Descendants Of Cain

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know may be in another 6000 years we won't need either.

[Palerider]

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?

 

This is precisely the way this was taught in the 1960's and 70's when I was growing up. It was considered doctrinal at that time as I never heard anyone disavow it either in classes or from the pulpit. 

 

I would feel much more comfortable with Nibley's "interpretation" of the scriptures if they had come pre-lifting of the ban, say in 1974. But as the first publication of "Abraham in Egypt" came in 1981, it seems to be the perfect application of damage control and re-writing history.......... 

 

edited to read: "pre-lifting of ban".

Edited March 3, 2014 by Palerider

[thesometimesaint]

This is precisely the way this was taught in the 1960's and 70's when I was growing up. It was considered doctrinal at that time as I never heard anyone disavow it either in classes or from the pulpit. 

 

I would feel much more comfortable with Nibley's "interpretation" of the scriptures if they had come pre-ban, say in 1974. But as the first publication of "Abraham in Egypt" came in 1981, it seems to be the perfect application of damage control and re-writing history.......... 

 

"And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world".

[frank_jessop]

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?

 

Could you distinguish what you deem is racist and what you consider is "folk doctrine"?  You first mention the Instructor, then you mention your friend...which one do you consider saying something racist and which saying "folk doctrine".  

 

Gospel Doctrine Instructor:

 

Should anything not in the correlated Manuals be taught, or even brought up, by the called and set apart instructor? No. (If it is not in the correlated materials that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain, the instructor should not have said it.)

 

Was it racist for the instructor to have said it? No.

 

Your Neighbor and Friend:

 

Should lay members, be able to offer their opinions, during one on one conversations? Absolutely.

 

Is your neighbor and friend racist for saying that the black skin is the curse of Cain, passed down to predominantly peoples of the African continent?

 

Is it possible your neighbor is adhering to what is term "folk doctrine" - perpetuated beliefs the have a tenious basis in scripture and teachings of Prophets and Apostles - by his Curse of Cain philosophy or the Egyptus philosophy? Possible.

Edited March 3, 2014 by frank_jessop

[David T]

Another fun fact, In the J Pentateuch source narrative tradition, Seth is unknown, and Cain is the father of Enoch, who was the father of Irad, who was the father of Mehuyael, who was the father of Metushael, who was the father of Lamech who is the father of Noah. So...

 

Seriously, though, historically, textually, genetically, and theologically, the idea of a priesthood/slavery/dark-skin cursed single genetic line of Cain-descendants is all sorts of messed up and irreparably problematic. 

Edited March 3, 2014 by David T

[frank_jessop]

So why are you repeating it?

 

Because the irresponsible thing to do, is never mention it, to never provide the source Apostle or Prophet who taught it. Surely it would be better to never mention it again, so that critics can accuse the LDS of covering up the Theological history of the LDS teachings.

[Gray]

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?

 

 

He taught racist folklore, in this instance. It was what was commonly believed at the time. The recent statement on race discusses such folklore.

[Gray]

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.

 

Hmm, must have misremembered. Maybe Canaan was tied to the pharaohs. Of course the Hebrews were themselves Canaanites originally.

[Palerider]

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.

 

 

Any chance we could view plural marriage and a bunch of other "doctrines" he taught through this same lens?

[BlueDreams]

Cal yanked up a thread I started on the topic here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62898-curses-and-covenants/

 

I was actually planning on deleting it...or at least, let it stay buried, due to some advice from a professor I'm working with on to get it published (what's here is an unfinished draft). But I'll leave it up for a few more days for you to look at and then ask for it to be closed. Hope it's helpful. 

 

 

But in short, no you're dead on. The assumptions that the people came from and believed with little question colored their reading. This continued and was perpetuated and took on a few very mormonesque qualities to it. It's unnecessary to read the scriptures with these assumptions. And no it shouldn't be taught in a gospel doctrine class. It is neither the gospel nor doctrine and there is plenty to doubt about his loose assertions. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Palerider]

"And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world".

 

And next week we're going to dump a bunch more stuff that we thought was revelation last week..............

[K-2]

The LDS Institute Old Testament (Gen-2 Sam.) Student Manual, pg. 57, teaches that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain:

"...although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood."

[bluebell]

The LDS Institute Old Testament (Gen-2 Sam.) Student Manual, pg. 57, teaches that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain:

"...although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood."

 

What's the copyright date on this manual?

 

Just wondering because the old ones teach a lot of stuff that the newer ones don't.

 

Edit to add-

 

If you search Egyptus on LDS.org it only pops up in one current manual:  The Pearl of Great Price teacher manual.  And in that lesson it only mentions her as being the wife of Ham and nothing more (that I can see anyway).

Edited March 3, 2014 by bluebell

[Gray]

The LDS Institute Old Testament (Gen-2 Sam.) Student Manual, pg. 57, teaches that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain:

"...although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood."

 

Thanks for the reference. This is obviously not historical, but rather is representative of the kinds of myths about race widely believed in the 19th century.

[David T]

BTW, here's the propsed chart of the narrative family tree that gets discussed at the blog post here:

Edited March 3, 2014 by David T

[Calm]

Any chance we could view plural marriage and a bunch of other "doctrines" he taught through this same lens?

If you can demonstrate where it was commonly taught in JS's time outside of the Church and that such have been disavowed as doctrine by the Church, sure.

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The LDS Institute Old Testament (Gen-2 Sam.) Student Manual, pg. 57, teaches that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain:

"...although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood."

Please demonstrate where "Cain" is mentioned in those verses:

 

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

 22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

 23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

 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.

 

[frank_jessop]

What's the copyright date on this manual?

 

Just wondering because the old ones teach a lot of stuff that the newer ones don't.

 

Edit to add-

 

If you search Egyptus on LDS.org it only pops up in one current manual:  The Pearl of Great Price teacher manual.  And in that lesson it only mentions her as being the wife of Ham and nothing more (that I can see anyway).

  

Thanks for the reference. This is obviously not historical, but rather is representative of the kinds of myths about race widely believed in the 19th century.

Abraham 1:21 - 24

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

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.

According to scripture, can it be rightly said Egyptus preserved the blood of the Canaanites. I just downloaded the current OT institute manual, and it is as K-2 quoted. Next question does descendant of Cain first born of Eve = Canaanites.

[frank_jessop]

Calmoriah if the manual teaches it, and said manual is published by the Church; why does K-2 need to prove what is directly quoted from a Church published manual. Shouldn't it be regarded as Doctrine until removed from Church published material.

Edited March 3, 2014 by frank_jessop

[bluebell]

Calmoriah if the manual teaches it, and said manual is published by the Church; why does K-2 need to prove what is directly quoted from a Church published manual. Shouldn't it be regarded as Doctrine until removed from Church published material.

 

Again, what is the copyright date on the manual?

 

As far as i can find, this connection between Egyptus and Cain has been removed from published material.  I can't find it in any of the current manuals being used.

 

Edit to add-

 

The phrase in dispute "Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain" is in the old manual.  The one published in 1980.  If you search that exact phrase on lds.org that is the only reference that comes up and it specifically states that it's in the old manual.

 

Since it has been removed, can we regard it as no longer doctrine?

Edited March 3, 2014 by bluebell

[Rivers]

The church has been teaching this stuff for too long. It's not easy to simply sweep it all under the rug. Especially when we have racist teachings still in our standard works.

[Calm]

I don't think saying it was a mistake and having a public disavowal of all teachings that connect skin colour and curses is "sweeping it under the rug".

[frank_jessop]

Again, what is the copyright date on the manual?

 

As far as i can find, this connection between Egyptus and Cain has been removed from published material.  I can't find it in any of the current manuals being used.

 

Edit to add-

 

The phrase in dispute "Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain" is in the old manual.  The one published in 1980.  If you search that exact phrase on lds.org that is the only reference that comes up and it specifically states that it's in the old manual.

 

Since it has been removed, can we no regard it as no longer doctrine?

I just used the gospel library app to download the Institute OT manual, it is as K-2 quoted it. It is in the current OT Institue Manual.

[David T]

Which is currently being completely revised.

[thesometimesaint]

And next week we're going to dump a bunch more stuff that we thought was revelation last week..............

 

I'm actually open to that. But I don't foresee a wholesale revoking.

SEE Article of Faith #9

We believe all that God has ^arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet ^breveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.