bible question: curse of Cain and Canaan(forget how to spell his name)

[MissSpider]

so i have 2 questions. i just recently start reading old testament. all this in Genesis.

1) the curse mark of Cain mean black skin right? some anti-christian told me that black slavery happend because white people believe that african people are decendence of Cain, they are curse. so here is my question. i read that God send flood on earth and every people die accept Noah and his family. so it mean that all of Cain's decendence were all death,right? is that mean the curse of Cain is stop also?

the missionaries told me that Cain still alive on earth...but they not quite sure.

2) the curse that Noah put on Canaan because Ham ( Canaan's father) saw Noah naked. i don't understand why Noah put that curse on Canaan to be servant of his brothers. Noah should put the curse on Ham!! i really don't get it ...

(i think tjis story is in Genesis9,,but i not sure..it just after Noah and his family get out of the boat)

[mikbone]

Abraham 1:21-24

[Just_A_Guy]

The LDS Institute Manual section for Genesis 4-11 (online here) gives the mainstream LDS answer to both of your questions. Ham married a descendant of Cain, preserving the lineage. Noah's cursing apparently has to do with Ham appropriating to himself priesthood privileges and covenants that, by virtue of Ham's marriage in conjunction with the qualifications for ordination to the priesthood that existed during that period, he had already forfeited for his posterity.

The "curse of Cain/curse of Ham" business was, unfortunately, used to justify slavery in North America; and the fact that it was current among protestant theologians in the US during the infancy of the LDS Church has led some Mormons to conclude that the whole thing (including the Church's subsequent ban on blacks holding the priesthood) was man-made, not divinely inspired. I don't agree with this view; but in light of President Kimball's revelation in 1978 there's certainly no justifiable reason for arguing that whatever "curse" Cain or Ham may have brought upon themselves and their posterity continues in force today.

The first president of the Quorum of the Twelve was a man named David Patten; and he claimed to have interacted with someone who called himself "Cain" and whose physical description more or less matched that of Bigfoot (tall and hairy)--sparking a Mormon urban legend.

[Guest Doctrine]

The first president of the Quorum of the Twelve was a man named David Patten; and he claimed to have interacted with someone who called himself "Cain" and whose physical description more or less matched that of Bigfoot (tall and hairy)--sparking a Mormon urban legend.

Ok I like what you said but I would like to make a comment on this one.

How could Cain live so long there was a flood and the story of Noah said there where souls saved, not eight souls and one hairy guy hanging on to the side of the boat. Lol.

Also in the book of jasher, it said that Cain was killed by lamech. I know it's not scripture but many things in the book of jasher we find in the insutute books and joseph smith teachings.

Also Thomas b marsh was the first president of the 12. Just to let you know not trying to be mean or any thing. I also make mistakes.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Doctrine

[Vort]

Also in the book of jasher, it said that Cain was killed by lamech. I know it's not scripture but many things in the book of jasher we find in the insutute books and joseph smith teachings.

The book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price says that Irad, not Cain, was Lamech's murder victim.

[Vort]

so i have 2 questions. i just recently start reading old testament. all this in Genesis.

1) the curse mark of Cain mean black skin right? some anti-christian told me that black slavery happend because white people believe that african people are decendence of Cain, they are curse. so here is my question. i read that God send flood on earth and every people die accept Noah and his family. so it mean that all of Cain's decendence were all death,right? is that mean the curse of Cain is stop also?

the missionaries told me that Cain still alive on earth...but they not quite sure.

This was the commonly accepted interpretation from the Church's founding in 1830 until at least 1978. Since then, many people have questioned this interpretation. I don't believe there is an authoritative statement, so you can pretty much believe as you think makes sense.

2) the curse that Noah put on Canaan because Ham ( Canaan's father) saw Noah naked. i don't understand why Noah put that curse on Canaan to be servant of his brothers. Noah should put the curse on Ham!! i really don't get it ...

(i think tjis story is in Genesis9,,but i not sure..it just after Noah and his family get out of the boat)

That whole story of Noah being drunk and his sons walking in on him is obviously a figurative story. I do not believe it really happened; rather, it represents something else. But what that other thing is that it represents, I do not know. It seems to be a sort of high-level description of why Ham's descendents were cursed. (Ham, as a son of Noah, was not cursed, but his lineage was, which is why the innocent Canaan was named as the one receiving the curse.)

[Guest Doctrine]

That whole story of Noah being drunk and his sons walking in on him is obviously a figurative story. I do not believe it really happened; rather, it represents something else. But what that other thing is that it represents, I do not know. It seems to be a sort of high-level description of why Ham's descendents were cursed. (Ham, as a son of Noah, was not cursed, but his lineage was, which is why the innocent Canaan was named as the one receiving the curse.)

(4-20) Genesis 9:20–27. Why Did Noah Curse Canaan in This Event When He Was Not Even Present?

The account of Noah’s “nakedness” and the role his sons played in the event is a puzzling one, especially the part in which Noah awakens and pronounces a curse upon Canaan, the son of Ham (see Genesis 10:6), who does not even seem to be present at the time.

Most members of the Church are aware that a priesthood garment, symbolic of the covenants made in the temple, is worn by those who have participated in the endowment ceremony in the temple. This garment is a representation of the coat of skins made by the Lord for Adam and Eve after the Fall (see Genesis 3:21; Moses 4:27). The idea of a garment made of skins that signified that one had power in the priesthood is found in several ancient writings. Hugh Nibley discussed some of these ancient writings and their implications for the passage in Genesis:

“Nimrod claimed his kingship on the ground of victory over his enemies [see Genesis 10:8–10; Reading 4-21]; his priesthood, however, he claimed by virtue of possessing ‘the garment of Adam.’ The Talmud assures us that it was by virtue of owning this garment that Nimrod was able to claim power to rule over the whole earth, and that he sat in his tower while men came and worshiped him. The Apocryphal writers, Jewish and Christian, have a good deal to say about this garment. To quote one of them: ‘the garments of skin which God made for Adam and his wife when they went out of the garden and were given after the death of Adam … to Enoch’; hence they passed to Methuselah, and then to Noah, from whom Ham stole them as the people were leaving the ark. Ham’s grandson Nimrod obtained them from his father Cush. As for the legitimate inheritance of this clothing, a very old fragment recently discovered says that Michael ‘disrobed Enoch of his earthly garments, and put on him his angelic clothing,’ taking him into the presence of God. …

“Incidentally the story of the stolen garment as told by the rabbis, including the great Eleazer, calls for an entirely different rendering of the strange story in Genesis [9] from the version in our King James Bible. They seemed to think that the ’erwath of Genesis [9:22] did not mean ‘nakedness’ at all, but should be given its primary root meaning of ‘skin covering.’ Read thus, we are to understand that Ham took the garment of his father while he was sleeping and showed it to his brethren, Shem and Japheth, who took a pattern or copy of it (salmah) or else a woven garment like it (simlah) which they put upon their own shoulders, returning the skin garment to their father. Upon awaking, Noah recognized the priesthood of two sons but cursed the son who tried to rob him of his garment.” (Lehi in the Desert and the World of Jaredites, pp. 160–62.)

Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood. (Old Testament Student Manual Genesis-2 Samuel, Genesis 4–11: The Patriarchs)

This version is also found in the book of jasher.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Doctrine

[MarginOfError]

(4-20) Genesis 9:20–27. Why Did Noah Curse Canaan in This Event When He Was Not Even Present?

The account of Noah’s “nakedness” and the role his sons played in the event is a puzzling one, especially the part in which Noah awakens and pronounces a curse upon Canaan, the son of Ham (see Genesis 10:6), who does not even seem to be present at the time.

Most members of the Church are aware that a priesthood garment, symbolic of the covenants made in the temple, is worn by those who have participated in the endowment ceremony in the temple. This garment is a representation of the coat of skins made by the Lord for Adam and Eve after the Fall (see Genesis 3:21; Moses 4:27). The idea of a garment made of skins that signified that one had power in the priesthood is found in several ancient writings. Hugh Nibley discussed some of these ancient writings and their implications for the passage in Genesis:

“Nimrod claimed his kingship on the ground of victory over his enemies [see Genesis 10:8–10; Reading 4-21]; his priesthood, however, he claimed by virtue of possessing ‘the garment of Adam.’ The Talmud assures us that it was by virtue of owning this garment that Nimrod was able to claim power to rule over the whole earth, and that he sat in his tower while men came and worshiped him. The Apocryphal writers, Jewish and Christian, have a good deal to say about this garment. To quote one of them: ‘the garments of skin which God made for Adam and his wife when they went out of the garden and were given after the death of Adam … to Enoch’; hence they passed to Methuselah, and then to Noah, from whom Ham stole them as the people were leaving the ark. Ham’s grandson Nimrod obtained them from his father Cush. As for the legitimate inheritance of this clothing, a very old fragment recently discovered says that Michael ‘disrobed Enoch of his earthly garments, and put on him his angelic clothing,’ taking him into the presence of God. …

“Incidentally the story of the stolen garment as told by the rabbis, including the great Eleazer, calls for an entirely different rendering of the strange story in Genesis [9] from the version in our King James Bible. They seemed to think that the ’erwath of Genesis [9:22] did not mean ‘nakedness’ at all, but should be given its primary root meaning of ‘skin covering.’ Read thus, we are to understand that Ham took the garment of his father while he was sleeping and showed it to his brethren, Shem and Japheth, who took a pattern or copy of it (salmah) or else a woven garment like it (simlah) which they put upon their own shoulders, returning the skin garment to their father. Upon awaking, Noah recognized the priesthood of two sons but cursed the son who tried to rob him of his garment.” (Lehi in the Desert and the World of Jaredites, pp. 160–62.)

Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood. (Old Testament Student Manual Genesis-2 Samuel, Genesis 4–11: The Patriarchs)

This version is also found in the book of jasher.

To put a less verbose interpretation on all of this, some believe that Ham stole the garment while Noah was sleeping and his other sons did their best to restore both Noah's garment and dignity.

[MarginOfError]

Personally, I don't believe that black skin was the curse given to Cain. I believe the curse he was given was that he was cast out from among Adam's family, which would have constituted the closest thing to a church at the time.

If black skin had anything to do with the murder of Abel (and I'm not sure that it did), it was done in order to protect Cain. A mark was placed on Cain to warn those who would seek vengeance and retribution that doing so would result in the Lord punishing the avenger even more harshly (Moses 4:15). What I take out of the story is that we shouldn't seek to avenge wrongs done to us, but seek to forgive and offer help in repenting (easier said than done)

[rameumptom]

Last year, a BYU professor of religion was interviewed by a media outlet and asked about the "curse of Cain." He talked about it, based upon his belief on the traditional view. The Church quickly came out and said that we do not believe in a curse of Cain on the black people. We simply do not know why the blacks were banned from the priesthood.

The problem with reading things into this is comes from Protestant racism of the 19th century. Mormons picked it up, often worried about the concept of inter-racial marriage (and inter-racial marriage for eternity in the temple).

But anyone finding black skin as the curse of Cain or Canaan in the Bible, Book of Moses or Book of Abraham is really reading the curse into the story. I suggest you look at the data in Black LDS Mormons , a site run by FAIR.

And I agree with MOE. The Book of Mormon discusses the Promised Land, and those cast out of the Lord's presence. Cain was cast out of God's presence, which was also caused by a physical removal to another place.

The problem with the curse of Canaan, even with the story of Ham stealing the garment of Noah/Adam, is that only one of Ham's sons is cursed. And in the tradition, Ham gives the garment to a different son, rather than Canaan!

[CrimsonKairos]

The "skin of darkness" of those living in Africa may have something to do with this vision of Enoch:

5 And it came to pass that I beheld in the valley of Shum, and lo, a great people which dwelt in tents, which were the people of Shum.

6 And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of 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 curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people. (Moses 7:5-8)

In the case of the Canaanites being cursed for murdering an entire people, the black skin isn't THE curse, it is a SIGN of the curse. Same with Cain. His "mark" was to warn people that just because he was cursed, it was not alright to kill Cain (Moses 5:39-41).

Incidentally, if we're talking about righteousness and skin color being associated: in the history of the world I think it would be fair to say that more black and brown (Native American, Indian) children under the age of 8 have died than any other skin color. Heck, even just take today's stats on infant and children-under-8 mortality rates in Africa and India. Children under 8 who die go straight to the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 137:10). We typically interpret that to mean that those spirits were so righteous, they just needed to come get a physical body but it wasn't necessary for them to be "tested" in mortality since their purity and obedience was already known to God.

(And after all, I believe God is the One who chooses when and where we're born...)

So basically all of the above means that the most righteous spirit children of Heavenly Father have been black and brown, historically and statistically and doctrinally speaking. Dang the curse of my pasty white skin! (he said somewhat jokingly, somewhat not, and somewhat something else) :)

[rameumptom]

Crimson,

Except archaeologically, the Canaanites were not black. They were a Semitic race. So the "blackness" that fell upon them was not a skin color curse, but a metaphor for being out of God's presence. For this reason, Abraham sent his servant elsewhere to obtain a wife for Isaac - not that they were black skinned, but because they were not among those accepted of God.

So, in reading the Book of Abraham or Book of Moses, we cannot read things INTO the book that are not true. The Canaanites were not a black skinned people, and so they were not cursed with black skin.

[bytor2112]

Crimson,

Except archaeologically, the Canaanites were not black. They were a Semitic race. So the "blackness" that fell upon them was not a skin color curse, but a metaphor for being out of God's presence. For this reason, Abraham sent his servant elsewhere to obtain a wife for Isaac - not that they were black skinned, but because they were not among those accepted of God.

So, in reading the Book of Abraham or Book of Moses, we cannot read things INTO the book that are not true. The Canaanites were not a black skinned people, and so they were not cursed with black skin.

Is this your belief or interpretation or do you have sources to cite that support this assertion? Seems that different metaphors could have easily been applied.....

[CrimsonKairos]

Crimson,

Except archaeologically, the Canaanites were not black. They were a Semitic race.

Now I'm confused. Semitic means descended from Shem, Noah's son. Yet we know Canaan was Ham's son, not Shem's son.

So how are Canaanites considered Semitic? And what does archeology have to do with whether someone was born from Shem or Ham?

Plus, I never said the black skin was a curse. I clearly quoted the scripture which says the land being blasted by unending heat was God's curse on the land...the black skin that developed was a side-effect and sign OF the curse. Didn't I say black skin wasn't THE curse, but a sign OF the curse? Pretty sure I did. :)

[rameumptom]

The Canaanite language is one of many Semitic languages. The Canaanites dwelt in the area of the Levant/Palestine, and were related to the Hebrews, Moabites, Phoenicians and others.

Skin color in the area is NOT black, regardless of whether there was/is heat or not. So that theory of black skin just does not work.

Bytor, we can try and understand what is meant, and attempt at educated guesses. However, the archaeology does show that black skin is not a part of the meaning.

[CrimsonKairos]

The Canaanite language is one of many Semitic languages.

Okay, see now you're talking about how the world classifies languages. I'm pretty sure Enoch didn't have phylogenetics in mind when he was recording his vision of the Canaanites slaughtering everyone else in the valley of Shum. I can just see him now..."Hmmm, now wait, before I write this I must keep in mind that it will be restored through Joseph Smith in the latter-days at which point linguists, archeologists and online forum members will have decided that Canaanites never lived in Africa. Shoot, what on earth can I call them then?"

:)

The Canaanites dwelt in the area of the Levant/Palestine, and were related to the Hebrews, Moabites, Phoenicians and others.

Sorry but that makes me laugh. Archeologists are still discovering (like in 2005) bullae in ruins near/within Jerusalem from the 6th century B.C. (think the prophet Jeremiah and Babylon sacking Jerusalem one last time in 587 BC). So we're still finding out what was happening 2500 years ago, but you're 100% sure no descendants of Canaan ever split off and moved to anywhere in Africa (whether Africa is home to the "valley of Shum" in Enoch's vision is irrelevant) around 4000 years ago? Wow, all the archeological evidence has been found, analyzed, catalogued and interpreted?

Sorry for the sarcasm, it's meant to be more playful than anything else. I just laugh to think you are so certain none of Canaan's children or grandchildren ever set up shop in Africa. Like, they have only ever lived in Palestine, because that's what linguistics suggests. :)

Skin color in the area is NOT black, regardless of whether there was/is heat or not. So that theory of black skin just does not work.

Sure it does, just not if you assume (like you are) that none of Canaan's descendants ever moved to / intermarried with anyone in Africa...

Bytor, we can try and understand what is meant, and attempt at educated guesses. However, the archaeology does show that black skin is not a part of the meaning.

Haha, sorry, but archeology is changing its mind and evidence every year as new discoveries are made. You're assuming that Canaan and his descendants only ever lived in Palestine. Which is really crazy, because what you're saying is that:

1-Canaan, who was Hamitic, not Shemitic, prevented his descendants from ever living anywhere outside of Palestine; and...

2-Even though Canaan was Hamitic, as long as a portion of his descendants (Canaanites) spoke only a Shemitic language then that makes that portion of Canaanites Shemitic

If that's the case, what's the point of genealogy? Seems all we need to know is what language group we're speaking to determine who we are, regardless of who are actual ancestors were. :)

[rameumptom]

The problem with what you are saying Crimson, is you are making assumptions from no evidence. I could say that space aliens populated Africa anciently, and built the pyramids. How can you disprove it?

It is possible that Canaanites dwelt in Africa. In fact, many did. Egyptians enslaved many of them and used them in Egypt to build cities, work in mines, etc. The fact that this is the case, however, does not strengthen your argument. None of them were black! In fact, black Egyptians came from Nubia, in what was known as Upper Egypt (in the south, upper part of the Nile).

Again, when you speak of Ham, you are assuming that Ham (or his wife) were black. Where is the evidence? Even the scriptures are silent on that issue, and one must forcibly read it into the scriptures to imagine it is there.

Yes, they learn new things in archaeology all of the time. However, some things are literally set in stone. Archaeology in the Levant and Egypt has been going on for such a long and extensive time, that major discoveries as you are suggesting just will not happen. They know all of the kings of Egypt. They have found records of the Abiru (Hebrews) and Canaanites in Egypt and the Levant. The heiroglyphics and stone etchings show Canaanites as Arabic in appearance, with a language that is very similar to Hebrew. In fact, Israelis and Canaanites could easily communicate with one another in their own languages, much like I can understand Portuguese, because I am fluent in Spanish.

It is important that we understand the scriptures the way they were meant to be understood. We need to be careful in imposing our views upon the scriptures, and instead seek to understand the original teaching. Science can help us in this. The story of Noah may be one of a global flood, or perhaps a major regional flood, leaving a traditional belief that Ham's descendants populated Africa. Keep an open mind, as God has much to reveal to us in the future from both religion and science.

[CrimsonKairos]

The problem with what you are saying Crimson, is you are making assumptions from no evidence.

Or maybe I am. Exit From Eden | DiscoverMagazine.com

It is possible that Canaanites dwelt in Africa. In fact, many did. [...] None of them were black!

See that's where I disagree. There is no evidence there weren't any black Canaanites. Like, there's no ancient electrified fence with a sign saying, "Keep Out of Africa: Blacks Only, No Canaanites Allowed!"

Is there evidence there WERE black Canaanites? Yup. The above "Discover" article is clear archeological evidence (since you like archeological evidence so much, haha) that ancient Nubia / modern Sudan and elsewhere in Africa used to be covered with greenery, rivers, lakes, all sorts of animal life. Then, it all went away and the Sahara desert is what's left. So...

Fact #1: Ancient Nubia and elsewhere used to be lush and green, but then became the Sahara desert

Fact #2: You claim blacks came mostly from Nubia and it's surroundings; okay, let's assume that's correct

Fact #3: In Enoch's vision, the valley of Shum became cursed with unending heat / made barren AFTER the Canaanites slaughtered all the inhabitants in the valley of Shum. Which means...

Fact #4: Before the Canaanites' invaded the valley of Shum, it was a pretty nice place to life: food, water, plants, the works (probably why Canaanites invaded in the first place)

So if you take Facts #1 - #4 above, and add them up using any semblance of ordinary logic, I think the average person could indeed say there is sound evidence that while the Canaanites might not have been black to begin with (and the original portion that stayed in Palestine might never have been black), the Canaanites who slaughtered those in the valley of Shum were subsequently exposed to a curse of immense heat and an unfruitful, barren land (Moses 7:7-8) that caused their skin to become black.

Now we know explicitly Cain's descendants were black (Moses 7:22). Did any of them survive the flood? Or more specifically, did Cain's descendants end up leading to Ham's wife Egyptus, giving her darker skin? Who knows. All I'm saying is that (and I think this is pretty open-minded) it is possible that some number of the Canaanites became the black inhabitants of Nubia/Sudan after God cursed the valley of Shum (based on archeological evidence of the pre-Sahara desert garden paradise).

Again, when you speak of Ham, you are assuming that Ham (or his wife) were black.

Seriously? I've been saying the opposite: the Canaanites' skin BECAME black after the valley of Shum was cursed with barrenness, heat and so forth. So Ham and his wife could well have been "white" or olive skinned like modern Palestinians / Jews. The point is the Canaanites became black-skinned after the land was cursed, which clearly suggests their skin wasn't black before the curse, so I've been saying the whole time that Ham and Egyptus were not black.

Edited April 22, 2013 by CrimsonKairos

[skippy740]

Now I'm confused. Semitic means descended from Shem, Noah's son. Yet we know Canaan was Ham's son, not Shem's son.

So how are Canaanites considered Semitic? And what does archeology have to do with whether someone was born from Shem or Ham?

Plus, I never said the black skin was a curse. I clearly quoted the scripture which says the land being blasted by unending heat was God's curse on the land...the black skin that developed was a side-effect and sign OF the curse. Didn't I say black skin wasn't THE curse, but a sign OF the curse? Pretty sure I did. :)

Black skin (which is a misnomer in and of itself) was never a sign OF the curse.

I encourage you to look up the definition of this word: idiom.

Then use your new-found knowledge to apply it to the chapter headings, footnotes and your understanding of these scriptures. The brethren updated these a couple of years ago, and now they're going to print for the new 2013 edition.

Also, for your edification and learning, please reference this thread and watch the youtube videos. You will find them enlightening (No pun intended).

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45876-scriptures-church-history-racism-blacks-scriptures.html

[CrimsonKairos]

Black skin (which is a misnomer in and of itself) was never a sign OF the curse.

Sure was. But see, I'm not talking about the curse pertaining to the priesthood that you assume I'm talking about.

I have been speaking of Enoch's vision of the specific episode involving the Canaanites in the valley of Shum. Their skin became black after God cursed the land with barrenness and heat as a consequence of the Canaanites murdering all the other inhabitants of the valley of Shum.

Basically, God saying: "You may be the only inhabitants of the land now, but I'm going to make it unbearably hot and unfruitful for you. Just so you get the point that murdering your neighbors to benefit yourself is never a good thing." :)

So yes, at that point in time the Canaanites having black skin in the valley of Shum was a SIGN/INDICATION that they were among the group who had murdered everyone else and brought the curse of heat on the land. This episode has nothing to do with priesthood, being able to bear it, etc. Of course, murderers probably don't qualify for the priesthood, but this whole valley of Shum episode is separate from and distinct from the Hamitic priesthood curse that you probably assumed I was talking about.

Moses 7:4-9 doesn't say anything about God taking away the priesthood from the Canaanites in the valley of Shum as a curse on their murderous acts. It just says God turned the thermostat way up in Shum, and it's possible the valley of Shum refers to an ancient region that corresponds to where the modern Sahara desert exists, which is allegedly where most "blacks" originated.

I have said nothing about a curse banning a person or his descendants from qualifying to bear the priesthood. I've been talking solely about Moses 7:4-9. :)

[skippy740]

I didn't say anything about the priesthood. I'm talking about the scriptures and understanding them.

Moses 7:8

8 For behold, the Lord shall acurse the land with much heat, and the bbarrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a cblackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Footnote on curse: TG Earth, Curse of

Footnote on barrenness: TG Barren

Footnote on blackness: 2 Nephi 26:33

2 Nephi 26:33

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Why did the brethren add this footnote to the word 'blackness'?

Compare 2 Nephi 26:33 with Alma 11:44

Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be arestored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the bFather, and the Holy Spirit, which is cone Eternal God, to be djudged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Compare also to Alma 1:30

30 And thus, in their aprosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were bnaked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon criches; therefore they were dliberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no erespect to persons as to those who stood in need.

Notice the similar cadence of words, but subtle changes within them.

What I'm saying is that the word "blackness" doesn't mean a skin color change.

Nahum 2:10

10 She is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather ablackness.

Footnote on blackness: Hebrew idiom meaning “gloom.” Jer. 8:21; Joel 2:6.

Jeremiah 14:2

2 Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are ablack unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.

Footnote on black: OR dejected.

Now, to be clear: I didn't put the footnotes in there. There are a lot of smarter people than me, and the BRETHREN authorized them.

But once you discover the patterns in the scriptures, you will learn that there is more symbolism in scriptures written anciently than you think. This is why I asked you to look up the definition of the word 'idiom'.

Just because a word means one thing today, doesn't mean it meant the same thing back when it was originally written.

[CrimsonKairos]

What I'm saying is that the word "blackness" doesn't mean a skin color change.

Nahum 2:10

Footnote on blackness: Hebrew idiom meaning “gloom.”

Something else about idioms: they usually involve a "phrase" or more than one word. So simply calling something "black" isn't always an idiom. Specifically, here in Nahum 2:10 is says "the faces of them all gather blackness."

A face gathering blackness is a great idiom for "becoming sad, depressed, frightened."

But saying a face gathers blackness (referring to a facial expression and by extension, an emotional state) is nowhere near the same thing as saying a skin of blackness came upon the Canaanites. In Nahum, they were talking about the skin of the face. In Moses 7:4-9, Enoch is apparently talking about all of their skin...I say apparently because Enoch includes no modifier to let us know if there is a specific area of the skin surface he saw turn black.

Jeremiah 14:2

Footnote on black: OR dejected.

Here it's talking about gates being "black unto the ground," clearly an idiom or description of burned, destroyed gates such as Nebuchadnezzar might leave in his wake. Gates and skin are not exactly the same thing. As important as idioms are, context is equally important.

So basically your last post clears everything up. Enoch saw God curse the valley of Shum with heat after the Canaanites murdered everyone else living there, and Enoch then saw a skin of "gloom" and a skin of "dejection" come upon the Canaanites.

Of course, we're using Hebrew words as a reference point in Nahum and Jeremiah, but the Book of Moses was translated (read: received by revelation) by Joseph Smith with no actual physical text to reference. So it seems a bit of a stretch to say, "Because Biblical writers around 600 B.C. used the word "black" as part of various idioms, then Enoch--who would have written much earlier than 600 BC--must have had those same idioms in mind when he used the word "black" regardless of the context!"

This is why I asked you to look up the definition of the word 'idiom'.

Ah, but idioms derive from cultures which exist within contexts. Idioms wrenched free of their historical and cultural context are useless. Jeremiah was talking about the ruins of city gates destroyed by invaders. Nahum was talking about the facial expressions (and inner emotions the face reveals) of afflicted people. Enoch? He was talking about the skin of an entire people, and the skin of the people somehow turned black right after the land was cursed with heat. Hmmm.

See, if an idiom existed in the scriptures where "skin of blackness" meant "sad people" then that'd at least be a start. But to draw a conclusion after mixing and matching the contexts of war ruins, human emotion, and human skin...seems to me a bit off the mark..

Thanks for the post though, it was well thought out and supported by scriptural examples. That makes your post more plausible than like 80% of posts which make claims without scriptures or sources to back them up. :)

[Vort]

In Solomon's Song, the voice of Solomon says, "I am black but comely." Sounds like maybe any darkening of the skin might have been referred to as "black".

[skippy740]

Was Job black?

Job 30:30

30 My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.

If so, it wasn't a bad thing in the eyes of the Lord:

Job 1:1

1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

[rameumptom]

Crimson,

I read the Discover article you posted. I'm confused as to how this applies to the discussion. Yes, northern Africa used to be green about 6-9000 years ago. Yes, it is now a desert.

However, for LDS, who believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, Adam and Caan would not have been in Africa. Even the standard Eden in Mesopotamia is simply not in Africa. Noah's ark settled on Ararat, on the border of Turkey and Russia, so the "curse of Canaan" was never an issue of being in Africa. In fact, the article, while mentioning some ancient water ways with extinct settlements, never mentions Canaanites, blacks, Africans, etc. Archaeology of 6000 years ago and earlier shows groups primarily moving OUT of Africa, not into it.

So, you again are making claims that have no evidence.

And the "skin of blackness" that the Book of Moses mentions for the Canaanites, is not necessarily a black skin. There are many LDS scholars who have written on this, including at FairLDS.org.