Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Egyptus? Ham's wife? Book of Abraham?

The Brethren of the 19th century weren't morons. They knew (and believed) in the flood, and they knew that the curse of Cain had to have a way to continue after it. 

Cannanite is not derived from Cain, but Canaan.  Cain isn’t mentioned.

Quote

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the aloinsof bHam, and was a partaker of the blood of the cCanaanitesby birth.

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

23 The land of aEgypt 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;

Ugh formatting…

Quote

they knew that the curse of Cain had to have a way to continue after it. 

Why?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Just now, Calm said:

What about the belief that one of the son’s wives carried the Curse (thoughI prefer Cain hanging off the side of the Ark myself 😛 )?  Or are you saying that has to be inserted into the text?

It's in the Book of Abraham, and it's hard for people who want to defend the veracity of the Book of Abraham to explain away.

23 The land of 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 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.

---

Unless they are willing to get rid of the Book of Abraham in order to uphold modern racial sensibilities. I hear people online (never in person, luckily) who advocate for the black skin passages in the BoM and BoA to be completely erased from the text. Completely removed --- and many of them would also be happy with a complete removal of the BoA and Book of Moses from the canon. 

Link to comment
Just now, Calm said:

Cannanite is not derived from Cain, but Canaan.  Cain isn’t mentioned.

I never said it was. What the Brethren taught is that Ham's wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain --- thus "preserving the curse in the land." 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why [did the Brethren know that the curse of Cain had to have a way to continue after the flood]?

For the same reason Robert pointed out. No descendant of Cain on the ark, the curse dies with the flood. They knew that; it's obvious. (Assuming that the Book of Abraham really is an inspired translation from God), that is the reason for the Egyptus/Ham's children story in the BoA.  

Edited by rongo
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I never said it was. What the Brethren taught is that Ham's wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain..

Which is not in the scriptures.

There is more than one curse in the Bible and the curse of Ham’s son is never linked to Cain, but is linked to Ham’s behaviour.

Quote

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, aCursed be bCanaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his aservant.

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

For the same reason Robert pointed out. No descendant of Cain on the ark, the curse dies with the flood. 

And why not let it die?

Quote

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

Not the Curse and not Cain, it was the blood of the Canaanite or lineage of Canaan…

Oops…later, vs 24 it is curse, but doesn’t say whose….so why not the curse of Canaan given the above blood of the Canaanites?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, rongo said:

For the same reason Robert pointed out. No descendant of Cain on the ark, the curse dies with the flood. They knew that; it's obvious. (Assuming that the Book of Abraham really is an inspired translation from God), that is the reason for the Egyptus/Ham's children story in the BoA.  

Or it could be talking about the Curse of Canaan which had nothing to do with Cain, and that is the reason for the story in the BoA.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I never said it was. What the Brethren taught is that Ham's wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain --- thus "preserving the curse in the land." 

Journal of Discourses mentions of this are legion. Here are a couple:

"There are many instances, from that time forward, of which the scriptures speak of this birthright continuing among the descendants of Seth, until it came to Noah and his sons, of which sons Shem received the blessings pertaining to the priesthood. Abraham came through Shem, and the Savior came through this lineage; and through this blessing of Noah upon Shem, the Priesthood continued through his seed; while the offspring of Ham inherited a curse, and it was because, as a revelation teaches, some of the blood of Cain became mingled with that of Ham's family, and hence they inherited that curse. " (John Taylor, 21:370)

"When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth." (John Taylor, 23:336)

 

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Journal of Discourses mentions of this are legion. Here are a couple:

"There are many instances, from that time forward, of which the scriptures speak of this birthright continuing among the descendants of Seth, until it came to Noah and his sons, of which sons Shem received the blessings pertaining to the priesthood. Abraham came through Shem, and the Savior came through this lineage; and through this blessing of Noah upon Shem, the Priesthood continued through his seed; while the offspring of Ham inherited a curse, and it was because, as a revelation teaches, some of the blood of Cain became mingled with that of Ham's family, and hence they inherited that curse. " (John Taylor, 21:370)

"When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth." (John Taylor, 23:336)

 

 

When did the Journal become canonized?

Where in the scriptures is this connection made with Cain or the curse of Cain?

PS:  Ham had other offspring and there is no mention of them being cursed, only Canaan.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which is not in the scriptures.

It is if you consider the Book of Abraham scripture. Pharaoh wasn't a Canaanite, either, but he was also "cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood" --- specifically because he was Egyptus' son (per the BoA). 

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

And why not let it die?

Not the Curse and not Cain, it was the blood of the Canaanite or lineage of Canaan…

Canaan was also . . . a descendant of Ham, but the Book of Abraham account doesn't hark back to Canaan. So, when Canaan is cursed 

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or it could be talking about the Curse of Canaan which had nothing to do with Cain, and that is the reason for the story in the BoA.

CFR that the Book of Abraham is referencing the curse of Canaan. It never mentions Canaan at all; it mentions descent through Egyptus, Ham's wife, and that is the cause in the BoA for Pharaoh's priesthood ban.

Link to comment
Just now, rongo said:

Pharaoh wasn't a Canaanite, either, but he was also "cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood" --- specifically because he was Egyptus' son (per the BoA). 

Are you claiming this Egyptus was Ham’s wife and Pharaoh, Ham’s son?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Abraham 1:26

Quote

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that aorder 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 bblessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

Where is “preserved the curse in the land” in that verse?

I see it in vs. 24….where does it say in that verse or chapter, the curse spoken of is the Curse of Cain?

Otoh, it mirrors the previous verse:

Quote

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

So whether or not Pharaoh was a Canaanite himself, it is clear it is his inheritance from the Canaanites that is the issue.

And so we are back to where in the scriptures is the Curse of Canaan ever defined as coming from an inheritance of the Curse of Cain, rather than the weird connection of his father seeing his father naked while drunk and telling his brothers about it? (As quoted above?)

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

When did the Journal become canonized?

It didn't, but it shows how the Brethren interpreted and understood our canon. The plain readings and interpretations have only been under attack in modern times due to PR/PC reasons. 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where in the scriptures is this connection made with Cain or the curse of Cain?

The Book of Moses and Book of Abraham (passim). 

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

PS:  Ham had other offspring and there is no mention of them being cursed, only Canaan.

Aren't you overlooking . . . Egyptus' descendants, according to the Book of Abraham? :) They aren't descendants of Canaan, but they are descendants of Ham (and Egyptus, a descendant of Cain). 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, rongo said:

The plain readings and interpretations have only been under attack in modern times due to PR/PC reasons. 

Readings that were made by inserting ideas into the text and making connections that weren’t stated.

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Egyptus' descendants, according to the Book of Abraham? :) They aren't descendants of Canaan, but they are descendants of Ham (and Egyptus, a descendant of Cain). 

Sorry, the Book of Abraham says they are descendants of Canaan, unless you have another explanation for “the blood of the Canaanites preserved in the land”. (Verse 22)

And where in the scriptures does it say Egyptus was a descendant of Cain?

Where does it say the Curse of Cain must be preserved (“blood of Canaanites preserved in the land/curse preserved in the land implies curse of Canaan)?

I get it doesn’t directly connect Egyptus, the daughter of Ham with Canaan, the son of Ham, but that pesky “blood of the Canaanites shouldn’t be ignored while the assumption that because Egyptus means “forbidden”, she was a descendant of Cain…there are tons of other reasons intermarriage was forbidden in the scriptures, assuming that is why she was named Egyptus.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where is “preserved the curse in the land” in that verse?

I see it in vs. 24….where does it say in that verse or chapter, the curse spoken of is the Curse of Cain?

I misspoke. Verse 24. 

It never says "This is the curse of Cain," which is what modern-day people who desperately want there to be no scriptural support cling to and repeat like a mantra, but it's quite obvious that this is what it's referring to.

Let me ask you: what "curse in the land" do you think was "preserved" by "that race" coming from "that woman" (verse 24) if it wasn't that? And what scriptural support do you have for your replacement explanation? Why was Pharaoh "cursed as pertaining to the priesthood" if he wasn't descended from Canaan? Where in the scriptures does it tie a priesthood ban to Canaan, anyway? Canaan's curse that you quoted was that he was to be a "servant of servants" --- that's all that the Bible says about Canaan's curse. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

And where in the scriptures does it say Egyptus was a descendant of Cain?

What other curse would she be perpetuating? Why else (if not that) would the "curse in the land" be "preserved" by "that race" coming from "that woman?" (verse 24). You can continue to say, "But it never says Cain!" and posit an unknown different curse that has nothing to do with Cain, but it's very clear that even Joseph Smith interpreted it this way. And uttered language in dictating the JST (Book of Moses) and Book of Abraham to that effect. Those who were taught by him continued these explanations. 

There is a studied attempt to pound away at that same key ("But it doesn't specifically say Cain!"), but it's obvious that this reaction is because we run up against the wall of the Pearl of Great Price and Joseph Smith, et. al.'s explanations of it down to the 2000s, when they are avoided out of PC/PR considerations. 

Link to comment

Cain’s descendant, Lamech, isn’t even described as carrying the Curse of Cain.  He gets his own curse.

Quote

52 Wherefore the Lord acursed Lamech, and his house, and all them that had covenanted with Satan; for they kept not the commandments of God, and it displeased God, and he ministered not unto them, and their works were abominations, and began to spread among all the bsons of men. And it was among the sons of men.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.25,26?lang=eng&clang=eng#p25,26

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rongo said:

What other curse would she be perpetuating? Why else (if not that) would the "curse in the land" be "preserved" by "that race" coming from "that woman?" (verse 24). You can continue to say, "But it never says Cain!" and posit an unknown different curse that has nothing to do with Cain, but it's very clear that even Joseph Smith interpreted it this way. And uttered language in dictating the JST (Book of Moses) and Book of Abraham to that effect. Those who were taught by him continued these explanations. 

There is a studied attempt to pound away at that same key ("But it doesn't specifically say Cain!"), but it's obvious that this reaction is because we run up against the wall of the Pearl of Great Price and Joseph Smith, et. al.'s explanations of it down to the 2000s, when they are avoided out of PC/PR considerations. 

Or, they're just plain wrong. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Link to comment

Abraham 1:27 further states that Pharaoh was "of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood." If we're going solely by strict wording --- and excluding Cain's curse perpetuated through Egyptus --- what it this talking about then?

It goes on to state that the Pharaohs claimed it (illegitimately) through Ham, and that was one thing that had thrown Abraham's father into idolatry (verse 27).

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, rongo said:

Why was Pharaoh "cursed as pertaining to the priesthood" if he wasn't descended from Canaan?

I am the one saying he was descended from Canaan…but the curse of Canaan is not the curse of Cain, but from Ham being a jerk to his dad…unless you want to ignore Genesis.

If the Priesthood was patriarchal, then Pharaoh claiming it through his mother’s line wouldn’t have been seen as valid.  That is a possibility and would explain why there is such a focus on the mother of Pharaoh rather than his father, who one would assume was somehow descended from Noah as well, so a grandson or great grandson if they were the one family left.
 

Never says who the daughter of Ham married.  Never says who Egyptus, the wife of Ham, was descended from…maybe she was not a believer at first and had to be converted.  


Scriptures leave a lot of stuff out.  We can choose to insert our assumptions or just state we don’t know.  

Lot of similar names too. …at least in English.  Also some names that appear out of the blue without connection to others.  Gets confusing, but shouldn’t try to harmonize if the harmony isn’t actually there.

Maybe Robert can tell us if there is any connection between the names Cain and Canaan in Hebrew.  According to baby names, Canaan means merchant and Cain means spear…not seeing any linkage there.

Canaan:  

https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/names/Canaan.htm

Quote

The Hebrew for this name is כנעןpronounced kena'an. It is derived from the root כנע (Kena) meaning "to be brought down by a heavy load". By extension this word can also mean subdue or humble.

Cain:

Quote

The names Cain and Abel are Latin/English transliterations of the Greek names as found in the Septuagint (2,000 year old Greek translation of the Hebrew). In Greek, Cain is Καιν (Kain) and Abel is Αβελ (Abel). These are in turn Greek transliterations of the Hebrew. In Hebrew Cain is קין (qayin) and Abel is חבל (havel). 
 

https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/names/Cain-and-Abel.htm

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Cain’s descendant, Lamech, isn’t even described as carrying the Curse of Cain.  He gets his own curse.

I think the authors of scripture involved (including Joseph Smith) didn't see it necessary to plant a flag at every point in the story ("Another one! Still subject to Cain's curse!"). As a descendant of Cain, it was a given that Lamech was also under that lineal curse. Lamech's further curse was due to his diabolical secret combinations activity. 

I don't think it says anywhere that people can't have further curses added upon them. That wouldn't negate existing ones. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am the one saying he was descended from Canaan…but the curse of Canaan is not the curse of Cain, but from Ham being a jerk to his dad…unless you want to ignore Genesis.

No ignoring of Genesis necessary. Ham's curse for his descendants ("servant of servants") was literally fulfilled by marrying into Cain's line. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and they actually dovetail. As Latter-day Saints, we believe that it was actually possible for Noah to prophesy the future (well, those of us who believe in a historical Noah, anyway). 

What curse do you think is being referred to in the Book of Abraham? When it says ""of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood" what lineage is that, then? Again, what "curse in the land" was "preserved" by "that race" coming from "that woman?" If all of this must needs fall by the wayside for modern sensibilities, what is it talking about, then? 

I take it as a given that you believe the Book of Abraham was given by revelation and was divinely inspired. What is it talking about, then, if the whole Cain/Ham curse is thrown out of court?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...