Descendants Of Cain

[Rob Osborn]

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?.

Absolutely. Why did he curse the Lamanite skin with a darkness as a mark?

 

 6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a ^acurse 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.

 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a ^amark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

 8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not ^amix and believe in incorrect ^btraditions which would prove their destruction.

 9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed. (Alma 3:6-9)

 

Why did God cause their skin color to become dark? Because the Lamanites had incorrect traditions and sought out to destroy the righteous Nephite civilization God caused a mark to come upon them so as to "preserve" a righteous people in the land. Its all done in the wisdom of the Lord. Think about it- you have a civilization of warring wicked people who are hell bent on anothers destruction. As God, would you place a mark on them as to show unto the righteous who not to marry and continue the destruction of the righteous? Its not as though they were eternally cursed or that the mark would perpetually last forever, it was a means by the Lord to preserve the more righteous part of his people. In todays world, who do we encourage our children to marry? Do we teach them to marry devil worshipers or those who have the appearance or "mark" of devil worshipers? What about people who have placed a swastika mark in the middle of their foreheads? Would we want our children to marry such? Thus, we can see readily through "appearance" alone that marks placed upon someone is a very effective tool to preserve the cause of godliness in society.

[David T]

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

 

CFR where I ever, EVER,  represented the Book of Mormon as "just a racist fabrication of half truths." - I refuse to approach scriptures as just a series of doctrinal affirmations. They are narratives, stories, that teach - some closer to historical accuracy than others. Part of the narratives is a progression of thought. People making declarations, acting on them, and the reader being shown through the story that the assumptions were wrong is a powerful tool of narrative. I believe the grappling with the meaning, idea, and significance of the Lamanite curse is a constant theme in the Book of Mormon, and is EXTREMELY relevant.

 

Uchtdorf claimed that there were stereotypes and claims about each group that, while presented in the text as affirmations of Truth, we see from the record (and understanding of humanity) that simply weren't completely accurate representations of truth. That is a principle that can be widely applied. Book of Mormon prophets - even very good ones - had lineal and nationalist prejudices. It's not surprising, its to be expected in ancient (and, well, modern) societies as well. Stereotypes of the Lazy Mexicans, and Snooty French, and Stupid Americans.

 

Claims were made about each that were not true.

 

The Church today disavows all theories by leaders of the past (that would include Nephi!) that " black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse"

 

Nephi was a nationalist king who was deeply invested in his sacred role of protecting his people from outside corruption. The he may have broadly over-intepreted the Lord's declaration out of a righteous desire to protect his people spiritually and temporally does not malign his character in my eyes. Especially in the context of his cultural milieu.

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

CFR where I ever, EVER,  represented the Book of Mormon as "just a racist fabrication of half truths." - I refuse to approach scriptures as just a series of doctrinal affirmations. They are narratives, stories, that teach - some closer to historical accuracy than others. Part of the narratives is a progression of thought. People making declarations, acting on them, and the reader being shown through the story that the assumptions were wrong is a powerful tool of narrative. I believe the grappling with the meaning, idea, and significance of the Lamanite curse is a constant theme in the Book of Mormon, and is EXTREMELY relevant.

 

Uchtdorf claimed that there were stereotypes and claims about each group that, while presented in the text as affirmations of Truth, we see from the record (and understanding of humanity) that simply weren't completely accurate representations of truth. That is a principle that can be widely applied. Book of Mormon prophets - even very good ones - had lineal and nationalist prejudices. It's not surprising, its to be expected in ancient (and, well, modern) societies as well. Stereotypes of the Lazy Mexicans, and Snooty French, and Stupid Americans.

 

Claims were made about each that were not true.

 

The Church today disavows all theories by leaders of the past (that would include Nephi!) that " black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse"

 

Nephi was a nationalist king who was deeply invested in his sacred role of protecting his people from outside corruption. The he may have broadly over-intepreted the Lord's declaration out of a righteous desire to protect his people spiritually and temporally does not malign his character in my eyes. Especially in the context of his cultural milieu.

So you think the blackness of skin a sa mark by God as recorded in the BoM is a Nephite fabrication to cause intended racism in the civilization of the Nephites as a means to protect them?

[David T]

Look at how the idea is understood and developed in the time of Jacob, by Jacob the Priest. Lamanite and Nephite are made to be a purely political designation here for the scriptural tradition. Those who are loyal or friendly to the Nephite Dynasty are Nephites, and those who are opposed are Lamanites. Lineage is specifically noted to not be an issue from this point on in terms of designation, in at least how Jacob, the priestly record keeper, will be presenting the material. They are not terms of righteousness, or being of favor with God. They are in regards to political affinity

 

This is made even more clear with his sermon, in which he declares that in many key aspects, those designated as Lamanites have become, in actuality, more righteous than many Nephites.

 

"And now behold, my [Nephite] brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done. Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds." Jacob 2:34-35

 

Jacob continues, (Jacob 3:3-9) , "But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakes;” – this makes a reference to the Foundational Lehite Promise, that those who are disobedient to the covenant will be ‘cut off’ from the Lord, and the Land of Promise.

 

At this point, the Nephite Kingdom and its Temple Priesthood are the vehicles of delivering divine favor. The enemies of the Nephite nation have been as of this point cut off from the Familial Covenant.  “and the Lamanites,” Jacob continues,  “which are not filthy like unto you, nevertheless they are cursed with a sore cursing, shall scourge you even unto destruction.” – what is this curse of which he speaks? Being cut off from the presence of the Lord – the Temple, and the Lehite Covenant.

 

It is due to their opposition to those who have been chosen to bear those gifts. But here, Jacob is making clear that the tables can be turned, and the gifts and ecclesiastical benefits can be taken away from the Nephites, and be granted to the Nephites. It will be a striking reversal. “And the time speedily cometh, that except ye repent they shall possess the land of your inheritance, and the Lord God will lead away the righteous out from among you.”

 

Now, after laying out the nature of the Curse, and how it can easily be re-applied based on lack of willingness to be loyal to the Divine Covenant, he applies Nephi’s sign of the curse, and curiously both sustains it, and throws its significance into question.

 

“Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people … and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?”

 

Some notes:

1. Jacob notes that Nephite hatred is based on their perception of Lamanite “filthiness” and additionally “their skins”

2. Jacob re-iterates what he had noted explicitly before – that in reality, the Nephites he was addressing were, in reality,  “not filthy” where it mattered concerning Covenant Righteousness.

3. Lamanite unbelief and rejection of the Nephites as the covenantal heirs comes from the division of the previous generation. In ignorance of the Divine Laws (not passed on from the prior generation), they still are naturally obey them. In full knowledge of the letter of Divine Law, the Nephites disobey them. The Lamanites, who are ignorantly in opposition to the political kingdom of Nephi, which holds the Sacred Oracles, can properly be seen as more righteous than than those who belong to the Authorized Kingdom, but knowingly reject Divine Law.

 

Jacob then strikingly alters their perception of the Lineal Marker, and applies it, in a bit of argumentum reduction absurdum as a changeable sign, one that, as things were going, would likely be strikingly and symbolically reversed:

 

“O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.”

 

This leads into a direct commandment, specifically stated to be the Word of God,  not to permit or consider skin color to be a judge of righteousness, nor as a sign of permissible enmity. 

 

“Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; “

 

In addition, Lamanite inability by affiliation and ignorance to knowingly obey all aspects of the Divine Covenant, leading them to be ceremonially unclean or ‘filthy’ is also said not to be a viable reason for enmity. “neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers." – The Nephites who find themselves unclean have made a choice not to take advantage of divine cleansing. The Lamanites, without knowledge nor access to the Temple and Covenant do not. 

 

This is a striking evolution of the concept of Nephi’s Lamanite Curse. In many ways, Jacob is taking Nephi’s interpretation of the initiation of the curse upon the Lamanites, and broadening it based on the initial conditions given by Lehi, and using reason to explain why while separation from divine communion is a curse in and of itself, following the initial generation, it is not necessarily reflective of one’s personal righteousness, is not essentially tied to lineage, and can – and should - be reversed, or overturned.

 

It prompts the question for the Nephite community - if skin color is not presented as an accurate  sign of one's righteousness, or ability to merge with the covenant community - what practical purpose does it serve? Does it serve a theological purpose at all?

 

And when natives were fully interbreeding with the Lehites, skin color was totally practically moot. 

 

I like how, I believe it was volgadon, commented on this, "There doesn’t have to be a difference in skin colour, nor were people ignorant of the sun’s effects. Taking into consideration the metaphorical aspect of black, a dialogue between a Lamanite and a somewhat tactless Nephite might be imagined somewhat like the following.

N: -For rebellion, God cursed you with a skin of darkness, so all would know upon sight how wicked your dealings are.

L: -But your skin is no lighter than mine!

N: -Mine is because of honest toil under the blistering sun!"

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[Ahab]

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

My answer is yes.

We're all descendents of Adam and Eve and yet there are many different "races", presumably differentiated by skin color. There's got to be some reason for it. And I credit God for only good things that happen, and to me different skin colors doesn't seem like a good thing.

[teddyaware]

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

The image I get from David T's well meaning refusal to accept the plain meaning of words is that the Nephites were filled with so much hate and resentment toward the Lamanites that they became delusional in their abhorrence, their hate-distorted minds actually somehow imagining the visages of the Lamanites transformed before them as dark and terrifying monsters. And this in spite of the fact that the writers and main characters of the Book of Mormon were holy prophets who were filled with the love of God. 

 

Perhaps the reason why many have so much trouble accepting the obvious meaning of the Book of Mormon text is that this matter is one of those hard things of the Gospel, like Moses and the children of Israel being commanded of the God to utterly exterminate the inhabitants of the land of Canaaan. These "hard things" of sacred history are difficult to wrap one's mind around, while still believing God is a God of love. So I guess It's only natural some would turn away from these kinds of things in horror and revulsion because it's just too much to ingest.

 

[Edit] David T, In the event you read this post, would you please clear something up for me once and for all? Because I'm somewhat confused about where you stand on the issue, do you or do you not believe the Lamanites were cursed by the Lord with dark skin (no matter how it may have happened)? A simple yes or no answer would be helpful. Seeking clarification so as to be fair.

Edited March 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[Senator]

 And I credit God for only good things that happen, and to me different skin colors doesn't seem like a good thing.

Why not?

[David T]

The image I get from David T's well meaning refusal to accept the plain meaning of words is that the Nephites were filled with so much hate and resentment toward the Lamanites that they became delusional in their abhorrence, their hate-distorted minds actually somehow imagining the visages of the Lamanites transformed before them as dark and terrifying monsters. And this in spite of the fact that the writers and main characters of the Book of Mormon were holy prophets who were filled with the love of God. 

 

Actually, a key part of the Book of Mormon and their prophets is challenging the founding tradition, and proving it by experience to be incorrect. As I pointed out above, Jacob the Priest, within the same generation as his brother Nephi, had strong objections and questions concerning the idea of the darker skinned people as being defined as automatically wicked. It is not the prophets, but the people being taught and generally reprimanded by the prophets who are said to make the absolutist judgments going forward.

 

Kind of how the prophets today are telling us that leaders who said skin color is a sign of a curse in the past were wrong, but many members still want to hold to the old tradition.

 

Almost without exception, the rest of the Nephite prophets went among the Lamanites with love. by the end of the narrative, there is absolutely no way to tell them apart physically, because of intermarriage. Lamanites and Nephites were again re-defined as simply two categories of affiliated groups. My suggestion that Mormon edited in additional references to skin changes is not fueled by any hate on his part, but out of an attempt by him to make the narrative theologically complete and consistent to fulfull what "must have happened" if Nephi was accurate. You can see the same thing going on with the editors of Chronicles, or the Books of Kings concerning certain aspects in the OT.

 

 In Mormon's day, there certainly would not have been any changes of skin color, and he never would have witnessed a color-based bifurcation of Nephites and Lamanites.

 

Your characterization of my position is incorrect.

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[JLHPROF]

26 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, 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.

27 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, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

 

 

We really do seem to focus on the wrong aspect of this "curse".  We can argue till we're blue in the face whether blacks are descended from Cain or Egyptus was of that lineage or whether the racially unpleasant idea of black skin being the curse of Cain is true.  The Church has disavowed such teachings.

 

It's not the Egyptus thing that matters but the important thing Abraham 1 absolutely teaches is that:

1. Pharaoh was of a lineage where he was cursed pertaining to the priesthood.

2. Pharaoh claimed a right to priesthood through descandancy from Noah through Ham.

 

Whatever we believe that "lineage" to be, there was clearly a link between family ancestry and the right to hold the priesthood.

Secondly this was the reverse of the Levite priesthood principle, not just another example of the same thing.

The Levites were chosen as a family line to administer in the priesthood.  The Pharaohs weren't "not chosen" to hold the priesthood, they were "cursed" not to be able to hold the priesthood. 

Whether this has anything to do with skin color is debatable (as this thread has shown), but it is pretty clear that ancestry and family line did play a role in blessings God bestowed at a given time.

Edited March 6, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

Why not?

Iam white enough to glow in the dark. 15 minutes in the summer noon day sun turns me into a blistered lobster.

Not a problem if I stayed up north where my ancestors were from, but a darker skin colour definitely comes in handy if you want to spend more time at the beach.

If you would rather not have skin cancer, being white might seem like a curse and black a blessing (though of course blacks can get it, just not as often).

[Calm]

And I credit God for only good things that happen, and to me different skin colors doesn't seem like a good thing.

Darker skin raises likelihood of survival in brighter climes:

"Melanin helps protect the skin against effects of the sun such as skin cancers and premature aging. In African American skin, melanin provides a sun protection factor (SPF) approximately equivalent to 13.4, compared to 3.4 in white skin.6-8 This discrepancy illustrates why skin cancer is more prevalent in Caucasian people; it is, in fact, the most common type of malignancy in the US among Caucasians. Their inherently light skin color and low amounts of melanin leave them vulnerable to the sun’s carcinogenic (cancer-causing) ultraviolet rays. UV light, also emitted by tanning beds/lamps, is, in many cases, the causative culprit of skin cancer in Caucasian Americans."

http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/skin-cancer-and-skin-of-color

Otoh, whites are better at making Vit D, an essential ability if you live in an area that has you covered head to toe for half the year.

Edited March 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[theplains]

Yes of course it is racist.  The Book of Mormon writers believed this is why the Lamanites had dark skin.  Although I don't personally believe God curses people with dark skin, at least there is some scriptural justification for this because the Book of Mormon text states it.  Biblical and extra Biblical scripture does not state this to be the case with Egyptus.  We don't know that Cain's mark was dark skin.  The scriptures don't say that anywhere.

 

The Book of Mormon records that God cursed them with black skin and it has Him speaking.

It is not a writers's opinion.

 

This is from 2 Nephi 5.  "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. 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. And thus saith the Lord God: 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. And

the Lord spake it, and it was done. 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".

 

Personally, I don't believe what Joseph Smith 'translated' from the supposed plates.  I agree

with you that Cain's mark was not black skin all over his body.

 

Thanks

Jim

[David T]

Jim, see post 232 - there's some nuance you're missing.

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[teddyaware]

Actually, a key part of the Book of Mormon and their prophets is challenging the founding tradition, and proving it by experience to be incorrect. As I pointed out above, Jacob the Priest, within the same generation as his brother Nephi, had strong objections and questions concerning the idea of the darker skinned people as being defined as automatically wicked. It is not the prophets, but the people being taught and generally reprimanded by the prophets who are said to make the absolutist judgments going forward.

 

Kind of how the prophets today are telling us that leaders who said skin color is a sign of a curse in the past were wrong, but many members still want to hold to the old tradition.

 

Almost without exception, the rest of the Nephite prophets went among the Lamanites with love. by the end of the narrative, there is absolutely no way to tell them apart physically, because of intermarriage. Lamanites and Nephites were again re-defined as simply two categories of affiliated groups. My suggestion that Mormon edited in additional references to skin changes is not fueled by any hate on his part, but out of an attempt by him to make the narrative theologically complete and consistent to fulfull what "must have happened" if Nephi was accurate. You can see the same thing going on with the editors of Chronicles, or the Books of Kings concerning certain aspects in the OT.

 

 In Mormon's day, there certainly would not have been any changes of skin color, and he never would have witnessed a color-based bifurcation of Nephites and Lamanites.

 

Your characterization of my position is incorrect.

Hi David,

There is no doubt but that one cannot oversimplify the Lord's cursing of the Lamanites by imagining the mere presence of dark skin was to the Nephites a reliable indicator of rebellion and wickedness on the part of those so cursed. The miraculously successful mission of the sons of Mosiah to the Lamanites and the unsurpassed faith and righteousness of the Lamanite converts is all the proof one needs to know a cursing by God can in the end turn out to be a very great blessing in disguise. Here's what I mean...

24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation. (2 Nephi 26)

 

The above scripture clearly indicates, as with all things, God's curses are meant to be an ultimate benefit to man, not something calculated to drag them down to perdition. Rather, curses are designed to cause the children of men to taste the bitter that they might learn how to prize the good. Why do I know this is true? because God doesn't do "anything save it be for the benefit of the world."

 

This blessing in disguise aspect of God's curses overturns all the facile and shallow notions many people hold about God's reasons for issuing curses in the first place. All the confusion and resentment some on this board feel about the curses of God will dissipate into nothingness once they realize that in the end God's curses truly are blessings in disguise. What will those who decry or use circumlocution to navigate around and explain away the curse on the Lamanites say when God reveals to them that more Lamanites were exalted and saved as a consequence of that curse than if the curse had never been issued?

 

The same blessing in disguise nature of curses also holds true when speaking of the curses placed on the descendants of Cain and Pharaoh. But many Latter-day saints are ashamed to own these curses because for now the eternal benefits of these curses upon those so afflicted are not yet clearly seen and understood. Simultaneously, many uninformed and presumptuous non-members, who love to mock and ridicule this very point of deep doctrine which they do not understand, cause many as yet unenlightened Latter-day Saints to feel additional shame and even revulsion over their own latter-day scriptures. But the day will come when the eternal benefits of these curses are clearly seen and understood for what they truly are, and then many who have wrung their hands over the seeming unfairness of it all will be humbled to the dust when they observe and realize how the miraculous power and eternal wisdom of a strict but loving God worked a mighty role in bringing to pass the salvation and everlasting joy of so many souls.   

 

Our own fallen nature is a curse and it is called such in the scriptures. But as every knowledgeable Latter-day Saint knows, our cursed fallen nature is in reality a very great blessing, making possible and setting the stage for our ultimate exaltation as we overcome the natural man by the living the Gospel through the redemption and power of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3)

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: (Revelation 22)

Edited March 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[katherine the great]

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".

It is a very ambiguous passage.  It almost reads like a whole passage is missing in between and it most certainly does not establish a firm link that shows Canaanite>>curse>>flood>>Egyptus=priesthood curse because Egyptus was a black pre flood Canaanite.

[Rob Osborn]

It is a very ambiguous passage.  It almost reads like a whole passage is missing in between and it most certainly does not establish a firm link that shows Canaanite>>curse>>flood>>Egyptus=priesthood curse because Egyptus was a black pre flood Canaanite.

Hum...

It seems pretty straight forward to me. I ask these questions of logic-

Who discovered the land? Egyptus

Who was Egyptus? The wife of Ham

Who was with Egyprus? Her sons

Was her sons also Hams sons? Yes

What is a "race"? its a certain group of people either of lineage or location or both

How is "race" implied here? Through "blood lineage"

What curse is preserved here? The curse given to the pre-flood Canaanites

Why or how was the curse preserved? Because of the lineage of the Canaanites was preserved through Ham and Egyptus.

[katherine the great]

Hum...

It seems pretty straight forward to me. I ask these questions of logic-

Who discovered the land? Egyptus

Who was Egyptus? The wife of Ham

Who was with Egyprus? Her sons

Was her sons also Hams sons? Yes

What is a "race"? its a certain group of people either of lineage or location or both

How is "race" implied here? Through "blood lineage"

What curse is preserved here? The curse given to the pre-flood Canaanites

Why or how was the curse preserved? Because of the lineage of the Canaanites was preserved through Ham and Egyptus.

It was the daughter of Ham and Egyptus who discovered the land while it was still underwater.  (Maybe she was swimming?)  She was Egyptus jr. and would have been the sister or half sister of Canaan.

[David T]

Again, because Rob seems to have missed it (or ignored it):

 

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".

Edited March 7, 2014 by David T

[David T]

FYI, I found that at the very least the Bible Dictionary, under Canaanite,  seems to view the Abraham 1:21 reference as being of the descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham, and not to reference to the ante-diluvian Canaanites.

 

In other instances, Canaanite refers to land of origin or lineage through Canaan, son of Ham, as in Gen. 10:6–19; 12:5–6; and Abr. 1:21.

 

 

This also shows the the Church itself isn't sure what's going on, because, admittedly, the footnote in the text of Abr 1:21 makes a reference to Moses 7:6-8, and the ante-diluvian Canaanites.

 

So even the curriculum people aren't united in finding the reference absolutely clear.The context and internal logic makes the referent to being Canaan son of Ham (as the Bible Dictionary entry suggests) make much more narrative sense than the other.

Edited March 10, 2014 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

FYI, I found that at the very least the Bible Dictionary, under Canaanite,  seems to view the Abraham 1:21 reference as being of the descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham, and not to reference to the ante-diluvian Canaanites.

 

 

This also shows the the Church itself isn't sure what's going on, because, admittedly, the footnote in the text of Abr 1:21 makes a reference to Moses 7:6-8, and the ante-diluvian Canaanites.

 

So even the curriculum people aren't united in finding the reference absolutely clear.The context and internal logic makes the referent to being Canaan son of Ham (as the Bible Dictionary entry suggests) make much more narrative sense than the other.

This is true. However, there were Canaanites before the flood and after the flood and as the scriptures relate, the curse on the land given to the race of the pre-flood Canaanites was preserved through the lineage of Ham and wife into their child/children. It is rather clear that the lineage of the pre-flood Canaanites was preserved through Ham and Egyptus in repopulating the world post-flood.

[Calm]

So why weren't all of the sons of Ham called Canaanites and labeled cursed?

[David T]

This is true. However, there were Canaanites before the flood and after the flood and as the scriptures relate, the curse on the land given to the race of the pre-flood Canaanites was preserved through the lineage of Ham and wife into their child/children.

 

No. This is exactly what is NOT clear. Especially since the curse on the land of the ante-diluvian Canaanites was one of barrenness, and in The Book of Abraham, Abraham goes to Egypt to escape from famine. Egypt was understood as the breadbasket of the region. It was highly fertile. Once again, I think you are asserting what you believe "must be" in the text... but isn't. Just as many would swear that the NT account mentions Mary riding on a Donkey on the way to Bethlehem, or that there are Three Wise Men.

 

"Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek ... answers from the scriptures ... because we think we know the answers already...We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

- President Uchtdorf

 

Also: what calmoriah said.

Edited March 10, 2014 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

No. This is exactly what is NOT clear. Especially since the curse on the land of the ante-diluvian Canaanites was one of barrenness, and in The Book of Abraham, Abraham goes to Egypt to escape from famine. Egypt was understood as the breadbasket of the region. It was highly fertile. Once again, I think you are asserting what you believe "must be" in the text... but isn't. Just as many would swear that the NT account mentions Mary riding on a Donkey on the way to Bethlehem, or that there are Three Wise Men.

 

"Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek ... answers from the scriptures ... because we think we know the answers already...We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

- President Uchtdorf

 

Also: what calmoriah said.

How is a curse of something pre-flood "preserved" through the flood through "race"? Its through blood lineage just as the scriptures state.

[Rob Osborn]

So why weren't all of the sons of Ham called Canaanites and labeled cursed?

The scriptures only state that because of the "race" the curse was preserved.

[Calm]

The scriptures only state that because of the "race" the curse was preserved.

Right. They don't say "preflood" curse even. To label it that is to read something into the context that isn't there.