The Priesthood and Arabs

[Mark Beesley]

The Lord cursed Cain, reportedly with black skin.

The Lord cursed Ham with regard to the Priesthood.

Ham’s wife was Egyptus.

Egyptus was seed of Cain.

Egyptians descend from Ham and Eqyptus.

Hagar was Egyptian.

Ishmael was Hagar’s son.

Ishmael is the father of the Arab race.

The Arab race would also be descended from Ham, and Cain.

The priesthood ban was never applied to Arabs, was it?

Why is this not a clear indication that the “curse of Cain” had nothing to do with the ban?

Just curious.

 

[rchorse]

21 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Why is this not a clear indication that the “curse of Cain” had nothing to do with the ban?

 

Because some people still need to feel like their racism is supported by God and scripture.

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, rchorse said:

Because some people still need to feel like their racism is supported by God and scripture.

Yup!

This Sunday there is a presentation called, "Lincoln: Divided We Stand" on CNN at 10 pm ET/PT.

I'm sure we'll glean a lot of where that racism comes from. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

2 hours ago, rchorse said:

Because some people still need to feel like their racism is supported by God and scripture.

It is really not that simple. These were beliefs that dated back 1,000’s of year, and not just early LDS beliefs. Sadly these were beliefs that even predated Christianity, and then many different Christian denominations long before our Church was formed. We like to think that with the Book of Mormon, and having a Prophet, that every incorrect doctrine were immediately done away with, but not so. So pointing the finger at our Church alone, and saying it was just to “justify racism”, is just intellectual laziness, and devoid of the centuries long teaches that fosterEd such beliefs and policies. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

The Lord cursed Cain, reportedly with black skin.

"Reportedly" being a key word here.  Do we have a scriptural basis for this claim?  I don't think so.  From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

In consequence of Cain's rebellion, the Lord cast him out of his presence (Moses 5:38-39; see Spiritual Death) and "set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (Moses 5:40), protecting him from death by the hand of any avenger (cf. also Moses 7:22).

This gibes with Genesis 4:15, which states that "the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

This FAIR article does a good job of explaining this issue: Mormonism and the "curse of Cain"

The Church's "Race and the Priesthood" essay is similarly candid:

Quote

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.
...
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 unrighteous 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.

See also this entry from Wikipedia:

Quote

Mormonism began during the height of Protestant acceptance of the curse of Cain doctrine in North America, as well as the even more popular curse of Ham doctrine. Like many North Americans,^[26][27] Mormons of the 19th century commonly assumed that black Africans had Cain's "mark" of black skin,^[28] and Ham's curse to be servants of servants.^[29] Joseph Smith indicated his belief in the curse of Ham theory in a parenthetical reference as early as 1831.^[30] In the Pearl of Great Price, considered scripture to most Mormons, Enoch talks about shunning the descendants of Cain and that they had black skin:^[31] "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." (Moses 7:22)

See also here, here, here (all on Wikipedia, but in different articles).

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

The Lord cursed Ham with regard to the Priesthood.

Again, do we have a scriptural basis for this claim?

From FAIR (emphases added) :

Quote

Canaan (Genesis 9:20–27). Ham’s son Canaan, for some unexplained reason, was cursed for his father’s offense against Noah. No change in skin color was mentioned,[3] nor was there any statement on priesthood. According to the Bible, Canaan was the founder of the Canaanite nation (Genesis 10:15–19). The Canaanites were Caucasian, not black, and had no connection with sub-Saharan (black) Africans.
...
Egyptus (Abraham 1:21–27). The Book of Abraham is the only place that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the Pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any—especially in the modern world—would be covered by that proscription.[5] According to the Bible, Egypt was founded by Mizraim, another son of Ham, and Canaan’s brother (which may be why Abraham 1:21 connects Egypt with the Canaanites). Egyptians, both ancient and modern, were not black Africans, but Northern Africans, culturally related to peoples of the Middle East.

Conclusion. The speculation that modern blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham is unsupported from the scriptures. In reality we do not know why God allowed the denial of the priesthood to blacks for a time in this dispensation. All we do know is that policy has been reversed by a living prophet.

Yep.

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Ham’s wife was Egyptus.

Egyptus was seed of Cain.

Egyptians descend from Ham and Eqyptus.

Hagar was Egyptian.

Ishmael was Hagar’s son.

Ishmael is the father of the Arab race.

The Arab race would also be descended from Ham, and Cain.

The priesthood ban was never applied to Arabs, was it?

Again, from FAIR:

Quote

Egyptus (Abraham 1:21–27). The Book of Abraham is the only place that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the Pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any—especially in the modern world—would be covered by that proscription.[5] According to the Bible, Egypt was founded by Mizraim, another son of Ham, and Canaan’s brother (which may be why Abraham 1:21 connects Egypt with the Canaanites). Egyptians, both ancient and modern, were not black Africans, but Northern Africans, culturally related to peoples of the Middle East.

Interesting stuff.

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Why is this not a clear indication that the “curse of Cain” had nothing to do with the ban?

Just curious.

I think the "cuse of Cain" had a lot to do with the ban.  It's just that the doing was based on a tendentious and heavily decontextualized and broadly spurious interpretation of some select scriptures.

Our ancestors had their flaws.  This is one of the more obvious ones.  Today we have our own moral blind spots, sometimes even to the point where we resort to spurious and decontextualized citation to scripture to justify incorrect notions and ideas.  It's a weakness to which we are all susceptible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

13 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

It is really not that simple. These were beliefs that dated back 1,000’s of year, and not just early LDS beliefs. Sadly these were beliefs that even predated Christianity, and then many different Christian denominations long before our Church was formed. We like to think that with the Book of Mormon, and having a Prophet, that every incorrect doctrine were immediately done away with, but not so. So pointing the finger at our Church alone, and saying it was just to “justify racism”, is just intellectual laziness, and devoid of the centuries long teaches that fostered such beliefs and policies. 

 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

It is really not that simple. These were beliefs that dated back 1,000’s of year, and not just early LDS beliefs. Sadly these were beliefs that even predated Christianity, and then many different Christian denominations long before our Church was formed. We like to think that with the Book of Mormon, and having a Prophet, that every incorrect doctrine were immediately done away with, but not so. So pointing the finger at our Church alone, and saying it was just to “justify racism”, is just intellectual laziness, and devoid of the centuries long teaches that fosterEd such beliefs and policies. 

All I can say is I'm ashamed of my white race, especially after watching the impeachment trial, with so many white nationalists that stormed the capitol. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/11/2021 at 8:22 AM, Mark Beesley said:

The Lord cursed Cain, reportedly with black skin.

There is no Scriptural basis for this notion, and those Christians who tied it to the curse on Ham for centuries were simply wrong (Cain and Ham could not have been related simply due to the Flood of Noah and the end of any other humans).  It came to be used by Southern Baptists and Southern Presbyterians as justification for slavery and anti-miscegenation laws in the 19th century, and some of the LDS Brethren adopted that unscriptural view after the death of Joseph Smith.  However, as Bruce McConkie publicly declared in 1978, they spoke without light and knowledge, and he said that we should disregard what they had said -- finally agreeing at long last with Orson Pratt.

Quote

The Lord cursed Ham with regard to the Priesthood.

Ham’s wife was Egyptus.

Egyptus was seed of Cain.

Egyptians descend from Ham and Eqyptus.

While it is true that the Book of Abraham says that the first King of Egypt was a descendant of Ham and therefore cursed as to the priesthood, Egyptus could not have been the seed of Cain (only the family of Noah survived the Flood), and there is no Scriptural warrant for such a belief.  How and why Ham was cursed is contained in Gen 9:19-27, and has nothing to do with Cain.  Moreover, the words Cain (Hebrew Qayin) and Canaan (Kena'an) are completely unrelated, so that no Hamite-Canaanite curse can be transmitted thereby.  Indeed, Egyptians are not black like sub-Saharan Africans, so that the connection with complexion is likewise nonsense.  I deal with the genetic question online at https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aj5g2S0y64JGjgzE6YqCBhB2NnBs.

Quote

Hagar was Egyptian.

Ishmael was Hagar’s son.

Ishmael is the father of the Arab race.

The Arab race would also be descended from Ham, and Cain.

The priesthood ban was never applied to Arabs, was it?

Why is this not a clear indication that the “curse of Cain” had nothing to do with the ban?...............

There has never been any priesthood ban on the Arabs, and a number of non-Israelite Semitic peoples have definitely held God's priesthood (Melchizedek, Jethro, etc.).

The Arabs are a Semitic people, descended from Noah through Shem (the origin of the term "Semitic"), and Arabic is a Semitic language.  Arabs are not descendants of Ham or Cain.  The descendants of Shem were Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram.  In other words, Shem is depicted by the Bible as most directly the father of the Elamites of Persia, the Assyrians of Mesopotamia, the Lybians and Lydians (Lud), and Chaldean and Aramaic peoples (which included Abraham).  There is no Arab race.  There is only the human race, with many different expressions of it.

The Arabs at large descend from a wide variety of the sons of Shem -- Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Eber, Ophir, Havilah, Midian, Edom, etc.  Ishmael is only a latecomer on the scene.  Modern Palestinians and Lebanese are not Arabs, even though they speak Arabic (since the Muslim Conquest).  They are descendants of the ancient Canaanites.  Likewise, modern Egyptians are direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians.  They are not Arabs, even though they all speak Arabic now (since the Muslim Conquest).

Edited February 12, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[rchorse]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

It is really not that simple. These were beliefs that dated back 1,000’s of year, and not just early LDS beliefs. Sadly these were beliefs that even predated Christianity, and then many different Christian denominations long before our Church was formed. We like to think that with the Book of Mormon, and having a Prophet, that every incorrect doctrine were immediately done away with, but not so. So pointing the finger at our Church alone, and saying it was just to “justify racism”, is just intellectual laziness, and devoid of the centuries long teaches that fosterEd such beliefs and policies. 

I wasn't pointing the finger at our church alone. There are all sorts of churches past and present that use(d) religious justification for racism and xenophobia. What I was getting at is that since, "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 unrighteous 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.", those who continue to cling to said theories are just looking for a way to rationalize their racism.

A better response would be to accept that those theories were wrong and change any remaining racist views, which I believe the church as an institution has done and continues to do. Some individual members, however, have yet to get with the program.

[Kevin Christensen]

Nibley in Abraham in Egypt, 

Quote

Pharoh's claim to the priesthood was invalid because he insisted with great force that it was the patriarchal priesthood of Noah, recieved through the line of Ham (Abraham 1:25-27). His earthly rule was blessed (Abraham 1:26, [notably contrasting with the curse on Ham to servitude in Gen 9:25]), but he could not, of course, claim patriarchal lineage through his mother.   Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, CWHN 14, 528.  Nibley discusses a parallel case in the Testament of Job compared to Pharaoh. 

Also this:

Quote

Because, as noted, it came through a matriarchal succession, the first pharaoh being "the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. (Abraham 1:25. Pharoah was of a more righteous line than the sons of Ham, but daughters do not transmit patriarchal succession. In all of this please note, there is no word of race or color, though that has been the main point of attack on the Book of Abraham..." Nibley, 530. 

And this:

Quote

...there is no exclusive equation between Ham and Pharaoh, or between Ham and the Egyptians, or between Egyptians  and the blacks or between any of the above and any particular curse.  What was denied wasa recognition of patriarchal right to the priesthood made by a claim of matriarchal succession.  Nibley, 587.

For an essential survey of the pre-lds cultural background behind some flawed readings inherited, not invented and especially not revealed, by some LDS, that Robert Smith mentions, see this essential review by Stirling Adams of books by two Jewish scholars on the cultural history of the misreading and its origins, not in the original scriptures, but in the rise of the slave trade.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-curse-of-ham-race-and-slavery-in-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-the-biblical-justification-of-american-slavery/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

The Lord cursed Cain, reportedly with black skin.

The Lord cursed Ham with regard to the Priesthood.

Ham’s wife was Egyptus.

Egyptus was seed of Cain.

Egyptians descend from Ham and Eqyptus.

Hagar was Egyptian.

Ishmael was Hagar’s son.

Ishmael is the father of the Arab race.

The Arab race would also be descended from Ham, and Cain.

The priesthood ban was never applied to Arabs, was it?

Why is this not a clear indication that the “curse of Cain” had nothing to do with the ban?

Just curious.

 

Because the curse of Cain and the priesthood ban both refer to the same thing... the same limitation, to be shut out from the presence/power of the Lord.  

See Gen. 4:15 (Moses 5:37–41)  and https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yup!

This Sunday there is a presentation called, "Lincoln: Divided We Stand" on CNN at 10 pm ET/PT.

I'm sure we'll glean a lot of where that racism comes from. 

CNN?

uh huh.

[rodheadlee]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

CNN?

uh huh.

I stopped believing anything that CNN puts up ever since they got busted filming from a rooftop in Texas when they claimed they were filming from a rooftop in Baghdad.

[strappinglad]

Speaking of Nibley, I am rereading his " Message " and think the Egyptians did a much better job of preserving the temple stuff through the millenia than any other group. 

[Mark Beesley]

Sometimes, when we concentrate on the trees, we miss the forest. If one were to look at my opening post as a whole without feeling a need to dissect every line, the appropriate response to my OP would have been short, accurate, and compelling.

Ishmael, even though he was the seed of both Ham and Cain, was blessed by the Lord when he and his mother were abandoned.  In short, any curse that would otherwise have followed him was lifted.

(For clarification purposes, the premises of the OP are based on common folklore beliefs in the Mormon Church in the 60s and 70s. I was not suggesting any of them represent the doctrine of the 21st Century Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sorry for any confusion.)

Edited February 12, 2021 by Mark Beesley

[poptart]

5 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

It is really not that simple. These were beliefs that dated back 1,000’s of year, and not just early LDS beliefs. Sadly these were beliefs that even predated Christianity, and then many different Christian denominations long before our Church was formed. We like to think that with the Book of Mormon, and having a Prophet, that every incorrect doctrine were immediately done away with, but not so. So pointing the finger at our Church alone, and saying it was just to “justify racism”, is just intellectual laziness, and devoid of the centuries long teaches that fosterEd such beliefs and policies. 

A lot of Protestants believed in that back in the day, they just never talk about it.  Sucks how you guys get all the blame for it.  I always thought like the Catholic Church everyone else blamed the LDS faithful for whatever they could when their branches of the Christian religion had more teeth.  

Your president is awesome.

Pres. Russell M. Nelson decries racism, asks LDS to lead out in ending it. - YouTube

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Ishmael, even though he was the seed of both Ham and Cain, was blessed by the Lord when he and his mother were abandoned.  In short, any curse that would otherwise have followed him was lifted.

There is also the issue of what is going on when it is only Canaan that is cursed and not Ham’s other sons. Can’t be because of their mom or it would be all of them. 

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

It is really not that simple. These were beliefs that dated back 1,000’s of year, and not just early LDS beliefs. Sadly these were beliefs that even predated Christianity, and then many different Christian denominations long before our Church was formed. We like to think that with the Book of Mormon, and having a Prophet, that every incorrect doctrine were immediately done away with, but not so. So pointing the finger at our Church alone, and saying it was just to “justify racism”, is just intellectual laziness, and devoid of the centuries long teaches that fosterEd such beliefs and policies. 

Not thousands of years for this. The idea that the Curse of Cain was black skin didn't exist in any strength until it cropped up in the United States (once the slave trade got going) in Protestant churches as an obvious attempt to justify slavery. The Catholics and most of the primarily European faiths (Anglicans, Orthodox faiths) never adopted the interpretation. Prior to that the Curse had been used in Europe a bit against the Romani (Gypsies) but it was a fringe teaching.

America's greatest shame has done and continues to do more damage than anything else in US history.

 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I stopped believing anything that CNN puts up ever since they got busted filming from a rooftop in Texas when they claimed they were filming from a rooftop in Baghdad.

I encourage you to expand that insistence of factual reporting to all your news consumption. Good luck.

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

All I can say is I'm ashamed of my white race, especially after watching the impeachment trial, with so many white nationalists that stormed the capitol. 

Racism is not restricted to the white race.

[rodheadlee]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I encourage you to expand that insistence of factual reporting to all your news consumption. Good luck.

I have found nowhere to consume factual news if you know such a place let me know.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I have found nowhere to consume factual news if you know such a place let me know.

I find that generally if I want factual reporting I need to read and learn about boring things.

This sums it up pretty well: https://www.nupoliticalreview.com/2019/02/04/why-you-should-watch-boring-news/

It is also why I applaud comedy news shows that try to do investigative deep dives into otherwise completely boring topics. I also try to give money to groups that are still doing serious investigative reporting but I had to end that until I find a job again.

One of the brainworms of our current 24 hour news cycle is that people imagine they are informed when they spent hours just having headlines and slogans repeatedly pumped into their head. Spending 15 minutes reading an article on what your local sheriff does and examining candidates for the office or spending an hour attending a local zoning meeting would do more to get someone informed than watching a week of cable news and reading clickbait and social media takes.

[Damien the Leper]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I find that generally if I want factual reporting I need to read and learn about boring things.

This sums it up pretty well: https://www.nupoliticalreview.com/2019/02/04/why-you-should-watch-boring-news/

It is also why I applaud comedy news shows that try to do investigative deep dives into otherwise completely boring topics. I also try to give money to groups that are still doing serious investigative reporting but I had to end that until I find a job again.

One of the brainworms of our current 24 hour news cycle is that people imagine they are informed when they spent hours just having headlines and slogans repeatedly pumped into their head. Spending 15 minutes reading an article on what your local sheriff does and examining candidates for the office or spending an hour attending a local zoning meeting would do more to get someone informed than watching a week of cable news and reading clickbait and social media takes.

I like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 2/11/2021 at 2:09 PM, Tacenda said:

All I can say is I'm ashamed of my white race, especially after watching the impeachment trial, with so many white nationalists that stormed the capitol. 

That is just ridiculous, those who attacked the capital were just a tiny fraction of those that came to Washington D.C., what do you have to be ashamed of, were you somehow responsible? Don’t buy into this white guilt nonsense, that the media tries to indict all white people with. I have never done anything in my life for which I should be ashamed of for being white. I have done things a human with all the flaws that all humans suffer from, which includes all races. Or, are you ashamed to being a human being as well. Some women also entered the capital building, are you ashamed of being a woman as well? 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Not thousands of years for this. The idea that the Curse of Cain was black skin didn't exist in any strength until it cropped up in the United States...

 

Simply not true, the slave trade started long before the United States came into being, it was started by the Dutch, and other European Countries. Also the three sons of Noah were, (or are) attributive to the three primary people’s of the world, in the Old Testament. Of course much of the OT was passed down by “oral traditions”, so who knows what is really true.