Descendants Of Cain

[David T]

= Off the Reservation

 

"I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things, but the creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further,' which I cannot subscribe to" - Joseph Smith (HC 6:67).

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[teddyaware]

As a point of especial interest to me with regard to this topic, I have what I believe is a very interesting question I'd like to ask:

 

If according to the Book of Abraham the lineage of Pharaoh was denied the right to hold the priesthood, putting aside any possible outward physical signs of this curse (such as a dark skin), as a general principle do you think it's just and right for God to deny a lineage the right to hold the priesthood? 

Edited March 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[katherine the great]

As a point of especial interest to me with regard to this topic, I have what I believe is a very interesting question I'd like to ask:

 

If according to the Book of Abraham the lineage of Pharaoh was denied the right to hold the priesthood, putting aside any possible outward physical signs of this curse (such as a dark skin), as a general principle do you think it's just and right for God to deny a lineage the right to hold the priesthood? 

There is a huge difference between a scenario where only one lineage can perform a particular activity and a scenario where all lineages except for one can perform said activity.  Those are my thoughts.

[teddyaware]

There is a huge difference between a scenario where only one lineage can perform a particular activity and a scenario where all lineages except for one can perform said activity.  Those are my thoughts.

Though you don't have to if you don't want to, you didn't answer my question.

[katherine the great]

Though you don't have to if you don't want to, you didn't answer my question.

I don't presume to judge God.  However, I don't really have a traditionally orthodox view of scripture either.  I believe that we will be punished for our own sins--not our ancestors.

[teddyaware]

I don't presume to judge God.  However, I don't really have a traditionally orthodox view of scripture either.  I believe that we will be punished for our own sins--not our ancestors.

Does your non-traditionally orthodox view of scripture reject the historicity of the Book of Abraham's narrative that testifies to the fact that Pharaoh and his lineage were denied the right to hold the priesthood?

Edited March 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[K-2]

I don't presume to judge God.  However, I don't really have a traditionally orthodox view of scripture either.  I believe that we will be punished for our own sins--not our ancestors.

I assume that you believe that we are heirs of such blessings as power in the priesthood or an innumerable posterity because of our ancestors, so why accept blessings but not cursings because of ancestors?

 

 D&C 121: 18-21

 18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—

 19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house.

 20 Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them.

 21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation.

 

Edited March 6, 2014 by K-2

[katherine the great]

Does your non-traditionally orthodox view of scripture reject the historicity of the Book of Abraham's narrative that testifies to the fact that Pharaoh and his lineage were denied the right to hold the priesthood?

I'm undecided.  There is a lot of "history" in the scriptures that I don't view as literal history--especially in the Genesis stories--although it is one of my favorite books.

[katherine the great]

I assume that you believe that we are heirs of such blessings as power in the priesthood or an innumerable posterity because of our ancestors, so why accept blessings but not cursings because of ancestors? D&C 121: 18-21

 

I'm not sure that I think of innumerable posterity as a blessing.  Life is definitely a blessing, but it was not given to me because of the righteousness of my ancestors.  It was given to me because my ancestors lived long enough to reproduce.  (through the grace of God of course.)  

[David T]

Does your non-traditionally orthodox view of scripture reject the historicity of the Book of Abraham's narrative that testifies to the fact that Pharaoh and his lineage were denied the right to hold the priesthood?

 

Pharoah's lineage was traced through Egyptus, married to someone we do not know, and relocated her posterity to a new land, separate from the line of the Priesthood Keys. There is no indication she or her husband held priesthood keys, IE, the Right to Priesthood, the ability to pass it down. As the families remained separate, he was of a lineage which literally could not have access to the right of Priesthood.

 

Until Abraham was sent to teach the gospel, and presumably offer it back. The same way of which, through Terah, Abraham had lost acces to the Right of Priesthood. He needed an authorized messenger - Melchizedek - to restore it to his lineage. I believe Abraham was playing the same role. The difference between Abraham and his contemporary Pharaoh in the story appears to be that Abraham accepted the offer, and Pharaoh apparantly didn't.

 

Rejection of the Priesthood and covenant loses the right. Today, children born in the covenant are rightful heirs to the 'right' to Priesthood, which right is affirmed and confirmed when they are baptized. For converts, they receive that right upon being baptized into the covenant line, (and continuing loyal to their covenants.)

 

It's about choices, and opportunities. Sometimes an individual's choices has effects on their posterity's opportunities. But when the opportunity is presented, the choice remains to choose for themselves. I believe that, in the story, Pharoah had been of a lineage where the opportunity had been taken away by his ancestors, not God. But in time, God sent a messenger to provide that opportunity. Sadly, that appears to have been rejected. They were not inherently invalidated by their birth. They always had the freedom to accept when an opportunity arose.

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[K-2]

I had this in mind:

D&C 132: 30-31

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

[K-2]

Pharoah's lineage was traced through Egyptus, married to someone we do not know, and relocated her posterity to a new land, separate from the line of the Priesthood Keys. There is no indication she or her husband held priesthood keys, IE, the Right to Priesthood, the ability to pass it down. As the families remained separate, he was of a lineage which literally could not have the right of Priesthood.

 

Until Abraham was sent to teach the gospel, and presumably offer it back. The same way of which, through Terah, Abraham had lost acces to the Right of Priesthood. He needed an authorized messenger - Melchizedek - to restore it to his lineage. I believe Abraham was playing the same role. The difference between Abraham and his contemporary Pharaoh in the story appears to be that Abraham accepted the offer, and Pharaoh apparantly didn't.

 

Rejection of the Priesthood and covenant loses the right. Today, children born in the covenant are rightful heirs to the 'right' to Priesthood, which right is affirmed and confirmed when they are baptized. For converts, they receive that right upon being baptized into the covenant line, (and continuing loyal to their covenants.)

Joseph Smith in TPJS, pg. 323-

 "The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right from the eternal God, and not by descent from father and mother; and that priesthood is as eternal as God Himself, having neither beginning of days nor end of life."

Edited March 6, 2014 by K-2

[David T]

Joseph Smith in TPJS, pg. 323-

 "The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right from the eternal God, and not by descent from father and mother; and that priesthood is as eternal as God Himself, having neither beginning of days nor end of life."

 

So that invalidates ideas of a lineage restriction right there. Good work By matter of practicality, the Patriarchs, in the narrative, passed it on to whoever would accept it, which included their sons. If one rejected it or found themselves otherwise inellegible, and left town, there would go the access with that decision.

 

Melchizedek wasn't Abraham's father, but he presented Abraham something that access had been previous lost through his lineage based on unfaithfulness and relocation.

 

Anyone is offered access. Ideally, Family ties to the covenant maintain that consistent access. While it was not a question whether my wife's brothers would someday be ordained to the Priesthood, and by their Father, I, not born into the Church,  had to seek out baptism, and seek out someone not of my family's community circle to authorize, and then to perform such an ordinance.

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[teddyaware]

So that invalidates ideas of a lineage restriction right there. Good work By matter of practicality, the Patriarchs, in the narrative, passed it on to whoever would accept it, which included their sons. If one rejected it or found themselves otherwise inellegible, and left town, there would go the access with that decision.

 

Melchizedek wasn't Abraham's father, but he presented Abraham something that access had been previous lost through his lineage based on unfaithfulness and relocation.

 

Anyone is offered access. Ideally, Family ties to the covenant maintain that consistent access. While it was not a question whether my wife's brothers would someday be ordained to the Priesthood, and by their Father, I, not born into the Church,  had to seek out baptism, and seek out someone not of my family's community circle to authorize, and then to perform such an ordinance.

In light of the above, how would you harmonize the following according to your understanding?

25 Now the first 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.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry; (Abraham 1)

Edited March 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[David T]

The lineage we know Pharoah Prime came through is only traced through his Mother. We don't know his father. Its a notable omission. Pharoahs lineage being from only his mother is equally notable. Withholding the right to Priesthood of his father who would relocate effectively cursed the opportunities of his lineage. We are told explicitly that Pharaoh Prime was righteous all his a days, so he would not have brought any curse upon himself.Noah withholding Priesthood from Pharoahs parents effectively and practically established a cursed lineage. Again, I propose Abraham was sent to offer to repair the breach, effectively ending the Curse. That offer was apparently rejected.

"Listen, you pursue your planned course, and you will have great land, and your children will grow in wisdom. But because of your choices, they will not have access to the Priesthood."

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[K-2]

DavidT, it says that the right to the Melchizedek Priesthood is not by descent from father or mother. It doesn't say anything about restriction from the priesthood.

[Rob Osborn]

Please highlight the part that says that Egyptus was a Canaanite.  It looks to me like it says that Ham's grandson or great grandson was a Canaanite.

The Pharaoh kings were kings by royal blood lineage back to Ham and his wife. The curse which is preserved through their blood is that curse given the pre-flood Canaanites-

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

7 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;

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 7:6-

This is the curse given the Canaanites before the flood. Note also that because of God's knowledge of futurity the curse it says shall "go forth forever". So, going back to Abraham ch. 1 we read that this curse was indeed preserved through blood lineage of Ham's loins because whereas he himself is not a Canaanite his wife must obviously be the one with Canaanite blood. from the which the bloodline of the pre-flood Canaanites was thus preserved which also brought to pass the prophecy that the curse placed upon the bloodline would be preserved through the flood.

[David T]

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 7:6-

This is the curse given the Canaanites before the flood. Note also that because of God's knowledge of futurity the curse it says shall "go forth forever". So, going back to Abraham ch. 1 we read that this curse was indeed preserved through blood lineage of Ham's loins because whereas he himself is not a Canaanite his wife must obviously be the one with Canaanite blood. from the which the bloodline of the pre-flood Canaanites was thus preserved which also brought to pass the prophecy that the curse placed upon the bloodline would be preserved through the flood.

 You quoted a Curse on land, not a bloodline, Rob. And Priesthood is never mentioned in connection with this curse of heat causing barren land.

Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[Calm]

And Egypt was a very fertile land so the curse of t he protoCanaanities hardly applied.

[Senator]

The lineage we know Pharoah Prime came through is only traced through his Mother. We don't know his father. Its a notable omission. Pharoahs lineage being from only his mother is equally notable. Withholding the right to Priesthood of his father who would relocate effectively cursed the opportunities of his lineage. We are told explicitly that Pharaoh Prime was righteous all his a days, so he would not have brought any curse upon himself.Noah withholding Priesthood from Pharoahs parents effectively and practically established a cursed lineage. Again, I propose Abraham was sent to offer to repair the breach, effectively ending the Curse. That offer was apparently rejected.

"Listen, you pursue your planned course, and you will have great land, and your children will grow in wisdom. But because of your choices, they will not have access to the Priesthood."

 

David,

 

Do you think that a differentiation between Patriarchal and Melchizedek priesthood could speak to the puzzle at hand? Then, in conjunction with that the rights of the firstborn?

[Alan]

As a point of especial interest to me with regard to this topic, I have what I believe is a very interesting question I'd like to ask:

 

If according to the Book of Abraham the lineage of Pharaoh was denied the right to hold the priesthood, putting aside any possible outward physical signs of this curse (such as a dark skin), as a general principle do you think it's just and right for God to deny a lineage the right to hold the priesthood? 

 

Yes I do.

It's His priesthood afterall, and he can give it to whoever He wants.

[David T]

David,

Do you think that a differentiation between Patriarchal and Melchizedek priesthood could speak to the puzzle at hand? Then, in conjunction with that the rights of the firstborn?

Joseph never fully made clear what the difference was in his mind, although its clear the ideas were developing towards the end of his life. But in Abraham, what is definitely under consideration is a form of Patriarchal Priesthood. Abraham notes that he 'became an heir' according to the right of the Fathers. Look at Abraham chapter 1, and see how many times 'the fathers' is mentioned. Abraham's father had been cut off from the line of transmission, thus necessitating Abraham to seek out the opportunity to be ordained a High Priest. I believe there is an intentional literary parallel between Abraham and the Pharaoh he visits. Edited March 6, 2014 by David T

[CV75]

Put this in the wrong thread yesterday and so it may be irrelevant at this point, but for what it's worth:

I do like the simple idea that the curses, marks, skin, etc. mentioned in our scriptures refer to very specific instances where God was making a statement or teaching a specific people in a language that they could understand (and where those like us who read them millenia later must understand the lesson by the Spirit) and are not global conclusions such as "dark skin = cursed." I can see this apply as well to "Pharaoh's lineage = always cursed" -- I suppose that has been lifted by now as well, and possibly even in the dispensations of Moses or Christ (Matthew 3:9).

For example, though the Book of Mormon was written for our day, its writers are foreign to us except for the Spirit we have in common, so everything has to tie back to the actual purpose(s) of the book, which have nothing to do with skin tone. I think the same could be said for the Bible and Pearl of Great Price.

I think that the Lord taught and warned the Patriarchs in a way they could understand (whether that was in literal or figurative language), which may not appeal to our sensitivies in our palce and time. That is what I used to teach my children when such questions came up. As the total of the world’s civilizations go, theirs were but a drop in the ocean and so their ways needn’t be our ways. Nephi recognized this differnce in only a couplpe of geneations, between his ancestors and his descendants (2 Nephi 25:2).

I tend to consider how the references to skin and curse, and lineage and priesthood (or curse) can be, at least in some instances, both symbolic (with universal application) and literal (with only immediate application for the people at hand). Things like adoption is both symbolic and literal. But, for example, 1 Nephi 13:15 – I don’t see how the heirs of the Great Apostasy (Conquistadores, Colonizers, Expansionists, etc.) could be, as a group, symbolically white, fair and beautiful.

[Senator]

Joseph never fully made clear what the difference was in his mind, although its clear the ideas were developing towards the end of his life. But in Abraham, what is definitely under consideration is a form of Patriarchal Priesthood. Abraham notes that he 'became an heir' according to the right of the Fathers. Look at Abraham chapter 1, and see how many times 'the fathers' is mentioned. Abraham's father had been cut off from the line of transmission, thus necessitating Abraham to seek out the opportunity to be ordained a High Priest. I believe there is an intentional literary parallel between Abraham and the Pharaoh he visits.

 

The reason I ask is because this whole story seems to be nothing more than that of a much earlier rendition of having "sold ones birthright for a mess of pottage".

Edited March 6, 2014 by Senator

[David T]

The reason I ask is because this whole story seems to be nothing more than that of a much earlier rendition of having "sold ones birthright for a mess of pottage".

 

I agree that this does appear to be a recurring theme. Good observation.