Descendants Of Cain

[katherine the great]

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)

Haha!  That's pretty awesome!  My telestial body will envy my sister in law's perfect celestial body in the resurrection!  Our ancestry does give us features that visually differentiate us but I actually find that statement on race more metaphorical than literally racist, (although there's a bit of that too...)

[Calm]

Is it fair and just that based on pre-mortal worthiness God would send one of His pre-existent spirit children -- like Abraham -- to occupy an earthly body within the favored and blessed lineage of the righteous Patriarchal Fathers, while at the same moment in history he did send another of His spirit children to occupy a body in the lineage of wicked idolatrous priests? If so, why would God do such a seemingly unkind and unloving thing?

Is it better to come up with reasons to justify God or to be willing to let him speak for himself?

[Palerider]

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.    

 

Actually Tacenda, it is NOT their job. The job of establishing what is taught as doctrine and what isn't, is the job of the Leadership of the church. Here's a preview of President Eyring's message being prepared for delivery in April conference. 

 

"Brothers and sisters it's a pleasure to speak to you today. I pray that the Spirit will bless us all as we address some of the troubling issues that the church currently deals with.

To begin with I want to inform you that many of the statements and writings of our past leaders that were taught as revelation and doctrine were in reality not of the Lord and should never have been promoted as such. 

 

Currently the general authorities are reviewing all modern revelation and canon in order to prepare a new and revised set of articles of faith that can be distributed to the general membership for their perusal. We anticipate that a sustaining vote regarding the anticipated revisions will take place in the following October General Conference. Until that time we will advise Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics that they personally will be the only instructors of Gospel doctrine in their respective wards and stakes and that the New Testament will be their only approved text during the next six months.

 

We sincerley regret that past leadership have made mistakes in their judgement which have in some cases led us as a church down paths that we should never have gone. It is now our only desire to correct the errors of the past and set the church on a new course which is in keeping with the true Gospel of Christ as taught by Him in the Holy Scriptures. We ask your prayers on our behalf as we make this incredibly important effort "    

[juliann]

I've heard (from the Church) that we can discern doctrine from the Scriptures, the statements of Church leaders, and what is taught in official Church publications (including manuals).

 

I've never heard that we can determine doctrine by pre-supposing what may or may not be changed in future publications.  If you have a reference for that, let me know.

 

This is an argument over the definition of racism, not what is in church manuals. Obviously, there is going to be racist stuff in them. If there wasn't, there would have been no need for the current crop of disavowals. Where this always ends up is people claiming that racism is not really racism, therefore the church didn't just disavow it by denouncing racism. Or they simply deny (how, I don't know) that the church didn't really disavow racism. Which to me becomes out and out race baiting.

[juliann]

You're missing the point of my post. My point is that even if He hasn't done so here, in the hereafter God apparently is going to cause there to be significant differences in the appearance of our bodies based on how we lived our lives here on this earth.

 

My question is will this divinely caused differentiation by outward appearance be fair and just on God's part?  

Oh, I don't think anyone doesn't understand what you are saying. 

 

Why aren't you answering the CFR?

[bluebell]

You will uave to answer that for yourself. As it is right now, it is Doctrine and an Officially published teaching of the Church.

 

Since we know the book is currently being revised because it is no longer doctrinally relevant the way that it is, and since we know that this teaching is no longer taught in any of the new manuals the church has published, i don't believe it is reasonable to assume that it is doctrine right now.

[frank_jessop]

Race-based discrimination is racist by definition, it doesn't matter where the policy came from 

 

was it based on RACE or was it lineage?

[frank_jessop]

Since we know the book is currently being revised because it is no longer doctrinally relevant the way that it is, and since we know that this teaching is no longer taught in any of the new manuals the church has published, ...

 

CFR that the OT institute manual is being revised and it is being revised because it is no longer doctrinally relevant the way it is.

 

CFR the the statement or teaching that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain WAS ever found in other non-Old Testament manuals of the Church. Your conclusion presumes that Egyptus being of Cain could be found in past non-Old Testament manuals but is no longer found in current version of non-Old Testament manuals. If it can not be found in non-Old Testament manuals which printed at or around the same time as the Old Testament manual, then your conclusion is entirely baseless.

 

... i don't believe it is reasonable to assume that it is doctrine right now.

 

Considering that the Church still teaches it, it is unreasonable to assume it is not a current accepted teaching of the Church.

Edited March 3, 2014 by frank_jessop

[why me]

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

I think that we need to give people some slack on these issues. We need to remember that it wasn't that long ago when such ideas were taught as truth, fact and doctrine. It is never easy to change gears late in life. Many saints went to their graves believing in such doctrine because it was taught to them during their lifetime.

 

But it is always good to try to set the record straight but it will not be easy because such 'doctrine' has been ingrained into some members psyche. But they are not to blame. We need to put the blame where it belongs: with the church leaders of the past.

[Gray]

was it based on RACE or was it lineage?

 

Are french fries made from potatoes or Solanum tuberosum?

[frank_jessop]

I was not criticizing my friend.  He was trying to answer my question.  And yes, the belief that black skin is the curse of Cain is racist in nature.  The teacher, yes I was criticizing.  

 

 

Does your opinion of the teacher change since is has been proven that the teaching of Egyptus being of Cain is found in a current Institute manual of the Church?

Edited March 3, 2014 by frank_jessop

[frank_jessop]

Are french fries made from potatoes or Solanum tuberosum?

 

So what is your answer? Are you saying the ban was based on skin color? And that no one with dark skin was every required to prove their lineage in order to be ordained?

[ALarson]

I think that we need to give people some slack on these issues. We need to remember that it wasn't that long ago when such ideas were taught as truth, fact and doctrine. It is never easy to change gears late in life. Many saints went to their graves believing in such doctrine because it was taught to them during their lifetime.

 

But it is always good to try to set the record straight but it will not be easy because such 'doctrine' has been ingrained into some members psyche. But they are not to blame. We need to put the blame where it belongs: with the church leaders of the past.

Posts like this make my head spin (and I know that you mean well, why me, and that what you are expressing is exactly what current leaders are asking the members to do). This was taught as "truth, fact, and doctrine", but now just forget about that and blame your past leaders for teaching the wrong doctrine.  Well, I was one who had this taught to them many times and I read the words of many leaders who taught it.  It's not so simple to just throw it out now.

 

So, we put our trust in our past leaders and Prophets and we believed their teachings (and taught it to our children, etc.), but now we are to just reboot and start over (on this topic and many others....as the numbers seems to continue to grow).  

 

Tell me why we then should believe and trust what our current leaders and Prophets are teaching?  I'm not asking that to be negative but only because it is the next natural question to ask.  I love our leaders and I think they are men of God, but should we start wondering if what they're telling us will be thrown out in 10, 20 or more years?

 

Maybe it's just part of the process of becoming less and less peculiar and more and more mainstream Christian....I guess that's not really a bad thing.

Edited March 3, 2014 by ALarson

[Gray]

So what is your answer? Are you saying the ban was based on skin color? And that no one with dark skin was every required to prove their lineage in order to be ordained?

 

It was based on race. Race isn't quite the same thing as skin color, though. 

[ALarson]

It was based on race. Race isn't quite the same thing as skin color, though. 

 

But then we have quotes from past leaders like this:

"The negro is an unfortunate man.  He has been given a black skin.

 

But that is  as nothing compared with the greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom."  - Elder George F. Richards of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, Conference Reports, April 1939

 

Edited March 3, 2014 by ALarson

[Calm]

I love our leaders and I think they are men of God, but should we start wondering if what they're telling us will be thrown out in 10, 20 or more years?.

Yes, we should be treating everything we are taught this way and should have always been IMO. We should be going to God to get confirmation, not just assume it is all correct and study it out no more.

[Calm]

It was based on race. Race isn't quite the same thing as skin color, though.

Everyone I knew at the time talked of those of African ancestry as a race. It was lineage expanded to include what was perceived as a race Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Actually Tacenda, it is NOT their job. The job of establishing what is taught as doctrine and what isn't, is the job of the Leadership of the church. Here's a preview of President Eyring's message being prepared for delivery in April conference.

"Brothers and sisters it's a pleasure to speak to you today. I pray that the Spirit will bless us all as we address some of the troubling issues that the church currently deals with.

To begin with I want to inform you that many of the statements and writings of our past leaders that were taught as revelation and doctrine were in reality not of the Lord and should never have been promoted as such.

Currently the general authorities are reviewing all modern revelation and canon in order to prepare a new and revised set of articles of faith that can be distributed to the general membership for their perusal. We anticipate that a sustaining vote regarding the anticipated revisions will take place in the following October General Conference. Until that time we will advise Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics that they personally will be the only instructors of Gospel doctrine in their respective wards and stakes and that the New Testament will be their only approved text during the next six months.

We sincerley regret that past leadership have made mistakes in their judgement which have in some cases led us as a church down paths that we should never have gone. It is now our only desire to correct the errors of the past and set the church on a new course which is in keeping with the true Gospel of Christ as taught by Him in the Holy Scriptures. We ask your prayers on our behalf as we make this incredibly important effort "

In mine and many others dreams!!!

[ALarson]

Yes, we should be treating everything we are taught this way and should have always been IMO. We should be going to God to get confirmation, not just assume it is all correct and study it out no more.

I agree, calmoriah.  But, don't we believe that our Prophets (past and present) speak to God or get confirmation from Him before they teach us His doctrines?

 

And...I have to believe that the majority of members do not know that this is what they should be doing (not trusting or believing everything spoken by the leaders but need to go to God for their own confirmation).  Do you know what I mean?  There is a disconnect there.  But, I do believe the current leaders are working to correct this.

[saemo]

In mine and many others dreams!!!

Ha! Yes, with such a half apology, I might have to consider getting excommunicated in order to get rebaptized.  

Edited March 3, 2014 by saemo

[katherine the great]

Does your opinion of the teacher change since is has been proven that the teaching of Egyptus being of Cain is found in a current Institute manual of the Church?

I have a very high opinion of the teacher.  She is a wonderful person and I love her.  My question though concerned the scriptural justification for such a statement and she wasn't able to provide one but still insisted that she was correct.  Whether or not it is in the current institute manual wasn't really relevant because I asked specifically for scriptural support.  I was completely aware that this has been taught in church but I think it is inappropriate now.

[katherine the great]

 

 

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.

 

 

Maybe that will be the case in my ward.  I'll be at a weekend anthropology conference next Sunday but I'll ask my husband if the Bishop mentions it.

[Calm]

I agree, calmoriah. But, don't we believe that our Prophets (past and present) speak to God or get confirmation from Him before they teach us His doctrines?

Of course, but then the question is which of their teachings are God's doctrines and which aren't. I don't think they see the need to ask about things they believe they know already. When we are secure in our knowledge we don't think to ask for correction whether it is from our loved ones, teachers, our doctors, our prophets or our God. It is just human not to dwell on ideas we are confident in...even when we haven't really paid attention to how we got that confidence.

And...I have to believe that the majority of members do not know that this is what they should be doing (not trusting or believing everything spoken by the leaders but need to go to God for their own confirmation). Do you know what I mean? There is a disconnect there. But, I do believe the current leaders are working to correct this.

Yes, there is a disconnect. I don't know why. Given the stories we have of early Saints seeking confirmation on doctrine they had questions about, it does not seem to have been that way always. But perhaps it was except for extraordinary circumstances as I look at others and their experiences in their faiths and there seems to be with many an unquestioning trust in their leaders so perhaps that has been another teaching/belief that got imported into our faith along with many other traditions of our ancestors.

I was lucky to be taught differently by my parents, but strange to say one sibling insists she was taught blind faith and now rejects the Church in part because of it...all the while exhibiting the searching and studying I saw our parents urging us to do. So perhaps it has something to do with our personalities as well.

Edited March 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[CV75]

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.

She may well have (ignorantly) thought it was in the scriptures and gone by memory of the past, which is my point. We could launch into the correct relationships between Noah, Ham, Canaan, Egyptus, Canaan and Cannanites using lds.org scripture resources alone, but she really should have just used the manual.

 

Regarding the Institute Manual, the OP is about Gospel Doctrine (I can’t find the problematic statements in those manuals), again underscoring the point that the teacher should have stuck to her manual.

 

Pharoah was of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood--have you correctly ascertained which one that is? For the time being, my confidence in the bell curve of Institute students and teachers allows that such discussions are taking place in more classes than not (and that last paragraph about Egyptus isn't Nibley's).

[ALarson]

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.

Sounds like you had some exciting GD classes!  I know "old timers" who still believe this about the Catholic church (but are thankfully not as vocal as your teacher was).  

 

Of course, I'm sure you know that this was taught at one time and most likely these guys remember that and still believe it's true.  I'm glad the leaders have corrected this now as it never did sit well with me when I heard it discussed or taught.