Descendants Of Cain

[ALarson]

Of course, but then the question is which of their teachings are God's doctrines and which aren't.

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.

That's interesting.  Sounds like you had wonderful parents!

 

I think when someone's thinking is very black and white and then they discover mistakes that were made by past leaders, etc., they just throw everything out and leave.  I do speak from some experience and as I've had to start viewing things differently.  It's been a good experience for me but I still struggle at times.

[Calm]

They are good parents, though not perfect. I am grateful they taught me well enough I can see many of their errors as well as their more numerous successes.

[frank_jessop]

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.

 

What do you find inappropriate about stating "Egyptus is a desecendat of Cain."

[wenglund]

Racism is still racism, even when it's claimed to be the will of the Lord. The church has disavowed all racism. End stop. 

 

That is certainly, and ironically, a black/white way of viewing it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[katherine the great]

What do you find inappropriate about stating "Egyptus is a desecendat of Cain."

What do you think?

[David T]

FYI, from the 2014 D&C Seminary Manual:

 

 

Official Declaration 2. We do not have to know all the answers, but we should stay up to date with what we do know

Elder Paul V. Johnson of the Seventy provided the following counsel to gospel teachers:

“It is not unhealthy for a student to see that the teacher doesn’t know the answer to everything but does know the answer to the core questions and has a strong testimony. When the angel asked Nephi if he knew the condescension of God, Nephi responded, ‘I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things’ (1 Nephi 11:17). Even if we don’t know the answer to a specific question, we can remind our students of the things we do know.

“Another challenge we face, especially if we have taught for some time, is a tendency to hold on to old files and old explanations. We would be much better off keeping up with the current stance of the Church. One of the best ways to do this is to be familiar with material in the newsroom at LDS.org (mormonnewsroom.org). …

“I was hired in seminaries and institutes in the summer of 1978. In June of that summer, the revelation was announced that the priesthood was available to all worthy males. In August of that same year, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, spoke to seminary and institute personnel in a gathering analogous to this one. He emphasized how the revelation had changed our understanding of the issue. He said:

“‘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.

“‘We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

“‘It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the … matter before the first day of June of this year (1978)’ (“All Are Alike unto God” [CES symposium on the Book of Mormon, Aug. 18, 1978], 2; LDS.org).

“Let’s keep up to date with the light we have been given” (“A Pattern for Learning Spiritual Things” [address to CES religious educators, Aug. 7, 2012], LDS.org).

[frank_jessop]

What do you think?

 

If mentioning a descendant of Cain is inappropriate, then we must remove parts of Genesis 4 and Moses 5 from our scriptures.  I do not understand why the statement "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain." is inappropriate. On its own, it is simply a geneology lesson.

[Gray]

That is certainly, and ironically, a black/white way of viewing it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'm not sure it's all that ironic. Maybe as ironic as rain on my wedding day  

[Gray]

If mentioning a descendant of Cain is inappropriate, then we must remove parts of Genesis 4 and Moses 5 from our scriptures.  I do not understand why the statement "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain." is inappropriate. On its own, it is simply a geneology lesson.

 

It's mythology and it's racist. Where it's found doesn't change that. Nothing wrong with mythology, but mythology used to transmit racist tropes needs to be abandoned.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Gray

[bluebell]

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.

 

 

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

 

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this.  Once 3:30 hits and my kids/husband start to get home, I don't usually have much time to post anymore until the baby is officially taking his morning nap the following day.

 

My claim that the manual is currently being revised came from David T. (post #49).  

 

I admit that my claim that it is being revised because not all of it is considered doctrinal anymore is based on experience and not anything that I have personally read.  I used to own the last 'old' institute manuals and when they were revised things were taken out that no longer agreed with the current teachings of the church (I don't remember everything but one part I think i remember had to do with some teachings on evolution as part of the creation lessons).

 

As for the idea that the teachings that Egyptus is the descendant of cain used to be found in other manuals but is no longer there-that's an exercise in deductive reasoning.

 

Most of the older generations in the church never took institute.  

 

This teaching is only currently taught in one institute manual.

 

Most older people (older generations more so but not exclusively) are aware of this teaching about Egyptus and cain, even though most of them have never looked at the only church manual which contains it.

 

So if most of them never took institute, but most of them know about a teaching that is (right now) only taught in one institute manual and no where else, then where did they learn it?

 

Reason concludes that the teaching must have been much more prevalent in the past than it currently is in the present.

[frank_jessop]

It's mythology and it's racist. Where it's found doesn't change that. Nothing wrong with mythology, but mythology used to transmit racist tropes needs to be abandoned.

 

You are really straining to a reason to take offense if you think "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain". 

 

If you look at the opening post, the only thing that could be considered racism and unfounded is the statement from the friend:

 

"[O]ne 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."

 

Which of the following are racist:

 

Enoch is a descendant of Cain.

Irad is a desecendant of Cain.

Mahujael is a descendant of Cain.

Methusael is a descendant of Cain.

Lamech is a descendant of Cain.

Jabal is a descendant of Cain.

Tubal Cain is a descendant of Cain.

Egyptus is a descendant of Cain.

[Gray]

You are really straining to a reason to take offense if you think "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain". 

 

If you look at the opening post, the only thing that could be considered racism and unfounded is the statement from the friend:

 

"[O]ne 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."

 

Which of the following are racist:

 

Enoch is a descendant of Cain.

Irad is a desecendant of Cain.

Mahujael is a descendant of Cain.

Methusael is a descendant of Cain.

Lamech is a descendant of Cain.

Jabal is a descendant of Cain.

Tubal Cain is a descendant of Cain.

Egyptus is a descendant of Cain.

 

The idea if you take the POGP as a whole is that Cain's bloodline was preserved through Ham's wife, and on through the Canaanites and the Egyptians, who were cursed in regards to the priesthood and marked in their skin. It's simply not true and was a "just so story" to try to justify the enslavement of Africans. It's time to let this myth die. We're all from Africa originally.

[frank_jessop]

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this.  Once 3:30 hits and my kids/husband start to get home, I don't usually have much time to post anymore until the baby is officially taking his morning nap the following day.

 

My claim that the manual is currently being revised came from David T. (post #49).  

 

 

Thank you for the reply and reference, I appreciate it. However, David T - who ever he is, is no basis of authority - unless he is willing to give his indenpendantly verifable credentials.

 

bluebell, on 04 Mar 2014, said:

 

As for the idea that the teachings that Egyptus is the descendant of cain used to be found in other manuals but is no longer there-that's an exercise in deductive reasoning.

 

 

I agree,

 

... and since we know that this teaching is no longer taught in any of the new manuals the church has published,

 

I was responding to your reasoning.

[frank_jessop]

The idea if you take the POGP as a whole is that Cain's bloodline was preserved through Ham's wife, and on through the Canaanites and the Egyptians, who were cursed in regards to the priesthood and marked in their skin. It's simply not true and was a "just so story" to try to justify the enslavement of Africans. It's time to let this myth die. We're all from Africa originally.

 

Stop moving the post, and address the question asked.

 

You are avoiding the question. Which statement is racist? You avoid the question because you know and understand that as a singular statement none of them are racist. One must do as you have done and add to the statement, in a vain attempt to make it racist. And it is vain, because even after you appeal to racism to promote your own agenda, the statement "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" is still not racist.

 

You have failed, quite miserably, to demonstrate that the singular statement "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" - with nothing more - is racist. The only thing that approaches racism from the opening post is what the friend showed.

 

"Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" is not racist. 

[thesometimesaint]

Hi Cal,

 

Here's the problem: If those two apostles are speaking the truth, then the very things most here are saying the Lord would never do on the earth (i.e. cause physical differences based on worthiness in this life or in the pre-existence) will be done in the hereafter. And if he does create differences in or bodies after the resurrection based on what we do here, what does that say about the Lord?

 

Sure there will be differences. Ones based on righteousness, not on skin color. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CFR that ancient Canaan was populated by African-Americans.

 

 

Funny your PC lenses cannot see past this obvious anachronism. Sorry to be a bit critical but there were no African Americans back then any were in the world. There is nothing wrong with saying "black" people. Just as there is nothing wrong with saying "white" people.

To your point though I think you are right. CFR that ancient Canaan were black people of African decent.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[thesometimesaint]

Stop moving the post, and address the question asked.

 

You are avoiding the question. Which statement is racist? You avoid the question because you know and understand that as a singular statement none of them are racist. One must do as you have done and add to the statement, in a vain attempt to make it racist. And it is vain, because even after you appeal to racism to promote your own agenda, the statement "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" is still not racist.

 

You have failed, quite miserably, to demonstrate that the singular statement "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" - with nothing more - is racist. The only thing that approaches racism from the opening post is what the friend showed.

 

"Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" is not racist. 

 

Technically true, but it is the religious implications of that statement that are racist.

[Gray]

Stop moving the post, and address the question asked.

 

You are avoiding the question. Which statement is racist? You avoid the question because you know and understand that as a singular statement none of them are racist. One must do as you have done and add to the statement, in a vain attempt to make it racist. And it is vain, because even after you appeal to racism to promote your own agenda, the statement "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" is still not racist.

 

You have failed, quite miserably, to demonstrate that the singular statement "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" - with nothing more - is racist. The only thing that approaches racism from the opening post is what the friend showed.

 

"Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" is not racist. 

 

It's part of a racist doctrine and has no historical basis. Any snippet of a racist idea may not be racist, out of context. But in context it is definitely racist. 

[bluebell]

It's part of a racist doctrine and has no historical basis. Any snippet of a racist idea may not be racist, out of context. But in context it is definitely racist. 

 

This is truly the crux of the issue.

 

Saying "Egyptus was a descendant of cain" is not racist.

 

Saying "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" to explain why black people weren't worthy of be ordained to the priesthood is racist.

 

A statement is just a statement, unless it is used to teach that black people are born inferior to whites because they are descendants of satan's best friend here on the earth.  Then it's a racist statement. 

[MiserereNobis]

A statement is just a statement

 

Cue mfb in 3, 2, 1...

Edited March 4, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Ahab]

I assure you this is what is taught still today in the South. Someone indeed is descendant of Cain, but there is so much prejudice that has crept in over the years to justify the treatment of others...who knows anymore.

The only way Cain's descendents could have survived after the flood in Noah's day is if Noah's wife or a wife of one of their sons was a descendent of Cain.

[thesometimesaint]

The only way Cain's descendents could have survived after the flood in Noah's day is if Noah's wife or a wife of one of their sons was a descendent of Cain.

 

Non Sequitur.

[frank_jessop]

This is truly the crux of the issue.

 

Saying "Egyptus was a descendant of cain" is not racist.

 

Saying "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" to explain why black people weren't worthy of be ordained to the priesthood is racist.

 

A statement is just a statement, unless it is used to teach that black people are born inferior to whites because they are descendants of satan's best friend here on the earth.  Then it's a racist statement. 

 

Thank you for providing the clarity needed.

[Rob Osborn]

_{I do find it interesting that in our scripture God does curse a peoples with a dark skin as a mark. Is God racist, or is there more we just aren't getting?}

[Ahab]

Non Sequitur.

Just sayin.

And I do believe it is a great advantage to be born into a family with a father who has been ordained to an office in and honors the priesthood, or just to live in a part of the world where there are many such people. And yet spirits from heaven are still being born to people in places without that advantage. At least Africa isn't as bad as it used to be, though, but America isn't as good as it used to be, either.