Help understanding this belief

[The Folk Prophet]

As to the union between the parents--as opponents to gay marriage, you and I both know that not every couple who chooses to have sex during mortality--and perhaps, even to raise a child together--will have their unions solemnized through an eternal sealing.  As to the children--again, there's precedent for such situations, via adoption.  What did Joseph Smith say was the point of sealings?  To establish a chain back to Adam. 

 

Well, you do bring up a good point, and a good question as to how on earth will sealings be handled in the millenium when we run into gay adoptions and the like...what a mess.

 

But I still maintain that it's decidedly different to have one parent be a non-human. I mean, we may as well compare the person who decided to marry their....we'll go with dog again just for fun...and then, somehow, science was able to mix their seed and make a dog-human baby.

 

As you rightly point out, of course, it would all be worked out in the millennium. So yeah...possible. I've been busy, but I'll try and think of more objections.

[The Folk Prophet]

Correct if wrong but... I would have thought Cain's descendants were all dead due to the flood.

 

Abraham 1:24 reads:

 

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.

[mordorbund]

Abraham 1:24 reads:

 

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.

 

That could be referencing the curse Noah placed upon Ham (or through Ham to Canaan).

Syme, traditions that use the "curse of Cain" (more properly a mark) as the source of black skin have the line preserved from the flood via Ham's wife. It is, of course, non-canonical.

[Just_A_Guy]

But I still maintain that it's decidedly different to have one parent be a non-human.

 

Can I just note that, taken out of context--this is, quite possibly, the most bizarre statement I've ever encountered here? 

[Guest]

Can I just note that, taken out of context--this is, quite possibly, the most bizarre statement I've ever encountered here? 

 

And that's saying a lot.

[The Folk Prophet]

That could be referencing the curse Noah placed upon Ham (or through Ham to Canaan).

 

How could it? It's referring to the curse passing through Egyptus, the wife of Ham.

[mordorbund]

How could it? It's referring to the curse passing through Egyptus, the wife of Ham.

 

Verse 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

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.

 

The phrase "from Ham" is referencing his child, not his wife.

[The Folk Prophet]

Verse 23:

 

 

The phrase "from Ham" is referencing his child, not his wife.

 

Hmm. I have never read it this way. I read it:

 

 

 

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

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.

 

Why else mention that Egypt signifies that which is forbidden and that the daughter is Egyptus's. Normally only the patriarchal lineage would be given? The specific mention of the mother has bearing, methinks.

 

Not that it proves anything one way or another, but The Guide to the Scriptures entry for Ham agrees with this view.

 

"Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain; the sons of their daughter Egyptus settled in Egypt:"

[pkstpaul]

Correct if wrong but... I would have thought Cain's descendants were all dead due to the flood.

I love it!

[mordorbund]

 

Hmm. I have never read it this way. I read it:

 

 

Why else mention that Egypt signifies that which is forbidden and that the daughter is Egyptus's. Normally only the patriarchal lineage would be given? The specific mention of the mother has bearing, methinks.

Foreshadowing perhaps (vs 25, 27)? 

 

"Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham"

"Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood" 

 

That lineage may be the Cain-line of legend, or a descendant of Ham (who was cursed in Noah's wrath), or because he's claiming a patriarchal authority through a matriarchal line).

 

We have explanations for these verses that don't require us to read into it a genealogy that isn't stated.

 

Not that it proves anything one way or another, but The Guide to the Scriptures entry for Ham agrees with this view.

 

"Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain; the sons of their daughter Egyptus settled in Egypt:"

 

While the guide provides scriptural sources for " the sons of their daughter Egyptus settled in Egypt", I don't see them supporting "Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain".

[Vort]

I believe that in ancient times, only Nubians were considered "black". Northern Africans in general, including Egyptians, were mostly of Middle Eastern extraction (i.e. "white", though of course the racial categorization is broad and unhelpful). The brown skin visible on the beautiful ancient Egyptian paintings looks to me far more Middle Eastern than black African. Sub-Sarahan Africans (other than Nubians, who aren't really "sub-Saharan") were not well-known, even in north Africa and certainly in Europe and Palestine. Up until surprisingly recent times, Africa was considered a "dark" continent, in the sense of "hidden" or "unknown" (though of course the pun was intentional).

 

Corrections welcome.

[Jane_Doe]

So, you also believe that God turned people black or dark-skinned and it was due to being the bad guys. What is the rumor part? My friend didn't say everyone who is black or NA is a bad person. He said the original ancestors had their skin turned due to their wickedness. I'm saying that teaching that black skin was a curse from God is a racist teaching.

 

What I refer to a rumor is when people say something like "Mormons hate blacks, you think they're all wretched sinners because of this scripture..." Such is a false statement because:

 

1)  "Black" refers to someone of African linage.  The people mentioned scripture were Native American, and had nothing to do with Africans.  So it is inaccurate to say the verse has anything to do with black people.

 

2)  The people referred to in the scripture were specific: that family, living 2600 years ago.   But once that particular bunch of people died, the "curse" has no reference to their decedents status with God-- Mormon scripture is very clear that blame for another's sins cannot be inherited.  So unless you want to time-travel to accent America, it is quite silly to say "dark skin is a sign of disfavor from God".

 

3)  Mormon scriptures are full of dark-skinned people being men of God (just not that one family 2600 years ago).

 

4)  Mormons have always welcomed people of all linages into our congregations.  Blacks hold many leadership positions.  Heck, in my last congregation my best friend was a black man! 

 

So no... I don't consider myself or Mormon beliefs to be racist at all.  

 

Easyaspie, how would you consider any of the above the be raciest?  

Edited February 2, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[The Folk Prophet]

I believe that in ancient times, only Nubians were considered "black". Northern Africans in general, including Egyptians, were mostly of Middle Eastern extraction (i.e. "white", though of course the racial categorization is broad and unhelpful). The brown skin visible on the beautiful ancient Egyptian paintings looks to me far more Middle Eastern than black African. Sub-Sarahan Africans (other than Nubians, who aren't really "sub-Saharan") were not well-known, even in north Africa and certainly in Europe and Palestine. Up until surprisingly recent times, Africa was considered a "dark" continent, in the sense of "hidden" or "unknown" (though of course the pun was intentional).

 

Corrections welcome.

 

Not a correction, but perhaps reading into your post somewhat: I think it's been said that the curse is not the skin color. That is true, very distinctly and clearly, even in the case of Cain.

 

Moses 5:36-37

 

And now thou shalt be cursed from the earth which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand.

 

When thou tillest the ground it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength. A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

 

and vs. 41

 

And Cain was shut out from the presence of the Lord, and with his wife and many of his brethren dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

 

So any interpretation that "black skin" followed through to Egypt via Egyptus (if one interprets Abraham 1:23-25 as I do) has no reference to skin color specifically, but to the curse as it was actually given (which, I might add, doesn't have any mention of holding the priesthood or not either). Obviously it would naturally follow that the mark upon Cain would be inherited by those of his lineage, but even then, Egyptus was married to Ham, and that in and of itself indicates the likelihood of lighter skin for their posterity, even if skin color is meant to enter the equation somehow.

[yjacket]

He said the original ancestors had their skin turned due to their wickedness. I'm saying that teaching that black skin was a curse from God is a racist teaching.

 

Why is this racist?  We are so PC in today's culture that we claim racism where it doesn't exist.  When Christ was on the earth, he only taught the Gospel to the Jews.  A Canaanite woman asked for Him for a miracle and He responded

 

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. 

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thyfaith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

 

Was Christ racist against Canaanites then?

The Jews were commanded not to marry anyone outside of the covenant people . . .was God racist then?

 

God has segregated groups of people from each other since Adam and Eve fell. The chief reason for this is that one group is taught by their parents to believe in God while the other is taught by their parents to not believe in Him. Rather than have the seed of the unbelieving group mix with the believing group's seed and destroy those who believe in Him; God has segregated them. Probably the easiest way to segregate 500 years ago was by geography and color. There is plenty of evidence of this in Old Testament times, New Testament and the Book Of Mormon.

 

Those who have the gospel are then sent at various times to preach and convert those who do not have it.  As they are converted they are clearly welcomed whole-heartedly into the fold of God. Certainly 500 years ago there was a huge difference in the religious views of the blacks of Africa vs. Europeans.  Its why the Europeans conducted tons and tons of missionary work to Africa to bring the knowledge of Christ to that continent. Because of that Christianity is one of the most widely practiced religions among blacks.  

 

The segregation has nothing to do with one being superior or inferior than the other (which is what racism is . . .i.e. that one race is inherently more superior). The segregation had to do with those that have the gospel and are willing to follow it vs. those who are not willing to follow it.

 

Certainly God is no respecter of persons and God will not favor one individual over another individual regardless of race as long as they follow his commandments according to the knowledge they possess. 

 

Saying that one race came from a curse caused by disobedience and therefore that race's worth is diminished would be like saying Christ's worth is diminished because he came from the linage of King David who committed the most grievous sin by committing adultery and then sending Bethsheba's husband on a death mission.

 

What do I believe . . .I don't know and personally I don't think it really matters one way or another. The Church has disavowed (i.e. claimed they don't know and don't support any theories) any of them.  At this point in time, God has opened all the blessing of the gospel to everyone on the earth. Anything after that is simply history or a way of explaining history.

Edited February 2, 2015 by yjacket

[Vort]

Why is this racist?

 

BECAUSE RACISM! End of discussion.

 

Don't you know that when someone plays the racist card, it trumps everything else and you have to concede defeat? Sheesh, yjacket. Learn the rules.

[SpiritDragon]

Just to throw a "monkey" (haha) into the discussion of pre-Adamites and the idea of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men - doesn't the idea of Adam being the first man insinuate that all sons and or daughters of man are descendants of Adam and therefore not from pre-Adamites?

[bytebear]

Sons of God = covenant people,  Sons of man = everyone else. 

 

God makes covenants with people, and, at least in some cases, has followed lineage (Abraham through the tribes of Isael). So that's my interpretation.

 

And as for Lamenites, I believe Lamen and Lemuel also married outside their covenant with the natives of America (who may have been darker skinned), causing their covenant to be broken, and their children's skin color being a sign of that broken covenant.  But, as was said, skin color doesn't mean rightiousness, or even exclusion from covnent blessings. 

 

It's important to note that the early church specifically invited Lamanites (Native Americans and Pacific Islanders) into the chuch because they were of the lineage of Lehi, even though they had darker skin.

[Finrock]

I know Elder McConkie was very opposed to the notion of pre-Adamites; but frankly it's the only way I can square existing anthropological evidence of pre-5000 BCE human activity with the notion of a historical Adam. And it wouldadd a different perspective on the scriptural references to God's displeasure at the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of men". I incline towards the idea that Adam was created directly by God outside of evolutionary processes, that he was spiritually and intellectually different than all who preceded him, and that eventually his seed thoroughly mixed with the pre-Adamites such that all humans alive today can at least trace Adam as an ancestor.

 

Another way to understand this passage is that sons symbolize spirits and daugthers symbolize bodies, women being the gatekeepers of mortality.

 

-Finrock

[Vort]

Another way to understand this passage is that sons symbolize spirits and daugthers symbolize bodies

 

[Irishcolleen]

Well...technically, skin color aside, descendants of Cain would have to do with a person's race.  But we have no idea who are and are not descendants of Cain.

 

What I think is also interesting to think about is that to claim the Book of Mormon is racist somehow skips over the fact that the Lamanites and the Nephites are the exact same race.

 

Well...technically, skin color aside, descendants of Cain would have to do with a person's race.  But we have no idea who are and are not descendants of Cain.

 

What I think is also interesting to think about is that to claim the Book of Mormon is racist somehow skips over the fact that the Lamanites and the Nephites are the exact same race.

There would be no living descendents of Cain.  Cain was pre-flood and only Noah's family was saved.  They were not descendents of Cain.

[The Folk Prophet]

There would be no living descendents of Cain.  Cain was pre-flood and only Noah's family was saved.  They were not descendents of Cain.

 

Did you even read the rest of the thread?

[The Folk Prophet]

Sons of God = covenant people,  Sons of man = everyone else. 

 

Hugh Nibley agrees (via Joseph Smith).

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/12/a-strange-thing-in-the-land-the-return-of-the-book-of-enoch-part-8?lang=eng

 

It is the Joseph Smith Enoch which gives the most convincing solution: the beings who fell were not angels but men who had become sons of God. From the beginning, it tells us, mortal men could qualify as “sons of God,” beginning with Adam. “Behold, thou [Adam] art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons.” (Moses 6:68; italics added.) How? By believing and entering the covenant. “Our father Adam taught these things, and many have believed, and become the sons of God.” (Moses 7:1.) Thus when “Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed … they were called the sons of God.” (Moses 8:13.) In short, the sons of God are those who accept and live by the law of God. When “the sons of men” (as Enoch calls them) broke their covenant, they still insisted on that exalted title: “Behold, we are the sons of God; have we not taken unto ourselves the daughters of men?” (Moses 8:21), even as “the sons of men,” reversing the order, married the daughters of those “called the sons of God,” thereby forfeiting their title, “for,” said God to Noah, “they will not hearken to my voice.” (Moses 8:15.) The situation was, then, that the sons of God, or their daughters who had been initiated into a spiritual order, departed from it and broke their vows, mingling with those who observed only a carnal law.