Descendants Of Cain

[Calm]

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.

Or Noah himself was a descendant through one of his foremothers. We are not given the genealogy of any of the wives.

[David T]

_{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?}

 

If you mean the Nephites, consider this.

 

Bit of a summary:

• No Nephites, including Nephi, claim to be eyewitnesses to the initiation of the curse and associated marking that would make them ‘not enticing’.
• Nephi’s reporting of the Lord’s words do not specify any change in physical appearance, or even lightness/darkness.

We have no firsthand accounts of anyone actually having a change in skin color. Nephi reports that those who attack the Nephites a generation later on after he left the Lamanites behind, with darker skin, must be those who the Lord cursed. I propose there's some assumptions and very plausible mistaken identity going on here. The tradition is perpetuated to a degree in the next generation, but quickly adapted to a mixed literal/symbolic idea of marking. Especially with the interbreeding that was happening, skin color would not have been any sort of viable marker for anything. Mormon likely based his announcements of changing of individual skins in his MUCH later record on what 'must have happened' as an interpretive understanding of the fulfillment of Nephi's words, not as or based on an eyewitness account. 

 

So yes. I propose there's something 'we're not getting'. I propose God never suddenly changed anyone's skin pigment as a mark to separate those with divine disfavor.  "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse". I know BCSpace disagrees, but I see even Nephi's theory being disavowed as well. The Book of Mormon's narrative still holds strong as an authentic  historical narrative with this being the case, and I actually find the text even more rich and authentic with the subtext that there's some mistaken assumptions going on even by the major protagonists. 

 

As President Uchtdorf recently said, "both the Nephites as well as the Lamanites created their own “truths” about each other …These “truths” fed their hatred for one another until it finally consumed them all. Needless to say, there are many examples in the Book of Mormon that contradict both of these stereotypes. Nevertheless, the Nephites and Lamanites believed these “truths” that shaped the destiny of this once-mighty and beautiful people.” 

Edited March 4, 2014 by David T

[katherine the great]

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.

There is no scriptural support for it--just "folk doctrine."

[bluebell]

There is no scriptural support for it--just "folk doctrine."

 

It is interesting that if you search the phrase "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" on lds.org it will take you to one reference, the heading of Ham in the Guide to the Scriptures.

 

There, this phrase is repeated.  However, if you look at the scriptures that are listed to support this idea, none of them actually say that.  

 

This is exactly what it says-

 

"Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain; the sons of their daughter Egyptus settled in Egypt:Abr. 1:23, 25; ( Ps. 105:23; Ps. 106:21–22; )"

 

It would be really interesting to know where this teaching actually comes from.

[Ahab]

Or Noah himself was a descendant through one of his foremothers. We are not given the genealogy of any of the wives.

Okay that's true too. My main thought was that it would have been through one of the women, since Noah's father was not a descendent of the Cain who killed Abel.

[David T]

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).

 

The Church is in the process of revising all of its curriculum. Youth are getting the priority, with the other material not being far behind.

To coincide with the new Come Follow Me unified Youth Sunday School/Young Women/Young Men programs (which abrogated the old 'Young Women 1, 2, 3' and 'Aaronic Priesthood 1, 2, 3' manuals)...

new Seminary manuals are being developed in line with the rotating 4-year-curriculum. Book of Mormon got a new 2013 manual, Doctrine and Covenants and Church History has a new 2014 manual, and New Testament and Old Testament will follow (see thumbnails of images below)

[continued...]

[David T]

Likewise, Institute has begun revising all of its curriculum as well, with also a new standardised and consistent format. Doctrine and Covenants received an update in 2002, and The Book of Mormon received a new manual a couple years ago (2009) before the new initiative and design, but the other manuals have a new clear unified look. The first half of a brand new 2014 New Testament Institute manual (the first update since 1979!) has been posted online, dealing with the Gospels. This includes some insights from biblical scholarship that have not been approached in ways not seen in previous manuals before (such as noting that the end of Mark is likely not original to the text, additional insights and focus on women, and others. Check it out!). I have heard of individuals who have been consulted for both the new NT and OT manuals. (The OT manuals were last updated in 1982!) - it's generally standard in the Church for D&C and Book of Mormon material to get the quicker upgrades and the priority.

 

 

Next year ends the adult Sunday School cycle (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Old Testament, New Testament). From what I've heard, I would be incredibly surprised if the Sunday School manuals (last slightly revised in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 respectively) would see the light of another cycle. Expect new material for Gospel Doctrine by 2016 at the latest. Even Gospel Principles received a significant update in 2011!

 

In the words of The Sixth Doctor, immediately following the demise of Five, "Change, my dear. And it seems not a moment too soon."

[katherine the great]

Just from a scientific perspective, With almost 2000 years of history between Cain and Noah, and the close proximity of Cain's progeny and Seth's progeny, the odds of everyone in the area being descendants of Cain were quite high.

[Rob Osborn]

If you mean the Nephites, consider this.

 

Bit of a summary:

• No Nephites, including Nephi, claim to be eyewitnesses to the initiation of the curse and associated marking that would make them ‘not enticing’.
• Nephi’s reporting of the Lord’s words do not specify any change in physical appearance, or even lightness/darkness.

We have no firsthand accounts of anyone actually having a change in skin color. Nephi reports that those who attack the Nephites a generation later on after he left the Lamanites behind, with darker skin, must be those who the Lord cursed. I propose there's some assumptions and very plausible mistaken identity going on here. The tradition is perpetuated to a degree in the next generation, but quickly adapted to a mixed literal/symbolic idea of marking. Especially with the interbreeding that was happening, skin color would not have been any sort of viable marker for anything. Mormon likely based his announcements of changing of individual skins in his MUCH later record on what 'must have happened' as an interpretive understanding of the fulfillment of Nephi's words, not as or based on an eyewitness account. 

 

So yes. I propose there's something 'we're not getting'. I propose God never suddenly changed anyone's skin pigment as a mark to separate those with divine disfavor.  "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse". I know BCSpace disagrees, but I see even Nephi's theory being disavowed as well. The Book of Mormon's narrative still holds strong as an authentic  historical narrative with this being the case, and I actually find the text even more rich and authentic with the subtext that there's some mistaken assumptions going on even by the major protagonists. 

 

As President Uchtdorf recently said, "both the Nephites as well as the Lamanites created their own “truths” about each other …These “truths” fed their hatred for one another until it finally consumed them all. Needless to say, there are many examples in the Book of Mormon that contradict both of these stereotypes. Nevertheless, the Nephites and Lamanites believed these “truths” that shaped the destiny of this once-mighty and beautiful people.” 

Its all in the "context" of what is happening in scripture. One can surmise and assume with guessing all they want but the truth from scripture is that for one reason or another God really did place actual physical marks on races or lineages or groups of people as a way to identify them for different purposes. The scriptures speak of Cains children/descendants had black skin-

22 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 a black, and had not place among them. (Moses 7:22)

In inference here that this came because of a curse comes from the same chapter a few verses earlier-

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

Then you have the obvious BoM scriptures speaking of much the same-

21 And he had caused the a 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 b delightsome, that they might not be c enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a d skin of e blackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be a loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that a mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their a cursing which was upon them they did become an b idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. (2 Nephi 5:21-24)

Now, in no way am I saying that just because one has black or dark skin are they cursed. I too stand with the Church in despising all forms of racism. But, in the context of the "why" it becomes rather apparent from scripture that God placed a mark of dark skin upon certain peoples at different times as a curse upon the fathers for their transgressions as a sign and as a means so that different cultures didn't mix their seed together seeing as in ancient times, entire cultures who were led by wicked people would corrupt the entire civilization.

Now, you can deny that God really did this but it stands to reason that in context it makes perfect sense that God would indeed set marks upon people and place the fathers in a position where they could easily be identified so as to not intermingle the seed of the righteous with the cultures of wickedness.

[katherine the great]

It is interesting that if you search the phrase "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" on lds.org it will take you to one reference, the heading of Ham in the Guide to the Scriptures.

 

There, this phrase is repeated.  However, if you look at the scriptures that are listed to support this idea, none of them actually say that.  

 

This is exactly what it says-

 

"Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain; the sons of their daughter Egyptus settled in Egypt:Abr. 1:23, 25; ( Ps. 105:23; Ps. 106:21–22; )"

 

It would be really interesting to know where this teaching actually comes from.

Yup!  My thoughts exactly.  Not only do none of those say that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain, none of those scriptures mention Cain at all!

[theplains]

And yes, the belief that black skin is the curse of Cain is racist in nature.  The teacher, yes I was criticizing.  

 

Alma 3:6-7 says the skins of the Lamanites were dark, "according to the mark which was set

upon their fathers, which was a curse 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. And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were

cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also

the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women"

 

Is this racist in nature and would you explain your rationale?

 

How do we know that the mark placed on Cain was actually dark skin all over his body?

Was this same mark placed on his son so those finding his son would not kill him too?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Rob Osborn]

It is interesting that if you search the phrase "Egyptus was a descendant of Cain" on lds.org it will take you to one reference, the heading of Ham in the Guide to the Scriptures.

 

There, this phrase is repeated.  However, if you look at the scriptures that are listed to support this idea, none of them actually say that.  

 

This is exactly what it says-

 

"Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain; the sons of their daughter Egyptus settled in Egypt:Abr. 1:23, 25; ( Ps. 105:23; Ps. 106:21–22; )"

 

It would be really interesting to know where this teaching actually comes from.

From all that I have read in the scriptures is that it can only be inferred. We know the pre-flood Canaaniteschildren had a skin of blackness come upon them. Later in that same chapter (Moses 7) we are told that the seed of Cain had black skin and had not place among them. Also of inferrence here is that the gospel was preached by Enoch to everyone except for the people of Canaan. Egyptus was from the pre-flood Canaanite lineage and thus it is inferred she had black skin or had it in her genes. It is thus through Egyptus, the wike of Ham that the curse placed upon the pre-flood Canaanites was preserved through Egyptus into her children from Hams loins.

Thus, from everything I can see, the inferrence is made based upon the fact that Cain's seed was indeed black and that the Canaanites pre-flood were black form which lineage Egyptus was from.

[Calm]

If the seed of Cain were black, the the preflood Canaanites can't be of the seed of Cain since "a blackness came upon them" after they had lkilled the people of Shum, etc.

[Rob Osborn]

If the seed of Cain were black, the the preflood Canaanites can't be of the seed of Cain since "a blackness came upon them" after they had lkilled the people of Shum, etc.

We aren't told through what process the blackness came upon the children of Canaan. It very well could have been that the seed of Cain mingled with the Canannite children until all of their generations became intermingled with the seed of Cain

[Calm]

We aren't told through what process the blackness came upon the children of Canaan. It very well could have been that the seed of Cain mingled with the Canannite children until all of their generations became intermingled with the seed of Cain

It might be, but that is only pure guessing and cannot be inferred from what is written.

 

If Cain was turned dark by a curse in your interpretation, there is no need for the darkness that came upon the Canaanites to be from intermarriage as God could just have easily cursed a whole people as one man, don't you think?

[Calm]

If the preflood Canaanites were the one people who would not repent, how could a preflood Canaanite Egyptus be one of those on the ark? They were completely separated from any other, were not taught by the Prophets to call to repentance, and were despised among all other people. Why would Ham have chosen a wife from among them? Why would Ham have even gone among them in the first place to meet her?

The preflood Canaanites are only mentioned in the Book of Moses. There is no need to have any connection with the postflood Canaanites that came from the descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham, the grandson of Noah, who are mentioned in Abraham.

This is what is said of preflood Ham:

27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Why would he marry a woman not of the Covenant? How could his other children besides Canaan not be cursed as well if the curse was somehow carried through their mother's lineage? Edited March 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[katherine the great]

 

Alma 3:6-7 says the skins of the Lamanites were dark, "according to the mark which was set

upon their fathers, which was a curse 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. And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were

cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also

the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women"

 

Is this racist in nature and would you explain your rationale?

 

How do we know that the mark placed on Cain was actually dark skin all over his body?

Was this same mark placed on his son so those finding his son would not kill him too?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

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.

[katherine the great]

 How could his other children besides Canaan not be cursed as well if the curse was somehow carried through their mother's lineage?

Good point.  

[Rob Osborn]

If the preflood Canaanites were the one people who would not repent, how could a preflood Canaanite Egyptus be one of those on the ark?  They were completely separated from any other, were not taught by the Prophets to call to repentance, and were despised among all other people.  Why would Ham have chosen a wife from among them?  Why would Ham have even gone among them in the first place to meet her?

 

The preflood Canaanites are mentioned in the Book of Moses.  There is no need to have any connection with the postflood Canaanites that came from the descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham, the grandson of Noah.

 

This is what is said of preflood Ham:

 

 

Why would he marry a woman not of the Covenant?  How could his other children besides Canaan not be cursed as well if the curse was somehow carried through their mother's lineage?

Not sure of all the details other than Egyptus was of Canannite lineage and thus preserved the curse of the Canaanites in the post-flood world.

[katherine the great]

Not sure of all the details other than Egyptus was of Canannite lineage and thus preserved the curse of the Canaanites in the post-flood world.

Is there a scripture that states that Egyptus was a Canaanite?  I can't think of one.

[Calm]

Not sure of all the details other than Egyptus was of Canannite lineage and thus preserved the curse of the Canaanites in the post-flood world.

And the Canaan who gave the curse to her supposedly to pass on was likely her father, Canaan, the son of Ham. The only curse post Noah in force. Hebrew lineage often use son or daughter for descendant, it did not have to be parent to child all the time.

If Egyptus, wife of Ham was of preCanaanite blood of those who would not repent, she would never had gotten on that boat, she would never have married Ham who was a man who walked with God so would have chosen his wife among the few remaining left.

It is a separate book and it must be treated as a consistent story in and of itself just as its author would have done, possibly not even having the other book around to study, given that Abraham came before Moses so if original to the claimed individual you can't use stuff in Moses to explain stuff in Abraham as the first text would not have yet existed.

Egyptus of Egypt, the second Egyptus was not of preCanaanite lineage, but post flood Canaanite lineage, the only Canaanite curse know in the Bible, I believe. She was like the granddaughter of Ham and the first Egyptus (who was not a Canaanite at all) was either the mother or wife of Ham's cursed son Canaan. The punctuation and terms likely being translated makes it ambiguous.

[BCSpace]

We aren't told through what process the blackness came upon the children of Canaan

 

Moses 7:8 seems to tell just that.

 

Yes of course it is racist.  

 

 

 

None of the BoM verses fit the definition of racist.  For them to do so, something negative would had to have happened because of their skin color.  For the same reason, the Priesthood ban was not racist.  At worst, black skin was erroneously used to identify lineage (See Abraham 1:24–27. The Pharaoh and the Priesthood), the basis for the ban.

 

The Book of Mormon writers believed this is why the Lamanites had dark skin.

 

Sugar coating. This is a reference to a CES hypothesis. Unlike the similar hypothesis about the BoM and the Global Flood, this one is born out of political correctness and an stunning inability to counter anti LDS criticism with the available material.

Edited March 5, 2014 by BCSpace

[Rob Osborn]

Is there a scripture that states that Egyptus was a Canaanite?  I can't think of one.

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

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

23 The land of a 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.

25 Now the first a government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

[Calm]

The daughter of Egyptus is Canaanite, not Egyptus herself is one way to read it.

This may be a result of the daughter of Ham marrying her brother Canaan....and having nothing to do with the preflood Canaanites of Enoch's time in the Book of Moses.

Another way to read it is the woman who was a descendant of Ham through an unspecified son or daughter who discovered the land married a Canaanite...I suspect no one believes she came by herself and somehow populated the land through virgin births.

Edited March 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[David T]

The daughter of Egyptus is Canaanite, not Egyptus herself is one way to read it.

This may be a result of the daughter of Ham marrying her brother Canaan....and having nothing to do with the preflood Canaanites of Enoch's time in the Book of Moses.

Another way to read it is the woman who was a descendant of Ham through an unspecified son or daughter who discovered the land married a Canaanite...I suspect no one believes she came by herself and somehow populated the land through virgin births.

Very similar to my proposal for a narratively consistent story laid out here, and illustrated below:

 

(Note: while the current Book of Abraham lists one person’s name as Egyptus, as well as her daughter, the manuscripts list the matriarch as Zeptah. To avoid confusion, I continue to refer to Egyptus’ mother as the distinct Zeptah)

Edited March 5, 2014 by David T