Evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith

[Just_A_Guy]

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

1. Zebedee Coltrin’s testimony is much more important than Abraham O. Smoot’s. He is also a very reliable witness, who was intimately acquainted with Joseph Smith, had seen multiple visions including of God the Father and Jesus Christ together with Joseph Smith, and didn’t own slaves. 

2. Do you have a source for Jane Manning James claiming that Joseph Smith wanted her sealed to him as his wife? My understanding is that he and Emma had considered adopting her as a daughter, not as a plural wife. Joseph Smith is also on record opposing interracial marriage between blacks and whites. 

1.  I agree Coltrin was a good man; though IIRC his testimony (quite understandably) evolved somewhat as the decades passed.

2.  You’re right, I was misremembering.  I believe it was Meg Stout who hypothesized that this was actually an offer of plural marriage, since Joseph is not known to have undergone an adoption ordinance with anyone in his lifetime and James was remembering the story fifty years later.  But this is speculative.  (And even if true, there was quite a bit of drama going on between Joseph and Emma and this offer may have been Emma advancing a sort of campaign of anti-polygamy-brinksmanship rather than a sincere desire that Jane become a plural wife. {“Joseph said I could pick his next wife, but he surely won’t accept this one, and if he doesn’t, then I can tell him that since he wouldn’t accept the wife I found for him then he has no reason to seek any other woman.”})

At any rate, with adoption being a temple ordinance (and precursor to parent-child sealing)—if it *was* truly a proposed adoptive sealing and if Joseph Smith knew Emma was offering it, then it would seem that he was not planning for an *absolute* ban on black people receiving temple ordinances.

Edited December 8, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[mikbone]

@Maverick I’m a bit confused about your intention.

Are you trying to prove that the most recent statement found below is incorrect?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[Maverick]

23 minutes ago, mikbone said:

@Maverick I’m a bit confused about your intention.

Are you trying to prove that the most recent statement found below is incorrect?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

No, I’m not trying to prove the entire essay incorrect. But I do believe that the essay is misleading in some areas and gives people the wrong impression by not including all of the relevant information. 

[mikbone]

We could debate all day and write books, amendments and explanations about the intentions of the author of these words. Or we could believe that the author was inspired to write these words and that this document was intended to last the test of time.

I will choose the latter.

 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Maverick said:

Can you please clarify what you meant regarding Joseph and Brigham being in error regarding their teachings about this, since I apparently unintentionally misunderstood what you meant?

And can you please explain why you consider me to be in greater error than they were for believing that their teachings were correct and given to them by God? 

Great quote by Joseph Smith btw. The fact that we disagree on the doctrinal accuracy of the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young on this point doesn’t make either of us bad men, regardless of of which one of us is in error on this issue. 

Simply put, I said nothing about “the doctrinal accuracy of the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.” Believe whatever you want, and however strongly, but turning this into a disagreement is unwarranted. But thank you for seeking clarification. Belief is not necessarily rational, but then again it is not always supposed to be.

My original point (first post) is that even a prophet can deploy incomplete scholarship while indubitably holding the keys of the kingdom. That kind of error, if you want to call it that (I didn’t; I called it fallibility), isn’t important to me. Nor is it important to me who started the ban or why, which is why I didn’t comment on either. The only error I called out is modern saints pushing lesser understanding contrary to improved scriptural and historical scholarship.

My second post comports with my first post, only wordier. “These kinds of teachings” pertains to the historical interpretation and commentary you posted, not the ban. The “failures/failings” are described as “real or imagined,” so no need to make them about the ban.

[Maverick]

7 hours ago, mikbone said:

Regardless of what significance or interpretation we put on this line from the Declaration of Independence, it doesn’t have anything to do with the priesthood ban, because being ordained to the priesthood and receiving the ordinances of the temple is not an unalienable right all humans are born with. 

Edited December 9, 2024 by Maverick

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Maverick said:

No, I’m not trying to prove the entire essay incorrect. But I do believe that the essay is misleading in some areas and gives people the wrong impression by not including all of the relevant information. 

But all the quotes in your OP are about Joseph Smith's understanding of scriptural history, not his institution of a ban. The Church's view today is addressed in the section, "The Church Today." By conflating the teachings you chose to post with his beginning the ban, you seem to be misled in at least this one area. This is an example of faulty scholarship justifying faulty conclusions.

Do you have any "reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime" -- at Joseph Smith's behest and doctrinal exposition? Please share if you do, and the essay might be updated.

 

[Maverick]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

But all the quotes in your OP are about Joseph Smith's understanding of scriptural history

No, that’s not true. He applied scriptural history about an ancient divine curse put upon black skinned Canaanites and descendants of Cain and applied it to black Africans (Negroes) in his day and said that the curse had not yet been lifted. According to Abraham 1, which he brought forth as true scripture from God, that curse also included not being able to hold the priesthood. 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Do you have any "reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime" -- at Joseph Smith's behest and doctrinal exposition?

Yes, I do. Some of it has already been brought up. But I’ll provide several documented pieces of evidence of this in a separate post soon. 

[Maverick]

On a side note, the current guide to the scriptures has this to say about Ham:

Quote

Ham

      See also Noah, Bible Patriarch

   In the Old Testament, the third son of Noah (Gen. 5:32; 6:10; Moses 8:12, 27).

     Noah, his sons, and their families entered the ark, Gen. 7:13.

     Canaan, Ham’s son, was cursed, Gen. 9:18–25.

        The government of Ham was patriarchal and was blessed as to things of the earth and wisdom but not as to the priesthood, Abr. 1:21–27.

     Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain; the sons of their daughter Egyptus settled in Egypt, Abr. 1:23, 25 (Ps. 105:23; 106:21–22).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/ham?lang=eng

The church today still maintains that the Canaanites who were under a curse mentioned in Genesis 9 and in Abraham 1 were descendants of Cain. 

 

[MarginOfError]

There is no scriptural basis that directly ties the Canaanites to Cain. The word Canaan is not derived from the word Cain. There is no historical nor logical ground on which to draw the connection of Canaan to Cain, regardless of what the Guide to the Scriptures has to say about it. 

One must consider many other issues related to this topic

First, the "Curse of Canaan" fell on them after they went against the people of Shum in war. The curse had two components. The first was that their land was cursed and unfruitful. The second was that their skin turned black so they would be despised of all people. If you evaluate these curses critically, they don't hold up well. Remember that the Book of Moses suggests that the land of Egypt was found by a daughter Ham and Egyptus. She settled there, and "and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land." But the first condition of the curse--the barren and unfruitful lands--can't be applied to Egypt, which became an agricultural power house and regional power. The other condition of the curse--black skin--is known to be historically inaccurate. Egyptians likely had a large diversity in skin tones as they were a cultural cross roads that would intermarry with African, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern cultures.

Next, let's look at the actual curse that was applied to Cain. Genesis 4:9-14 gives the story of Cain's curse. While it holds the same condition of unfruitful crops, keep in mind that Cain was first a foremost a farmer who was reluctant to sacrifice his best crops. What's more, the curse as described in Genesis gives no indication that it would perpetuate beyond Cain. Nor does Smith's translation in Moses 5 apply this any further. To be clear, neither Moses nor Smith felt any compulsion to describe the curse of Cain being extended into his posterity. 

Continuing with the curse against Cain, the mark against Cain was not a curse. In fact, it was given specifically for his protection. "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." (Genesis 4:15). In contrast to this, the curse against the Canaanites was given so that they were "despised among all people" (Moses 7:8). These two curses are incongruent in this aspect, which would indicate that they are not the same curse.

Another minor quibble you can take up is that the lands described in Genesis (and by extension, Moses) are the names of the lands that would have been familiar to Moses's target audience. Those would be the Israelites of his time. So it would be prudent to understand the nature of the word Canaan, which is unclear among biblical scholars. It is derived from a word root that can mean "low" or "subjugated." The most prevalent interpretations among scholars are that it refers to the low-lying lands near the Mediterranean Sea (in contrast to the Aram or Aramaic lands, meaning the highlands further away). Some also interpret is as subjugated as it was a provincial territory controlled by Egypt at the time of Moses when his audience would recognize it). The fact that Canaan and Cain have a homophonic root is coincidence, not etymological.

Regarding the use of the Book of Mormon to justify curses of black skin and any related consequences, we should keep in mind a few things. For instance, the Nephites were objectively a racist culture. And while the Nephites are often portrayed as the protagonists, they were also very often the villains. Moroni stated pretty clearly that there were faults in the Book of Mormon. We might we wise to assume those faults are not limited to the translation, but also to the people themselves, and maybe we ought not perpetuate some of their mistakes. (You can read more detail about this in a separate comment I made some time ago)

Regarding the belief that the curse of Cain was preserved through Ham, this was a common folklore that gained popularity in Christian circles to justify slavery. It is not Hebrew in origin. There's no indication that the Israelites believed this. And even if it were true, if you go back to the original curse against Cain, the mark was given for his protection. If you apply that curse (and that protection) to his descendants, it is on you to explain how using the Bible to justify slavery and the denial or priesthood to repentant individuals satisfies the condition of protecting his descendants.

Lastly, the existence of black men who weren't ordained to the priesthood in Smith's time does not say much at all about whether he approved or disapproved of it. Men weren't ordained to priesthood service on the scale to which we are accustomed. In fact, even ordination to the Aaronic priesthood tended to happen in the same manner in which we ordain men to the office of High Priest now. That is, they were ordained when they were asked to fulfill some leadership position or specific service to the church for which priesthood authority was required. It isn't a big stretch of the imagination to think that even antebellum white religious leaders would be hesitant to call black skinned individuals into church leadership. If they were using the justification that black skinned people were descended from Ham, they were using a racist justification that was prooftexted into Christian theology in the 17th and 18th centuries; it is not a justification that is supported by scripture nor would have been interpreted by the audience to whom Genesis was first written.

[pam]

7 hours ago, Maverick said:

On a side note, the current guide to the scriptures has this to say about Ham:

The church today still maintains that the Canaanites who were under a curse mentioned in Genesis 9 and in Abraham 1 were descendants of Cain. 

 

That is so not true.

The curse of Canaan has often been misinterpreted, particularly during the 19th century, when it was used to justify racial theories linking the Canaanites to people of African descent. However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has clarified that such interpretations are fundamentally flawed. The Church teaches that the curse associated with Canaan is not a racial or eternal condemnation but a reflection of the covenantal dynamics present in the Old Testament.

Also, being Canaanite doesn't mean you are a descendant of Cain. Canaanites were from a particular area called Canaan. Today, many archaeologists and geneticists think that the descendants of Canaan are Jews and Palestinians. 

The Church's official statement on race and the priesthood disavow any notions that associate the curse with racial inferiority or divine sanction against any particular group, emphasizing that all individuals are worthy of receiving the blessings of the priesthood, irrespective of their lineage.

[pam]

Now to put my admin hat on.  This is the LDS Gospel Discussion of the Forum . There is no debating our beliefs in this particular section of the forum.  Any further comments that go against our teachings or again the Church in general will result in an immediate removal from the site.  Please read Rule #1.  

[zil2]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

There is no scriptural basis that directly ties the Canaanites to Cain. The word Canaan is not derived from the word Cain. There is no historical nor logical ground on which to draw the connection of Canaan to Cain, regardless of what the Guide to the Scriptures has to say about it. 

I don't think anyone argued Canaan (the word) relates to Cain (the word).  Rather:  Egyptus (female descendant of Cain after some number of generations) + Ham (by marriage) --> produced Canaan (4th son of Ham), after whom the land of Canaan is named (or so the Biblical scholars say - it's not clear from the Bible Dictionary).  Since his mother is descended from Cain, Canaan is descended from Cain...  Links are to the Bible Dictionary entries.

I very much appreciate your comments.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

For instance, the Nephites were objectively a racist culture.

I was right with you in your analysis until I reached this. I believe this is patently false, and I believe that any in-depth reading of the Book of Mormon shows that, as a culture and through time, the Nephites were in fact much less racist than they have been portrayed. Frankly, they are notable not for their racism, but rather for their lack of racism.

[Maverick]

9 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I don't think anyone argued Canaan (the word) relates to Cain (the word).  Rather:  Egyptus (female descendant of Cain after some number of generations) + Ham (by marriage) --> produced Canaan (4th son of Ham), after whom the land of Canaan is named (or so the Biblical scholars say - it's not clear from the Bible Dictionary).  Since his mother is descended from Cain, Canaan is descended from Cain...  Links are to the Bible Dictionary entries.

Exactly right. This is how I understand and the point I was trying to make. I must not have done a very good job, since it appears my comment regarding the guide to the scriptures was misunderstood. Thank you for explaining it better than I did.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Maverick

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Maverick said:

No, that’s not true. He applied scriptural history about an ancient divine curse put upon black skinned Canaanites and descendants of Cain and applied it to black Africans (Negroes) in his day and said that the curse had not yet been lifted. According to Abraham 1, which he brought forth as true scripture from God, that curse also included not being able to hold the priesthood. 

Yes, I do. Some of it has already been brought up. But I’ll provide several documented pieces of evidence of this in a separate post soon. 

More accurately, Joseph espoused a faulty interpretation of scriptural history which prevailed in his day, which turns out to be unsupported.

No "reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime" at Joseph Smith's behest and doctrinal exposition has yet been brought up in this thread.

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, pam said:

That is so not true.

I believe that there was a misunderstanding here. What I was saying is what zil2 explained more thoroughly: 

12 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Egyptus (female descendant of Cain after some number of generations) + Ham (by marriage) --> produced Canaan (4th son of Ham), after whom the land of Canaan is named (or so the Biblical scholars say - it's not clear from the Bible Dictionary).  Since his mother is descended from Cain, Canaan is descended from Cain...  Links are to the Bible Dictionary entries.

I wasn't implying or suggesting "any racial inferiority" of any group of people past or present. 

[Maverick]

On 12/8/2024 at 8:55 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

 I agree Coltrin was a good man; though IIRC his testimony (quite understandably) evolved somewhat as the decades passed.

Do you have any sources that show that his beliefs on the priesthood ban had evolved in the decades following Joseph Smith death and the interview with John Taylor in 1879? He was a very faithful man who had had amazing spiritual experiences and was intimately acquainted with Joseph Smith. I don't see any evidence that would suggest that he would have lied about what Joseph Smith had taught him or made up a series of events that never happened.  

On 12/8/2024 at 8:55 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

At any rate, with adoption being a temple ordinance (and precursor to parent-child sealing)—if it *was* truly a proposed adoptive sealing and if Joseph Smith knew Emma was offering it, then it would seem that he was not planning for an *absolute* ban on black people receiving temple ordinances.

If Joseph and Emma truly contemplated an adoptive sealing for Jane Manning James, then you could be right. It's also possible that if they briefly considered it, Joseph Smith didn't go through with it because the spirit told him that this was wrong. We simply don't know. 

Edited December 11, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

More accurately, Joseph espoused a faulty interpretation of scriptural history which prevailed in his day, which turns out to be unsupported.

That may be your opinion on the matter, but I disagree. I believe that what he taught on the matter was given to him by the Holy Ghost. 

[MarginOfError]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

I don't think anyone argued Canaan (the word) relates to Cain (the word).  Rather:  Egyptus (female descendant of Cain after some number of generations) + Ham (by marriage) --> produced Canaan (4th son of Ham), after whom the land of Canaan is named (or so the Biblical scholars say - it's not clear from the Bible Dictionary).  Since his mother is descended from Cain, Canaan is descended from Cain...  Links are to the Bible Dictionary entries.

I very much appreciate your comments.

If your assumption that Canaan is not related to Cain, then you have a different problem. Because nowhere in the Book of Abraham does it specify that Egyptus is a descendant of Cain. I have only ever heard two justifications for claiming the Egyptus preserved the curse of Cain are 

1) The Canaan is a derivation of Cain, which we seem to agree is not true.

2) That because 'through her the curse was preserved' therefore she must be a descendant of Cain. But this is problematic because the curse being discussed is the curse against Canaan, not against Cain. 

 

The source material simply doesn't support the conclusion, and the contemporary interpretations of the time to justify it are based on a flawed interpretation of biblical history. 

54 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Exactly right. This is how I understand and the point I was trying to make. I must not have done a very good job, since it appears my comment regarding the guide to the scriptures was misunderstood. Thank you for explaining it better than I did.

I'm going to point out here that out of 7 paragraphs of referenced and sourced discussion showing the flaws in concluding the curse of Cain was preserved through Egyptus, you've only taken issue with one of those...one that can be demonstrated not to support your logic anyway. 

Edited December 9, 2024 by MarginOfError
clarify conclusions

[MarginOfError]

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

I was right with you in your analysis until I reached this. I believe this is patently false, and I believe that any in-depth reading of the Book of Mormon shows that, as a culture and through time, the Nephites were in fact much less racist than they have been portrayed. Frankly, they are notable not for their racism, but rather for their lack of racism.

I'm going to have a little fun with you here, because if you go back to my original posting where I lay out the justification of my claim of Nephite racism, you're among the people who liked it. At the time you seemed to have no objection. 

So what changed? 😝

 

Honestly, this is one of those areas I think we can have reasonable disagreement on the matter. I'm going to assume we could agree that the one paragraph could be removed and the remainder of my analysis is sound. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

[Maverick]

On 12/9/2024 at 6:11 AM, MarginOfError said:

There is no scriptural basis that directly ties the Canaanites to Cain.

While there's no scripture that specifically states that Canaanites were descendants of Cain, there is a scriptural basis for it, which I will explain. I will also add here that the Lord said in D&C 68:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.
5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

So doctrinal statements and teachings by church leaders, particularly church presidents and apostles, when they were given to them by the Holy Ghost are also considered scripture. 

On 12/9/2024 at 6:11 AM, MarginOfError said:

First, the "Curse of Canaan" fell on them after they went against the people of Shum in war.

Moses 7 doesn't say that the curse fell upon them after this event. That's your interpretation.

On 12/9/2024 at 6:11 AM, MarginOfError said:

Remember that the Book of Moses suggests that the land of Egypt was found by a daughter Ham and Egyptus. She settled there, and "and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land." But the first condition of the curse--the barren and unfruitful lands--can't be applied to Egypt, which became an agricultural power house and regional power.

Many black Africans also lived in barren areas and most of Egypt is barren and unfruitful except for around the Nile and especially the Nile delta. 

On 12/9/2024 at 6:11 AM, MarginOfError said:

Egyptians likely had a large diversity in skin tones as they were a cultural cross roads that would intermarry with African, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern cultures.

Yes, ancient Egypt had diverse people living in it from different lineages and with different skin tones, etc. Abraham 1 is referring to the first Egyptians being Canaanites, not all subsequent people who lived in Egypt. As a bit of a history lesson, the original Egyptians weren't in power during the time that the children of Israel came to Egypt to escape the famine in the days of Joseph. Egypt had been conquered by the Hyksos who are believed to have been from a similar ethnic background as the Hebrews.  Later the original Egyptians returned to power and drove out the Hyksos. It was these original Egyptians who enslaved the Hebrews. 

On 12/9/2024 at 6:11 AM, MarginOfError said:

the curse against the Canaanites was given so that they were "despised among all people" (Moses 7:8). These two curses are incongruent in this aspect, which would indicate that they are not the same curse.

Moses 7 has this to say about the descendants of Cain:

22 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.

From this we see that the seed of Cain was despised by the rest of the descendants of Adam and weren't mixed with them or dwelt with them. This is actually strong evidence that the two people and curses were one and the same. 

On 12/9/2024 at 6:11 AM, MarginOfError said:

Regarding the use of the Book of Mormon to justify curses of black skin and any related consequences, we should keep in mind a few things. For instance, the Nephites were objectively a racist culture. And while the Nephites are often portrayed as the protagonists, they were also very often the villains. Moroni stated pretty clearly that there were faults in the Book of Mormon. We might we wise to assume those faults are not limited to the translation, but also to the people themselves, and maybe we ought not perpetuate some of their mistakes.

Like @Vort, I categorically reject that the Nephites were "racist" and that their erroneous "racist" beliefs are taught in the Book of Mormon as divine truth. Some Nephites may have been prejudiced towards the Lamanites because of their darker skin, but the Book of Mormon plainly tells us that the darker skin was put upon them by God in order to keep the Nephites from intermarrying with them. 

On 12/9/2024 at 6:11 AM, MarginOfError said:

Lastly, the existence of black men who weren't ordained to the priesthood in Smith's time does not say much at all about whether he approved or disapproved of it.

It's a relevant data point, but doesn't in and of itself prove that Joseph Smith disapproved of black men being ordained to the priesthood. Probably the most significant of the black men in Nauvoo who weren't ordained to the priesthood is Isaac Lewis Manning, the older brother of Jane Manning James. The James family was well acquainted with Joseph Smith. The fact that he was not ordained is possible evidence that Joseph Smith was opposed to ordaining him on account of his lineage. Again, it's not definitive. 

On 12/9/2024 at 6:11 AM, MarginOfError said:

If they were using the justification that black skinned people were descended from Ham, they were using a racist justification that was prooftexted into Christian theology in the 17th and 18th centuries; it is not a justification that is supported by scripture nor would have been interpreted by the audience to whom Genesis was first written.

We don't know enough about the worldview of the Israelites in Moses' day to know how they would have interpreted what Moses wrote concerning the curse put upon Canaan in Genesis 9 or what he wrote in Moses 7 that was restored by Joseph Smith in his inspired translation of the bible. What we do know is how the Lord's seer, who brought forth these scriptures to us, understood them. 
 

Edited December 11, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

14 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm going to point out here that out of 7 paragraphs of referenced and sourced discussion showing the flaws in concluding the curse of Cain was preserved through Egyptus, you've only taken issue with one of those

I just hadn't had the time to address your post yet, since it was so long. I just responded. I didn't address every point you made, as that would take a very long time and be very long, but I believe that I have addressed your most pertinent points. If after you address the counter-points I made there are other specific things you would like me to address, just let me know and I will get to them when I can. 

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, Maverick said:

That may be your opinion on the matter, but I disagree. I believe that what he taught on the matter was given to him by the Holy Ghost. 

You are conflating again: what you need to show is whether Joseph Smith implemented the ban, and not Brigham Young as the essay says, which is your claim. Your evidence needs to be stronger than the evidence used in the essay.

I think that "what he taught on the matter" -- why do you use such vague terms? -- was given him by the Holy Ghost. He had the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost and the keys and gift of translation. But that still leaves room for good-faith personal interpretation that reflects the disavowed theories advanced in the past.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

I don't think anyone argued Canaan (the word) relates to Cain (the word).  Rather:  Egyptus (female descendant of Cain after some number of generations) + Ham (by marriage) --> produced Canaan (4th son of Ham), after whom the land of Canaan is named (or so the Biblical scholars say - it's not clear from the Bible Dictionary).  Since his mother is descended from Cain, Canaan is descended from Cain...  Links are to the Bible Dictionary entries.

I very much appreciate your comments.

There have been some past statements said to this effect.  But there are no scriptural references that explicitly state this.

So we must not accept those statements in a vacuum.

Quote

There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it.

 -- David O. McKay.

Note that this was quite a bit earlier than OD 2.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Carborendum