Descendants Of Cain

[bluebell]

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.

 

Can you find it on lds.org and provide a link?  That would be great.

 

Edit-

 

Nevermind, i finally found it.

 

I doubt that this will appear in the new one coming out (it's practically impossible to find on there now) but we will have to wait and see.  

Edited March 3, 2014 by bluebell

[frank_jessop]

Bluebell you might need to view "all results" on lds.org

Please see the following link to the OT Institue manual on lds.org, which is as K-2 quoted.

[frank_jessop]

Can you find it on lds.org and provide a link?  That would be great.

Are you saying we can not trust the official app of the LDS Church?

[bluebell]

Are you saying we can not trust the official app of the LDS Church?

 

I'm saying that I could not find it, but if you see my edited post, i finally did.

 

Beyond that, apps are certainly not infallible.  They are created by tech guys after all.

[David T]

It is the current manual. All of them are being revised. Half of the new NT one is out online, but not on the app yet, for example. Same with the new D&C Seminary manual for 2014. On lds.org, but not the app, which still carries the old one.

[Rob Osborn]

It seems rather apparent to me that the scriptures seem pretty clear that the lineage of the Cananites was black and that Egyptus was of this bloodline and for this reason the sons of Ham did not have the priesthood which was the curse at that time of the blood of the Canaanites.

[David T]

Rob, there are two sets of Canaanites in play - the ante-diluvian Canaanites, and the descendents of Canaan, son of Ham. The biblical Canaanites are said to be the descendents of Canaan, Son of Ham. The ante-diluvian Canaanites were not a bloodline, but were a society in opposition to Enoch's Zion.

 

Here's what I wrote on the blog post (which follows up by identifying what the scriptures of the restoration consistently define as the Seed of Cain (hint: it's not a bloodline!)

 

*******

 

These Proto-Canaanites [in the Book of Moses]  do not have an explicit origin . They are presented as a war-loving murderous community who attacks and conquers the peaceful community of Shum (not to be confused with the later Canaan’s uncle Shem, the eponymous father of the S[h]emites, Hebrews, etc).

 

And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of Canaan, which dwelt in tents. 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; (Moses 7:6-7)

 

Much like their namesakes in future generations, The Proto-Canaanites become the antithesis and rival to Enoch’s Zion Community of Saints. As what would become Enoch’s Zionites  are blessed, the land that was conquered by the Proto-Canaanites becomes cursed to become desolate, and the conquering inhabitants are despised by all – they are left with nothing:

 

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

 

Enoch is ordered to go on a missionary/gathering tour to build up the community soon to be labeled Zion – and everyone but the murderous Proto-Canaanites are invited along. (Moses 7:12)

 

What followed was epic warfare between Enoch’s people, and the Proto-Canaanites. The lord declares that those who join with Zion is “blessed, but the residue of the people have I cursed.”

 

Enoch is given a vision of the bifurcation of the world:

 

“And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.”

 

Here, we have the conquering and pillaging Proto-Canaanites designated and identified with the “Seed of Cain”. The righteous are designated the “Seed of Adam”.

 

This vision leads to commentary on the scene by the Lord, who weeps at the wickedness upon the earth, of those who have chosen Satan as their Father by their acts and desires:

 

“But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?”

 

We now have three terms which have been applied to the murderous rebels who actively oppose Zion: Canaanites – Seed of Cain – Children of Satan. The Lord also shows deep sorrow at the sinful choices made which inevitably leads to their suffering. None are cursed or identified with the group who are not also categorized as willful rebels and antagonists to the covenant people, and the Lord.

 

- See more at: http://www.withoutend.org/adjusting-narrative-part-1b-the-blood-canaanites/#sthash.OnFzQLfL.dpuf

[juliann]

It seems rather apparent to me that the scriptures seem pretty clear that the lineage of the Cananites was black and that Egyptus was of this bloodline and for this reason the sons of Ham did not have the priesthood which was the curse at that time of the blood of the Canaanites.

Seriously? Israelites are likely an offshoot of Canaanites, they certainly intermarried, thus making all of them ineligible for priesthood according to your logic.. CFR that ancient Canaan was populated by African-Americans.

 

This is an excellent example of how far the facts have to be stretched to come up with any connection.

[David T]

And because it's clear people haven't read, here's a selection from my post on the meaning of Seed of Cain in the scriptures of the restoration:

 

***

 

Cain as antithetical Covenant Father (New Testament Referents)

 

In both Book of Mormon and Book of Moses narratives, the curse and covenant was applied to those who plotted, planned, deceived, rebelled, attempted to hide their works from the Lord, and chose to take a life. Cain is designated in Moses as the “Father” of their deceptions.

 

In the scriptures, being one’s Seed in any theological context – at least canonically from the New Testament forward – involves behavior, decisions, and motivations – but not genealogical lineage.

 

When the Pharisees claim to be the Seed of Abraham and heir to those blessings, Jesus rejects their claim, not because they can’t trace it back genealogically, but because they do not do the works of Abraham, but rather act contrary to them.

 

In fact, much of the language and ideas used by Christ in the Gospel of John was appropriated in the Cain/Satan material in Moses:

 

“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

 

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.

 

Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father.

 

Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

 

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

 

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:37-44)”

 

Joseph Smith’s Moses account takes those designated as the devil’s children, and grants them to Cain.

 

In direct contrast to this, individuals become the Children of Christ in Joseph’s scriptural writings by choosing Him as their Father. This opposite end of the spectrum is presented in the Book of Mormon, in Benjamin’s discourse :

 

And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.(Mosiah 5:7)

 

Likewise, in the scriptural tradition, believers are adopted into the family of Abraham, and into the House of Israel in the same manner. In an 1832 ‘revelation of Jesus Christ’, Joseph Smith expressed that those who take upon themselves Priesthood responsibilities become the ‘Sons of Aaron and Moses’ .

 

“They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.” (D&C 84:34)

 

Even those whose patriarchal blessings designate them as being theologically adopted into the tribe of Ephraim are also said, through covenant and desire, to be additionally adopted as Levites.

Edited March 3, 2014 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

 

Rob, there are two sets of Canaanites in play - the ante-diluvian Canaanites, and the descendents of Canaan, son of Ham. The biblical Canaanites are said to be the descendents of Canaan, Son of Ham. The ante-diluvian Canaanites were not a bloodline, but were a society in opposition to Enoch's Zion.

 

Here's what I wrote on the blog post (which follows up by identifying what the scriptures of the restoration consistently define as the Seed of Cain (hint: it's not a bloodline!)

 

*******

 

These Proto-Canaanites [in the Book of Moses]  do not have an explicit origin . They are presented as a war-loving murderous community who attacks and conquers the peaceful community of Shum (not to be confused with the later Canaan’s uncle Shem, the eponymous father of the S[h]emites, Hebrews, etc).

 

And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of Canaan, which dwelt in tents. 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; (Moses 7:6-7)

 

Much like their namesakes in future generations, The Proto-Canaanites become the antithesis and rival to Enoch’s Zion Community of Saints. As what would become Enoch’s Zionites  are blessed, the land that was conquered by the Proto-Canaanites becomes cursed to become desolate, and the conquering inhabitants are despised by all – they are left with nothing:

 

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

 

Enoch is ordered to go on a missionary/gathering tour to build up the community soon to be labeled Zion – and everyone but the murderous Proto-Canaanites are invited along. (Moses 7:12)

 

What followed was epic warfare between Enoch’s people, and the Proto-Canaanites. The lord declares that those who join with Zion is “blessed, but the residue of the people have I cursed.”

 

Enoch is given a vision of the bifurcation of the world:

 

“And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.”

 

Here, we have the conquering and pillaging Proto-Canaanites designated and identified with the “Seed of Cain”. The righteous are designated the “Seed of Adam”.

 

This vision leads to commentary on the scene by the Lord, who weeps at the wickedness upon the earth, of those who have chosen Satan as their Father by their acts and desires:

 

“But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?”

 

We now have three terms which have been applied to the murderous rebels who actively oppose Zion: Canaanites – Seed of Cain – Children of Satan. The Lord also shows deep sorrow at the sinful choices made which inevitably leads to their suffering. None are cursed or identified with the group who are not also categorized as willful rebels and antagonists to the covenant people, and the Lord.

 

- See more at: http://www.withoutend.org/adjusting-narrative-part-1b-the-blood-canaanites/#sthash.OnFzQLfL.dpuf

 

Not sure what exactly you are saying but I was just mentioning that it seems rather clear that Egyptus is from the same bloodline as the pre-flood Canaanites who attacked Shum on whom was then cursed by the Lord.

[Rob Osborn]

Seriously? Israelites are likely an offshoot of Canaanites, they certainly intermarried, thus making all of them ineligible for priesthood according to your logic.. CFR that ancient Canaan was populated by African-Americans.

 

This is an excellent example of how far the facts have to be stretched to come up with any connection.

Who said anything about African-Americans?

 

I only made the charge that Egyptus was a Canaanite and as such was of the race of those who had black skin pre-flood who were Canaanites.

[David T]

Rob,

 

So your position is that its plausible in the story that Noah allowed what you see as a murderous member of a (visibly) cursed isolated people (who left her people and married his son... by who? Who married them?) that could not persist blessings on his little boat of world-repopulators?

 

The "Ham's wife was a descendant of Cain, so she's cursed" doesn't hold up on each and every level, because,

A) linking Egyptus as an ante-diluvian Canaanite doesn't make logistical sense

B) linking the proto-Canaanites to the biological seed of Cain doesn't have scriptural support.

C) A curse of Cain pertaining to the Priesthood is not in the scriptures, either.

 

And that's ignoring actual history and genetics, and just going by the scriptural record, of which this is all claimed to be based. It's a foundation of very sandy sand.

 

The only priesthood restriction going on in Abraham appears to be one where a family branch found themselves broken off from access to Priesthood keys (self-imposed?), in isolation one of them, Pharoah Prime, righteously attempted to imitate the order of the kingdom patterned after the Priesthood, knowingly without access to true authority, and then through time, generations lost the knowledge that the imitation was not the original. Abraham finally approached Egypt with the Real Deal, prepared to offer it to replace the counterfeit. The text is cut off before that encounter, but we're left to assume it wasn't accepted.

Edited March 3, 2014 by David T

[Calm]

Got to wonder how in a world where it was impossible to raise a child that would have love in its heart for God, where it was better for all to die because they were at that time beyond being able to repent and would continue to teach their children such hardness of heart, that Ham managed to find the one member of her people that was willing to listen to Noah as a prophet and so have the curse removed from her to make it appropriate to marry her....only it wasn't...or that somehow God thought it was a good thing to perpetuate such an attitude by having one third of humanity's families be raised and taught by a mother of such a dangerous people and why weren't all the sons of Ham cursed like his son Canaan if it was because of their mother's lineage?

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

Just found the following quotations from Joseph Fielding Smith and Parley P. Pratt and I must say if these two brethren are speaking the truth, I'm afraid this rancorous debate may be following into the resurrection. Will there be rekindled resentments over the differences of our bodies beyond the grave?

                                          KINDS OF RESURRECTED BODIES

 

"In the resurrection there will be different kinds of bodies; they will not all be alike. The body a man receives will determine his place hereafter. There will be celestial bodies, terrestrial bodies, and telestial bodies, and these bodies will differ as distinctly as do bodies here, for example, the white European, the Negro [black], the Philippino, the Indian. " (Joseph Fielding Smith) 

"In every species of animals and plants, there are many resemblances in the general outlines and many specific differences characterizing the individuals of each species. So in the resurrection. There will be several classes of resurrected bodies; some celestial, some terrestrial, some telestial, and some sons of perdition. Each of these classes will differ from the others by prominent and marked distinctions; yet, in each, considered by itself, there will be found many resemblances as well as distinctions. There will be some physical peculiarity by which each individual in every class can be identified." (Parley P. Pratt)

Some will gain celestial bodies with all the powers of exaltation and eternal increase. These bodies will shine like the sun as our Savior's does, as described by John. Those who enter the terrestrial kingdom will have terrestrial bodies, and they will not shine like the sun, but they will be more glorious than the bodies of those who receive the telestial glory. (Joseph Fielding Smith)

Edited March 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[juliann]

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?

 

A few weeks ago, we had the usual suspect relate the well known tale of wandering Cain. I decided a long time ago that racism is one topic that I would not be silent about. I brought up the church's new statement on Race and the Priesthood...  https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

 

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

 

 The "inferior in any way" covers all of the racist stuff and by including past and present they neatly tie it up. There is also the swift and public reaction to Bott, the BYU professor which I don't have on hand.  The GD teacher was unaware of the new statement and came into class the next week and quoted it to put the folklore to rest.

 

Many years ago we had a very fundamentalist type GD teacher. He laid out the Catholics as the Church of the Devil trope (and note how nicely that parallels the Curse of Cain designation as explained by David T.)  That is another one I won't let go by, although I haven't heard it for a long time now.  A few people tried to counter him, but he just became more insistent and loud. So I began to respond to his every comment...finally without raising my hand. So he began pounding on the chalkboard with his fist shouting it was his testimony. A new couple with a Catholic family walked out, they never returned. The bishop sat right behind me, silent. Well, the next week the bishop got up in SM and gave the correct interpretation with a little lecture.

 

We had a cabal of like minded extremists that simply out mouthed everyone for years. They are finally gone, with a couple of exceptions that don't have the back up anymore so they don't make waves.  We have a young bishop who doesn't like this stuff. We had a problem with politics being brought into lessons, I went to him directly and objected. He began sitting in classes and making comments until it disappeared.  We have also had the religion bashing stuff ( X deluded religion believes this but WE believe the right thing!)  He took care of that, too.  I go in with examples...for the religion bashing, I used how insulted we are when religions start talking about what we teach in their churches....and here we are doing exactly the same thing.  For politics, I quoted the stats on how many Democrats were in the church..not to mention a couple in high positions.

 

Anyway, my point is that we are aware of a great deal more of this kind of thing than the average member because we hang out online where all the trivia gets talked about.I   have found members to be just as excited as we are here when a new resource is discovered and it settles the matter before someone pounds their fist into the blackboard.

[CV75]

Should this be taught in Gospel Doctrine?  I see this as blatantly racist and "folk doctrine" as best.  Am I wrong?

No, it should not be taught because it isn't in the manual. We have the manual to avoid the pitfalls of ignorance (such as racism, folk doctrine, speculation, hobbies, too-clever-by-half-ness, etc.), whether it is ignorance of the scriptures, or of the workings of the Spirit, or of both as in the case of those who "kindle a fire, that compass [them]selves about with sparks" and "walk in the light of [their] fire, and in the sparks that [they] have kindled. "

[Calm]

Teddy,

"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....

The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons”24 and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”25"

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Teddy,

"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....

The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons”24 and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”25"

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Now do you see what I mean Cal??

[Calm]

So because one person repeats "garbage" it is helpful to add more "garbage" to the pile by repeating it ourselves rather than just offering up correct doctrine?

[Gray]

A few weeks ago, we had the usual suspect relate the well known tale of wandering Cain. I decided a long time ago that racism is one topic that I would not be silent about. I brought up the church's new statement on Race and the Priesthood...  https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

 The "inferior in any way" covers all of the racist stuff and by including past and present they neatly tie it up. There is also the swift and public reaction to Bott, the BYU professor which I don't have on hand.  The GD teacher was unaware of the new statement and came into class the next week and quoted it to put the folklore to rest.

 

Many years ago we had a very fundamentalist type GD teacher. He laid out the Catholics as the Church of the Devil trope (and note how nicely that parallels the Curse of Cain designation as explained by David T.)  That is another one I won't let go by, although I haven't heard it for a long time now.  A few people tried to counter him, but he just became more insistent and loud. So I began to respond to his every comment...finally without raising my hand. So he began pounding on the chalkboard with his fist shouting it was his testimony. A new couple with a Catholic family walked out, they never returned. The bishop sat right behind me, silent. Well, the next week the bishop got up in SM and gave the correct interpretation with a little lecture.

 

We had a cabal of like minded extremists that simply out mouthed everyone for years. They are finally gone, with a couple of exceptions that don't have the back up anymore so they don't make waves.  We have a young bishop who doesn't like this stuff. We had a problem with politics being brought into lessons, I went to him directly and objected. He began sitting in classes and making comments until it disappeared.  We have also had the religion bashing stuff ( X deluded religion believes this but WE believe the right thing!)  He took care of that, too.  I go in with examples...for the religion bashing, I used how insulted we are when religions start talking about what we teach in their churches....and here we are doing exactly the same thing.  For politics, I quoted the stats on how many Democrats were in the church..not to mention a couple in high positions.

 

Anyway, my point is that we are aware of a great deal more of this kind of thing than the average member because we hang out online where all the trivia gets talked about.I   have found members to be just as excited as we are here when a new resource is discovered and it settles the matter before someone pounds their fist into the blackboard.

 

I wish I'd been there! Awesome 

[juliann]

Just found the following quotations from Joseph Fielding Smith and Parley P. Pratt and I must say if these two brethren are speaking the truth, I'm afraid this rancorous debate may be following into the resurrection. Will there be rekindled resentments over the differences of our bodies beyond the grave?

                                          KINDS OF RESURRECTED BODIES

 

"In the resurrection there will be different kinds of bodies; they will not all be alike. The body a man receives will determine his place hereafter. There will be celestial bodies, terrestrial bodies, and telestial bodies, and these bodies will differ as distinctly as do bodies here, for example, the white European, the Negro [black], the Philippino, the Indian. " (Joseph Fielding Smith) 

"In every species of animals and plants, there are many resemblances in the general outlines and many specific differences characterizing the individuals of each species. So in the resurrection. There will be several classes of resurrected bodies; some celestial, some terrestrial, some telestial, and some sons of perdition. Each of these classes will differ from the others by prominent and marked distinctions; yet, in each, considered by itself, there will be found many resemblances as well as distinctions. There will be some physical peculiarity by which each individual in every class can be identified." (Parley P. Pratt)

Some will gain celestial bodies with all the powers of exaltation and eternal increase. These bodies will shine like the sun as our Savior's does, as described by John. Those who enter the terrestrial kingdom will have terrestrial bodies, and they will not shine like the sun, but they will be more glorious than the bodies of those who receive the telestial glory. (Joseph Fielding Smith)

That is why Elder Uchtdorf elaborated that leaders make mistakes. We also have the earlier instruction that not everything individual thing said by a leader constitutes doctrine...it may just be well thought out opinion.  You did not reference these statements by the way so that we know when they were said. Joseph Fielding was the only prophet I found who limited black salvation, he said that they would be eternal "servants". This goes against other prophets who said they would eventually receive the same blessings as other. 

 

Does this ugly statement create people of inferior status? Has the church just come out and said they disavow that? 

 

Who said anything about African-Americans?

 

I only made the charge that Egyptus was a Canaanite and as such was of the race of those who had black skin pre-flood who were Canaanites.

 

The church clarified that it wasn't "black" skin, it was African heritage. So using past unenlightened thinking (per McConkie), , anyone who is cursed is from Africa.  Again, CFR that Canaanites were "black", find any scholar or archaeologist who postulates such a thing let alone that they were of African heritage.

[BCSpace]

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?

 

You would be wrong to think that LDS Scripture and past or present doctrine is racist.

[Calm]

I wish I'd been there! Awesome

You too can "be there" by doing the same thing in your ward if such comments ever come up.

It is really nice to have electronics on hand that can pull up stuff on the Church's own website that refutes the folklore.

[Tacenda]

So because one person repeats "garbage" it is helpful to add more "garbage" to the pile by repeating it ourselves rather than just offering up correct doctrine?

That's your job and the others on the board, that know best!    When I read past quotes it fires me up to quell the people that spout these things.  Maybe if they see it like it was, they might get riled up enough and speak up in church, especially since the essay has come out about it.    

[cinepro]

No, it should not be taught because it isn't in the manual. We have the manual to avoid the pitfalls of ignorance (such as racism, folk doctrine, speculation, hobbies, too-clever-by-half-ness, etc.), whether it is ignorance of the scriptures, or of the workings of the Spirit, or of both as in the case of those who "kindle a fire, that compass [them]selves about with sparks" and "walk in the light of [their] fire, and in the sparks that [they] have kindled. "

But the teacher probably thought it was in the scriptures.  And, as has been pointed out on this thread, past Prophets and Apostles have also taught that, as well as the current Old Testament Institute Manual (yay that it's being updated, but until it is, the current one is the current one).

 

It's nice to pretend that this is a matter of "folk doctrine", and I would also question such a teaching if it were taught in a Church class, but I can't criticize a fellow Church member for believing what the scriptures and past Prophets and Apostles have taught, and assuming that it is okay to teach such things in a Church class.

 

I would also add that the Nibley explanation for Abraham 1 and "Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of ^aPriesthood," is really weak sauce.  The Church will have to find a better way to deal with these scriptures than telling people they don't say what they say.

Edited March 3, 2014 by cinepro