Descendants Of Cain

[Rob Osborn]

You quoted a Curse on land, not a bloodline, Rob. And Priesthood is never mentioned in connection with this curse of heat causing barren land.

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

The curse of the land was preserved through the race.

[David T]

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

The curse of the land was preserved through the race.

 

You're changing your story. And isn't it more likely this refers to the specific curse pronounced in the Genesis/JST narrative on the son of Ham named Canaan?

 

The family, who had been rejected from obtaining Priesthood, then left and settled the land, physically separating themselves, choosing not to reconcile, and thus choosing to preserve the curse of lack of access to Priesthood in their new land and Kingdom.

 

As was pointed out, the ante-diluvian proto-Canaanite curse applied to blight and desolation on the land. Egypt is known as being the breadbasket of the area, and extremly fertile.

 

Abraham would thus be going to Egypt to:

a) take advantage of the land's fertility and survive the famine in his own land (Abraham 2:21 - which shows no curse of land desolation seemed to be in effect)

b) offer to end the 'spiritual famine in the land' by being an authorized messenger able to restore the Priesthood, and end the self-imposed curse. (explanations to Facsimile 3)

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

You're changing your story. And isn't it more likely this refers to the specific curse pronounced in the Genesis/JST narrative on the son of Ham named Canaan?

 

The family, who had been rejected from obtaining Priesthood, then left and settled the land, physically separating themselves, choosing not to reconcile, and thus choosing to preserve the curse of lack of access to Priesthood in their new land and Kingdom.

 

As was pointed out, the ante-diluvian proto-Canaanite curse applied to blight and desolation on the land. Egypt is known as being the breadbasket of the area, and extremly fertile.

 

Abraham would thus be going to Egypt to:

a) take advantage of the land's fertility and survive the famine in his own land (Abraham 2:21 - which shows no curse of land desolation seemed to be in effect)

b) offer to end the 'spiritual famine in the land' by being an authorized messenger able to restore the Priesthood, and end the self-imposed curse. (explanations to Facsimile 3)

I read the text as the curse being preserved by blood through the flood. Nothing is mentioned about the son of Ham preserving the curse based on him only. The text supports a blood lineage of the pre-flood Canaanites being preserved through Egyptus, Hams wife.

[thesometimesaint]

Though you don't have to if you don't want to, you didn't answer my question.

 

God makes the rules not me. God for whatever reason(s) has denied the priesthood to various groups throughout history. As I taught my kids "My house, My rules".

[teddyaware]

I'm disappointed so few answered the interesting question I posed in post #202. I'd like to start a new thread to pose that question to the board's participants generally, but a moderator won't allow me to start new threads. Be that as it may, I have another interesting and perhaps even crucial question to ask with regard to this thread's subject.

 

To set the stage, I'll first a quote a verse from the Book of Mormon and then ask my question:

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. (Alma 3)

 

Question: Can God place any kind of physical 'mark' upon the bodies of the children of men, so as to make it possible to easily differentiate them in appearance from others, and still be considered a just and righteous God?.  

Edited March 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[David T]

Nothing is mentioned about the son of Ham preserving the curse based on him only.

 

Ham's son that is explicitly said to be cursed in the KJV/JST text is named... Canaan.

 

The text supports a blood lineage of the pre-flood Canaanites being preserved through Egyptus, Hams wife.

 

I have yet to see any of this support for it. You cite scriptures that do not say what you claim are explicit. The connections you are asserting do not match, and have tons of logistical problems. You are citing a traditional understanding of the story not supported by, and in substantial ways, made problematic by the text itself.

 

Letting the stories speak for themselves does not support the traditional reading which you are forcing into the text. My proposal appears far more internally consistent within the text itself, and is consistent with other scriptural themes. You keep asserting a fact from the text, and then post a text that is not consistent with your claim.

 

How important is it to you that the "Cain -> Proto-Canaanite -> Egyptus -> All African Blacks Can't Have Priesthood" lineal narrative stands? Why is it important to you?

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[David T]

I'm disappointed so few answered the interesting question I posed in post #202. I'd like to start a new thread to pose that question to the board's participants generally, but a moderator won't allow me to start new threads. Be that as it may, I have another interesting and perhaps even crucial question to ask with regard to this thread's subject.

 

To set the stage, I'll first a quote a verse from the Book of Mormon and then ask my question:

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. (Alma 3)

 

Question: Can God place any kind of physical 'mark' upon the bodies of the children of men so as to make it possible to easily differentiate them in appearance from others and still be considered a just and righteous God?.  

 

I don't think he has. We don't have any eyewitness accounts of such a thing happening. We have Nephi, who left town, declaring that a new generation of dark skinned people who attack later are Lamanites. We have Mormon crafting a theological narrative with a focus on showing consistent and direct fulfillment of his understanding of prophetic declarations. Today, the First Presidency declares it disavows theories presented in the past that Dark Skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse.

 

It doesn't seem at all consistent with my experience and understanding of God, and his interactions with this world. Even Jacob, living in Nephi's exact generation, presented conflicted thoughts on Nephi's declaration. Within a generation, there was a mixture of literal and symbolic understanding of the tradition. Peoples placing a red dot on their heads were seen as fulfilling the declaration of being marked! It's clear that in the later portion of the Book of Mormon, Lamanite and Nephite was purely a category of affiliation, and could not plausibly be tied to lineage. Theologizing and after-the-fact editing for presumed consistency imposed upon the text notwithstanding.

 

Even Nephi doesn't declare that the Lord said he marked them with dark skin. That is noted as being separate from the divine declaration, and when read in context, is an assumed interpretation.

 

Let’s look at the text, 2 Nephi 5, with specific statements attributed to the Lord given a traditional red-letter edition:

 

20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.  And behold, they were cut off from his presence.

 

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

 

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.

 

And the Lord spake it, and it was done. 24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

 

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to astir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

 

To recap: here is what Nephi reports the Lord actually is reported to have said:

 

• Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.
• I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
• And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing [ie, cut off, and made loathsome].
• They shall be a scourge unto thy seed.

Nephi goes further with his interpretation than he actually claims came directly by the revelation. He shows his interpretation of “that they might not be enticing unto my people” to mean that “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

 

Again:

 

1. No Nephites, including Nephi, claim to be eyewitnesses to the initiation of the curse and associated marking that would make them ‘not enticing’.
2. Nephi’s reporting of the Lord’s words do not specify any change in physical appearance, or even lightness/darkness

Here's a question - do you believe God would, today, suddenly and immediately change the ethnic/genetic makeup of a group of people in order to mark them as cursed? Like, for example, taking all those in the Church who hold a "subversive unorthodox perspective on doctrine, politics, and the scriptures" who might be "poisoning the Church from within" from certain perspectives, and suddenly giving them a single physical characteristic to warn The Good Orthodox Members away from them, and to warn the Bishops not to grant them recommends, or ordain them to Priesthood office?

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[Senator]

 

Question: Can God place any kind of physical 'mark' upon the bodies of the children of men, so as to make it possible to easily differentiate them in appearance from others, and still be considered a just and righteous God?.  

 

In other words you are asking if God created the races and can he be considered just in doing so.

 

My answer is yes.

[katherine the great]

The Pharaoh kings were kings by royal blood lineage back to Ham and his wife. The curse which is preserved through their blood is that curse given the pre-flood Canaanites-

6 And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of a Canaan, which dwelt in tents.

7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;

8 For behold, the Lord shall a curse the land with much heat, and the b barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a c blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people. (Moses 7:6-

This is the curse given the Canaanites before the flood. Note also that because of God's knowledge of futurity the curse it says shall "go forth forever". So, going back to Abraham ch. 1 we read that this curse was indeed preserved through blood lineage of Ham's loins because whereas he himself is not a Canaanite his wife must obviously be the one with Canaanite blood. from the which the bloodline of the pre-flood Canaanites was thus preserved which also brought to pass the prophecy that the curse placed upon the bloodline would be preserved through the flood.

This is your scriptural evidence that Egyptus was a Canaanite?  There are too many assumptions that have to be made to meet my burden of proof.  Sorry.    It says nothing about priesthood authority, it says nothing about these people being the only "black" people on earth, it says nothing about black skin being connected in any way to a ban on God's authority.  If anything, it seems to connect black skin to climate (which makes a lot more sense to me than any of these other "theories.)  It also says that the land was cursed.  Unless I'm missing something it doesn't say the people are cursed--just despised.  Our Lord himself is described as being despised.

[frank_jessop]

DavidT why do you completely ignore verse 21 in your recap. You used red to emphasize, what I will call, "the cursing" (and as you indicated the "thus sayeth the Lord" statements) but you ignore the "skin of blackness" and you do not include it in your recap. Why did you not include it in your recap?

Nephi spoke/wrote in the present. Nephi's account in verse 21 is attributed to the Lord.

Edited March 6, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I agree.  So why throw an old folk legend into a Gospel Doctrine class?

There is none, I agree with your shock. Sadly where I live here in Georgia, it still rears it's ugly head from time to time. I have also been privy to horrible remarks, when I would shut down discussion on the topic, when it came up in classes I taught. Even to the point of having one angry class member slipping me materials the following week, to set me straight.

[katherine the great]

 

Question: Can God place any kind of physical 'mark' upon the bodies of the children of men, so as to make it possible to easily differentiate them in appearance from others, and still be considered a just and righteous God?.  

Of course He can.  He's God.  He can do anything.  I just don't believe that He does.  However, I think that the Book of Mormon writers probably believed that He did.

[frank_jessop]

This is your scriptural evidence that Egyptus was a Canaanite? There are too many assumptions that have to be made to meet my burden of proof. Sorry.

We can only take Abraham at face value of the particular verse. However, if a current teaching of the Church is that "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain", then I think there is no error in stating that. We, individually are not the arbiter's of truth for others.

Beyond the face value of the any particular verse comes speculation. On the point of speculation, I agree with Katherine. The scriptures do not indicate the bloodline or cursing that was preserved in Egyptus. By face value of the scriptures we know Pharaoh was prohibited from the Priesthood.

[David T]

DavidT why do you completely ignore verse 21 in you recap. You used red to emphasize, what I will call, "the cursing" but you ignore the "skin of blackness" and you do not include it in your recap. Why did you not include it in your recap?

Nephi spoke/wrote in the present. Nephi's account in verse 21 is attributed to the Lord.

 

I highlighted what were the quoted words of the Lord - what Nephi claims to have heard and witnessed. What is not highlighted is his intepretation and explanation. He is not present to witness an immediate change of his brothers, sisters, nephews, neices having their pigmentation changed. He is seprated by substantial time and distance before what he declares to be Lamanites arrives on the scene. Verse 21 is not presented as a quote, is is presented as explaining what he believed the Lord meant and did. 

 

Because Nephi found the darkness of the raiders to be 'loathsome', therefore, to Nephi, he reasons the Lord must have meant 'I'll give them dark skin' when he said these cut off people will be made 'loathsome'. He took it further than it needed to go.

 

The one individual we would expect to look to in order to be an eyewitness for such an event, both

a) isn't present to witness the event, and

b) Specifically stops short of quoting the Lord when he describes his understanding as to what happened as a result of the Curse.

 

This is significant.

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[katherine the great]

Oops.

 

Edited March 6, 2014 by katherine the great

[frank_jessop]

I highlighted what were the quoted words of the Lord - what Nephi claims to have heard and witnessed. What is not highlighted is his intepretation and explanation. He is not present to witness an immediate change of his brothers, sisters, nephews, neices having their pigmentation changed. He is seprated by substantial time and distance before what he declares to be Lamanites arrives on the scene. Verse 21 is not presented as a quote, is is presented as explaining what he believed the Lord meant and did.

Because Nephi found the darkness of the raiders to be 'loathsome', therefore, to Nephi, he reasons the Lord must have meant 'I'll give them dark skin' when he said these cut off people will be made 'loathsome'. He took it further than it needed to go.

Thanks for the explanation.

Nephi wrote in the verses in the sense tense. He, Nephi, a Prophet, attributed it to the Lord, I find no reason to not believe him. Just because it does not fit into my narrative of what I want the scriptures to mean, does not mean I should not take the verse as is. Though, an individual is free to what they please for their own house.

[David T]

Thanks for the explanation.

Nephi wrote in the verses in the sense tense. He, Nephi, a Prophet, attributed it to the Lord, I find no reason to not believe him. Just because it does not fit into my narrative of what I want the scriptures to mean, does not mean I should not take the verse as is. Though, an individual is free to what they please for their own house.

Nephi: "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (6th Century BCE)

 

Today: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse . . . 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." (December 2013)

 

All. Past and Present. In any form.

 

"And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine." - President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, October 2013

 

I am able to read the Book of Mormon this way because I do take it seriously, and an authentic and inspired record of human beings striving to understand God and his will, and sometimes just getting things wrong. I don't place a value judgment on Nephi, I don't think he's a bad person or less of a prophet for this! I hope in the future others will be charitable and forgiving of my for the cultural sins and prejudices and mistaken notion of my own generation that I may have perpetuated.

 

I am grateful for further light and knowledge, and apply it to my reading of the scriptures charitably, allowing for those in the past who did not have the light, understanding, and other blessings that we have available today to have acted in the sphere of what they understood was right.

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

Ham's son that is explicitly said to be cursed in the KJV/JST text is named... Canaan.

 

 

 

 

I have yet to see any of this support for it. You cite scriptures that do not say what you claim are explicit. The connections you are asserting do not match, and have tons of logistical problems. You are citing a traditional understanding of the story not supported by, and in substantial ways, made problematic by the text itself.

 

Letting the stories speak for themselves does not support the traditional reading which you are forcing into the text. My proposal appears far more internally consistent within the text itself, and is consistent with other scriptural themes. You keep asserting a fact from the text, and then post a text that is not consistent with your claim.

 

How important is it to you that the "Cain -> Proto-Canaanite -> Egyptus -> All African Blacks Can't Have Priesthood" lineal narrative stands? Why is it important to you?

Hum...

Don't you find it all coincidental that Ham's son is named after the pre-flood city of Canaan? Why do they have the same name? Could it possibly be because Ham's son was by blood a Canaanite through the lineage of his mother Egyptus? You keep wanting to go around the verses I keep quoting stating factually that it is through Ham and Egyptus that the Canaanite blood was preserved in the land.

 

I honestly don't know what to tell you at this point. The scriptures seem pretty clear that the blood of the Canaanites was preserved through Ham and Egyptus into their children.

[Rob Osborn]

This is your scriptural evidence that Egyptus was a Canaanite?  There are too many assumptions that have to be made to meet my burden of proof.  Sorry.    It says nothing about priesthood authority, it says nothing about these people being the only "black" people on earth, it says nothing about black skin being connected in any way to a ban on God's authority.  If anything, it seems to connect black skin to climate (which makes a lot more sense to me than any of these other "theories.)  It also says that the land was cursed.  Unless I'm missing something it doesn't say the people are cursed--just despised.  Our Lord himself is described as being despised.

I will list one verse and one topic at a time to discuss. Concerning if or if not the curse was through the race or not, here-

 

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.  (Abraham 1:24)

 

Why was the curse preserved in the land? Because of the "race".

[Rob Osborn]

I highlighted what were the quoted words of the Lord - what Nephi claims to have heard and witnessed. What is not highlighted is his intepretation and explanation. He is not present to witness an immediate change of his brothers, sisters, nephews, neices having their pigmentation changed. He is seprated by substantial time and distance before what he declares to be Lamanites arrives on the scene. Verse 21 is not presented as a quote, is is presented as explaining what he believed the Lord meant and did. 

 

Because Nephi found the darkness of the raiders to be 'loathsome', therefore, to Nephi, he reasons the Lord must have meant 'I'll give them dark skin' when he said these cut off people will be made 'loathsome'. He took it further than it needed to go.

 

The one individual we would expect to look to in order to be an eyewitness for such an event, both

a) isn't present to witness the event, and

b) Specifically stops short of quoting the Lord when he describes his understanding as to what happened as a result of the Curse.

 

This is significant.

This is entirely your interpretation and in so doing you must admit that even though the scriptures say it was the Lord who said this it really was not and thus it is a lie. You might as well just throw out the entire BoM.

[David T]

I will list one verse and one topic at a time to discuss. Concerning if or if not the curse was through the race or not, here-

 

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.  (Abraham 1:24)

 

Why was the curse preserved in the land? Because of the "race".

 

The race is not the 'why' of that scripture, it is the 'how'. The what is "the effects of a curse were preserved in the land." How? "That family line brought it there." - the 'why' is strangely absent from The Book of Abraham.

[teddyaware]

In other words you are asking if God created the races and can he be considered just in doing so.

 

My answer is yes.

I should have said, "Question: Can God, as a cursing, place any kind of 'mark' or physical change upon the bodies of the children of men and still be considered a just and righteous God?.

Edited March 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[David T]

This is entirely your interpretation and in so doing you must admit that even though the scriptures say it was the Lord who said this it really was not and thus it is a lie. You might as well just throw out the entire BoM.

 

It does not say "it was the Lord who said this", as I clearly demonstrated. Nephi explains what he believed the Lord did, as an expanded interpretation of what he reported the Lord actually said. Making an error is not lying.

 

You do realize that this comes from reading it critically, and seriously, and faithfully, and approaching it as I would an authentic historical text, reading it as I would the Biblical texts? There is a consistent theme and tension that arises in the Book of Mormon, with many false and incorrect Steretypes being affirmed - even by prophets. President Uchtdorf acknowledged this:

 

“both the Nephites as well as the Lamanites created their own “truths” about each other …These “truths” fed their hatred for one another until it finally consumed them all. Needless to say, there are many examples in the Book of Mormon that contradict both of these stereotypes. Nevertheless, the Nephites and Lamanites believed these “truths” that shaped the destiny of this once-mighty and beautiful people.” - President Uchtdorf,  (2013)

 

Do you sugest President Uchdtdorf " throw out the entire BoM."?

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

It does not say "it was the Lord who said this", as I clearly demonstrated. Nephi explains what he believed the Lord did, as an expanded interpretation of what he reported the Lord actually said. Making an error is not lying.

 

You do realize that this comes from reading it critically, and seriously, and faithfully, and approaching it as I would an authentic historical text, reading it as I would the Biblical texts? There is a consistent theme and tension that arises in the Book of Mormon, with many false and incorrect Steretypes being affirmed - even by prophets. President Uchtdorf acknowledged this:

 

“both the Nephites as well as the Lamanites created their own “truths” about each other …These “truths” fed their hatred for one another until it finally consumed them all. Needless to say, there are many examples in the Book of Mormon that contradict both of these stereotypes. Nevertheless, the Nephites and Lamanites believed these “truths” that shaped the destiny of this once-mighty and beautiful people.” - President Uchtdorf,  (2013)

 

Do you sugest President Uchdtdorf " throw out the entire BoM."?

CFR on where Uchdtdorf means this in context of the skin of the Lamanites being a fabrication or their belief outside of what God revealed. I don't believe there is such.

 

The LDS church may as well just fold if we can show that the BoM was a just a racist fabrication of half truths

[frank_jessop]

DavidT the key in the disavowal by the Church is "theories". Where did the disavow parts the Book of Mormon. The Church disavowed racism; where does the Church label Nephi a racist.