direct descendant of Jacob or Israel, cannot claim a place among the patriarchs of the line because it is through his mother that he relates to Jacob, while his father's line, through Esau, was invalid because Esau had forfeited the priesthood.415 Pharoah finds himself in exactly that situation: The male line of Ham had become rebellious, while the female line was not patriarchal.

Question: But Ham was a righteous man and, like his father Noah, even "walked with God" (Moses 8:27).

Answer: The tradition was widespread and persistent among the ancient Jews that the royal and priestly succession of Ham was made void through the transgression of his male descendants, Cainan, Cush, Nimrod, all of whom broke the covenant and forfeited the priesthood by laying unworthy claims to it. Some accounts say it was Ham himself who sinned (the story of the stolen garment); some say it was Cush, some Ham's younger son Canaan, some Nimrod (this is the commonest); but all agreed that something went wrong that broke the line.416

Question: But why the curse on the land? (Abraham 1:24).

Answer: It means, exactly as in the Book of Mormon, that those who dwell in the land will be cursed if they do not follow God's counsels and blessed if they do.417 As Noah was apportioning out the lands, according to the book of Jubilees, he pronounced a curse on any of his descendants who should defile the land given him by God through iniquity;418 most explicitly he warned Canaan—a bull's-eye for Abraham (Abraham 1:21—24). This is the standard curse on any promised land (Alma 37:28, etc). There is one element of the Old World curse, however, that we should mention. In the traditions of Ham, Canaan, and Cain, which are connected in various ways, there is constant reference to sexual promiscuity, which definitely has something to do with the curse. Thus we are told that Nimrod slew his father Canaan and married his mother Sachlas, thus launching his rule on a matriarchal footing and introducing that fatal triangle which is the abomination of the ancients. "The seed of Noah," says a recently found source, "followed after the sons of Sachlas, going against the will of Noah in their pride, and so perverted the whole population."419 Another recent discovery tells us that Satan himself rested his claim on a matriarchal line, as do his followers, "Canaan and Cain, who is also Re (the Sun)."420 This surprising equating of the Hebrew Cain to the Egyptian Re in a writing attributed to John points to some very old traditions. Whether or not the story of "Re and the Sun's Eye" is of Canaanite origin, as Cyrus Gordon maintains,421 the Egyptian story of Astarte establishes definite connections and seems to go back even to distant Hurrian and Hittite flood legends.422 In Abraham 1:21—27 we certainly see something of that confusion that results from the mingling of patriarchal and matriarchal claims that left the pharaohs forever in doubt as to just where they stood on authority.

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations [the pawt], in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham (Abraham 1:26—27).

Question: Why could they not have it?

Answer: Because, as noted, it came through a matriarchal succession, the first pharaoh being "the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal" (Abraham 1:25). Pharaoh was of a more righteous line than the sons of Ham, but daughters do not transmit patriarchal succession. In all of this, please note, there is no word of race or color, though that has been the main point of attack on the Book of Abraham by the enemies of the Prophet.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1093&index=14

For the origins of the folk doctrine approach, see Stirling Adams in BYU Studies here:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7674

Abstract:

Two recent books explore how the Genesis account of Noah cursing his grandson Canaan came to be used as a primary justification for enslaving black Africans. In doing so, the books add to the understanding of how this and other biblical stories were previously viewed within Mormonism as support for race-based classifications. Genesis tells of Ham finding his father Noah drunk and uncovered in his tent. Ham informs his brothers Shem and Japheth. They, walking backward so as not to see their father's nakedness, cover Noah with a garment. After Noah awakes from his drunkenness, he curses—not Ham, and not himself—but Ham's son Canaan by pronouncing: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren" (see Genesis 9:20–27). There is no reference to dark skin, to any skin color, or to Africa, and Noah does not say the curse applies to Canaan's descendants. Yet this story, as it was amplified and changed in extrabiblical interpretations, became the ideological cornerstone used to justify the slavery of black Africans thousands of years afterwards.

The passages in the Book of Moses ought to be understood by going back to an Ancient Near Eastern approach to the language used, and not presuming a 19th century reading. (See the recent thread on Curses and Covenants by BlueDreams, for starters).

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62898-curses-and-covenants/

You can also compare the animal apocalypse in 1 Enoch, the story of the white and black bulls, for instance.

As a rule, contextualizing sheds more light than presentist proof-texting.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

PIttsburgh, PA

[katherine the great]

Folk doctrine all the way.

 

You might want to bring up your concerns to the Sunday school president, or the Bishop.  This is the type of teaching that needs someone in leadership to stand up and say 'it's not true so we can't be teaching it as if it is'.

 

Nicely, of course.  

Actually, the Bishop was sitting in the class.  Frankly, also, I like the calling I have now and don't want to be called to be Gospel Doctrine teacher!  

[Calm]

I would push the idea that the Church leadership hardly wants this kind of stuff taught still if they are putting out articles that will eventually replace the Gospel Principles manual and for this topic there is an emphatic disavowal of connecting skin color to curses. Point out the scriptures where black is obvious a metaphor...Blue Dreams did a great thread recently on this.

[katherine the great]

I believe the BOA says that "Egyptus" had a cursed lineage by way of Ham or the Canaanites  - something along those lines. The BOA is best understood, however, in terms of a delivery mechanism for theology, and not a literal history.

Well I think that Egyptus would have been Canaan's brother so I doubt that his curse would have applied to her.  The belief of her being a descendant of Cain requires quite a bit of inference IMHO.

[katherine the great]

I would push the idea that the Church leadership hardly wants this kind of stuff taught still if they are putting out articles that will eventually replace the Gospel Principles manual and for this topic there is an emphatic disavowal of connecting skin color to curses. Point out the scriptures where black is obvious a metaphor...Blue Dreams did a great thread recently on this.

I agree.  The church really seems to be making an effort to change that old line of thinking and things like this don't help.

[thesometimesaint]

Not really.  I live in a ward of educated people and it just kind of bugged me that everyone was just kind of nodding their heads.  Other people must have been thinking the same thing!  (I hope!)

 

I was being facetious. Most times I just shake my head, and wonder how "educated" they really are.

[Calm]

In case you don't get a chance to look before the thread drops out of sight again, here is a link to Blue Dream's excellent work:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62898-curses-and-covenants/

[K-2]

Joseph Smith referred to blacks as "the negroes, or sons of Cain" (History of the Church 4:501). He also produced this inspired translation:

 

JST Gen. 9:30 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant, and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all men.

 

Did Joseph Smith teach racist folklore? Is the JST in fact uninspired in parts?

 

[Calm]

I was being facetious. Most times I just shake my head, and wonder how "educated" they really are.

What is surprising to me is the refusal to look at it another way. I get that every ward at this point will likely have several who haven't gotten the message yet and some will be muleheaded enough to even fight the change, but I would have thought given Katherine's location, that more of her ward members would be more comfortable with following the Church's lead.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Most people just don't want to stir the pot. And that would indeed stir the pot. That is why people generally don't say anything.

[Calm]

Joseph Smith referred to blacks as "the negroes, or sons of Cain" (History of the Church 4:501). He also produced this inspired translation:

Did Joseph Smith teach racist folklore? Is the JST in fact uninspired in parts?

Yes he taught racist folklore in regards to linking skin colour to curses or descent from Cain. It was an established tradition at the time justifying slavery.

"Veil of darkness" has no need to be skin colour, more likely to be a typical Biblical metaphor of spiritual darkness.

The Church has disavowed any teachings that link skin colour to curses as demonstrated in my quote above.

PS: it seems to me unlikely that Joseph would want us in our love and admiration for him to hold on to a false tradition simply because he had accepted it in his time. It is more respectful in my opinion to trust in the principles he taught in general about continuing revelation and the Lord providing further light and knowledge when his people are hungry for it.

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[David T]

Here's some resources I prepared a while back on this topic that come from  an unpacking and close reading of the canonical narratives. SPOILER: They don't say what people tend to think they say:

 

The Scriptural Curse and Seed of Cain

The Blood of the Canaanites

The Priesthoods of Abraham and Pharoah

Edited March 3, 2014 by David T

[thesometimesaint]

What is surprising to me is the refusal to look at it another way. I get that every ward at this point will likely have several who haven't gotten the message yet and some will be muleheaded enough to even fight the change, but I would have thought given Katherine's location, that more of her ward members would be more comfortable with following the Church's lead.

 

My experience is that people are people wherever you go. The Church really is a small word. Which can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. We're all family. Now what do we do with the crazy uncles?

[Tacenda]

Third LDS President John Taylor claimed that it was God's plan to allow the seed of Cain to remain on the earth in order for the devil to be properly represented. On August 28, 1881, he declared,

 

"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" (Journal of Discourses 22:304).

 

Boy, I'm glad we have bagged this garbage!

 

Edited March 3, 2014 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

Third LDS President John Taylor claimed that it was God's plan to allow the seed of Cain to remain on the earth in order for the devil to be properly represented. On August 28, 1881, he declared,

 

"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" (Journal of Discourses 22:304).

 

Boy, I'm glad we have bagged this garbage!

 

 

Everyone is entitled to at least one bat crap crazy idea.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In our Gospel Doctrine class yesterday, the good sister teaching the lesson stated that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain.  She stated this as if it was an indisputable fact.  I questioned this statement and asked for a scriptural reference that actually directly says this.  Instead, one of the brethren who is a neighbor and friend showed me several scriptures that deal with the descendants of Cain being "black" and also the Cannanites (who have nothing to do with Cain) being a cursed lineage and then concluded that there is no doubt that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain.  This just really rubbed me the wrong way.  Should this be taught in Gospel Doctrine?  I see this as blatantly racist and "folk doctrine" as best.  Am I wrong?

I assure you this is what is taught still today in the South. Someone indeed is descendant of Cain, but there is so much prejudice that has crept in over the years to justify the treatment of others...who knows anymore.

[Calm]

Third LDS President John Taylor claimed that it was God's plan to allow the seed of Cain to remain on the earth in order for the devil to be properly represented. On August 28, 1881, he declared,

 

"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" (Journal of Discourses 22:304).

 

Boy, I'm glad we have bagged this garbage!

So why are you repeating it?

[Calm]

I assure you this is what is taught still today in the South. Someone indeed is descendant of Cain, but there is so much prejudice that has crept in over the years to justify the treatment of others...who knows anymore.

If Cain has any descendants living today, genetics demands we are all his descendants, though I suppose there might be a very few individuals existing somewhere totally isolated from the rest of the world that managed to survive lack of genetic diversity in their gene pool somehow.

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

So why are you repeating it?

Because, heaven forbid, we get a Gospel Doctrine class that are unaware and need reminding that the seed of Cain isn't black people.  Maybe they need to see how racist & deplorable it is.  Why do we need movies about the Holocaust?