I have heard it said that the reason most Blacks had the priesthood withheld from them throughout the late 1800s and the mid 1900s was because they were cursed with the Curse of Cain. If this is true, why did Spencer W. Kimball not mention such a curse had been lifted when gave the Official Declaration that all worthy male members of the Church could hold the priesthood?
Curse of Cain
I used moA term, did not want to correct it – you are correct, she was the daughter in law.
Kim wrote – That verse says that Cain’s descendants were black. Are you suggesting that Pharaoh and Egyptus (the older) were descended from Cain? Which scripture says this?
Answer – Abraham 1:23 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.
25 Now the first agovernment• 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.
26 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.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of aPriesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain bclaim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
I copied the text off LDS.org, when words are mispelled, they are usually the symbols to look up more information.
Bill,
I do not see anywhere in those verses that states Egyptus is descended from Cain, or that she or Pharaoh are black.
If you are looking for a passage of scripture that says they are descended from Cain, then the answer is no there is not one.
What the scriptures do say (Abraham 1:24) is that from Ham sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
It does not say that Ham’s son Canaan started the curse in the land but perserved the curse.
We know the mark of Cain was that the Lord made him Black (Moses 7:22). Cain was cursed and Canaan was cursed.
If one of Cain’s descendants was not on the Ark, then there would be none on the earth today.
I would suggest you reread the scriptures and look up the footnotes referencing the Canaanites with Cain. You might understand why previous Church Leaders taught the Curse of Cain.
Our simple religion classes of today do not explain in detail these beliefs anymore.
Abraham 1:24 is referring to the Curse of Ham, not the Curse of Cain. See Genesis 9:20-27
“If one of Cain’s descendants was not on the Ark, then there would be none on the earth today.”
Assuming of course that the flood was a global event.
I am unaware that there was a Curse of Ham. Where in the scriptures is the curse of Ham mentioned.
Abraham 1:24 is referring to preserving the curse.
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
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.
The woman who discovered Egypt was a daughter of Ham just like Canaan was a son of Ham. There were 8 people in the Ark and the scriptures mention that the sons had 1 wife each. Since Noah’s famly was not cursed, they only other option is that Ham’s wife (Egyptus)carried the curse in her blood line.
When Ham saw his father Noah drunk and naked, Noah cursed Canaan not his father Ham.
Please Explain: Assuming of course that the flood was a global event.
I just told you where the curse of Ham can be found: Genesis 9:20-27. Also see here.
Regarding the global flood, not everyone beleives the flood covered the entire earth. See here and here.
I never heard the concept of the flood not being global but a localized event. I need to think on this one because it would change things quite a bit. What is the thought process on this logic?
What is the thought on the Tower of Babel? Was it like Star Trek and everyone wore a translation device until the computer quit working?
“What is the thought process on this logic?”
There is no evidence of a global flood.
what are your thoughts on Adam and Eve lived on a different planet and Noah brought men and women to this planet on the Ark?
If yes why?
If no why?
I see no reason to believe either of those theories.
What kind of evidence would rain leave?
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of water as deep as 29,035 feet sitting around for 5 months.
“What kind of evidence would rain leave?”
How about large pools of water that have to go somewhere, for a start.
If the entire globe is covered in water, Bill, where the the water run off to when the rain stops?
Do you have any idea how much water that would be? We’d need several miles more of atmosphere to hold that much water vapour, so it’s not just evaporating, it’s got to go somewhere.
29,035 feet of water world wide would indeed be a lot of water. Are you taking the assumption the current mountain ranges we have now where there during Noah’s day?
Peleg was when the earth was divided and Peleg was after Noah.
Did you consider the possibility that the earth might not have had today’s mountain ranges? Would you still need 29,035 feet of water world wide if land (before the flood) did not have high moutain ranges?
The land mass before Noah may have also been much smaller.
Since all the land mas was still in one piece, Noah and his family would have meet those that survived.
How do you account for Joseph Smith saying the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and Noah ended up on the other side of the earth?
Is there a different theory regarding JS location of the Garden of Eden?
“Are you taking the assumption the current mountain ranges we have now where there during Noah’s day?”
Yes. The Himalaya range has been around for several million years.
“Did you consider the possibility that the earth might not have had today’s mountain ranges?”
The earth at the tiem of Noah? No.
“Since all the land mas was still in one piece, Noah and his family would have meet those that survived.”
Pangaea existed 180 million years ago.
“How do you account for Joseph Smith saying the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and Noah ended up on the other side of the earth?”
I don’t Joseph Smith said that Adam-ondi-Ahman was in Missouri. Adam-ondi-Ahman was not the Garden of Eden. For that matter, I do not necessarily believe that the flood was a global event. Thus, I see no reason for reconciliation.
Do you think it might be possible the Church lifted the ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood due to concerns about the Church losing its tax exempt status for Church Schools? Members would no longer be able to donate to BYU and Ricks and receive a tax deductation.
Of course it’s possible.
Kim, re. 115: location of garden of eden,
It is recorded that Joseph Smith told others that the location of the garden was indeed at Jackson Co.
Words of Wilford Woodruff: President Young said, “Joseph the Prophet told me that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson Co., Missouri.” (Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833-1898, 9 vols. 7:129; standardized)
Even if the only record we have from Joseph is that adam-ondi-ahmen was in Jackson, and if we are assuming that the land mass did not change in the last 7000 years, I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that Adam and his family swam across the oceans just to set up camp in Missouri.
The most reasonable conclusion is that he set up camp near to the garden. In fact, we know that after leaving the garden, Adam continued to hear the voice of the Lord from the garden:
JST Gen 4:4 And Adam called upon the name of the Lord, and Eve also, his wife; and they heard the voice of the Lord, from the way towards the garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.
I’ll also make an assumption that when Cain heard the voice of the Lord in JST Gen 5:9,19-25.
re: Global flood,
There are too many unknowns involved to conclude that the flood was not global. At best, all we can conclude is that the physical evidence to date cannot support the occurance of a global flood.
One of these unknowns is how God performs a miracle. Joseph Fielding Smith, in Man, His Origin and Destiny states:
There are thousands of miracles performed today, wonders that would astound our grandfathers could they suddenly see them. These miracles are as great as turning water into wine, raising the dead or anything else. A miracle is not, as many believe, the setting aside or overruling natural laws. Every miracle performed in Biblical days or now, is done on natural principles and in obedience to natural law.
We also have Brigham Young stating in the Discourses of Brigham Young:
The Savior converted the water into wine. He knew how to call the necessary elements together in order to fill the water with the properties of wine. The elements are all around us; we eat, drink and breathe them, and Jesus, understanding the process of calling them together, performed no miracle except to those who were ignorant of that process.
Where am I going with this? It is entirely possible that in order to provide the quantity of water needed for the flood, that some of the existing elements were modified and converted to water under the command of the Lord to accomplish that purpose. Although this satisfies for me the question of how it might have happened, I realize that this is far from enough evidence to satisfy most critics of the global flood.
In addition, when it comes to the gospel and miracles and such things, I don’t think it reasonable to apply occam’s razor to the situations, because more often than not, the simplest explanations deny faith, and if there is no faith or miracles then God ceases to exist and there is no gospel, fall, or redemption.
JM,
The scripture you provided does not state that Adam heard the Lord’s voice in the Garden, but rather the voice came from the same direction of the Garden.
“It is entirely possible that in order to provide the quantity of water needed for the flood, that some of the existing elements were modified and converted to water under the command of the Lord to accomplish that purpose.”
It is also entirely possible that a global flood did not happen at all. Considering available evidence, I am willing to stick with this theory.
Kim,
re: location of garden
Your’e beating on a straw man.
The strongest evidence of the location of the garden being in the americas is not the scriptures, but the words of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, etc… The scripture mearly provides support to Joseph’s claim.
Of course, this is based on the assumption that JS, BY, and WW were speaking under the influence of the HG when the statement was made.
re: global flood
Is your conclusion based on the absence of evidence or actual evidence that disproves the flood?
No straw man here. I was simply addressing you using a scripture to support somethign you claimed as a fact, which the scripture did not explicitly state.
“Is your conclusion based on the absence of evidence or actual evidence that disproves the flood?”
Both. There is no physical evidence such a flood ever existed, and current available evidence (such as the age of Pangaea and the the Himalaya range) disprove popular interpretations of the flood (such as the land shape being different pre- and post-flood).
“There is no physical evidence such a flood ever existed,”
Well, that’s not true. But I guess it all depends on what you are willing to accept as evidence. An absolute statment is easy to refute, because all it takes is the smallest of evidences to the contrary to disprove the statement.
One example of physical evidence in favor of the global flood is the absense of any significant fossils in the Pre-Cambrian layer of the geological column, but the almost universal presence of them at the start of the Cambrian layer.
Although this by itself is not enough to entirely support the global flood, it is enough to disprove your statement that “There is no physical evidence such a flood ever existed”
As for the Straw Man, have you formed a conclusion regarding the statements made by JS, BY, and WW regarding the location of eden?
(p.s. I appreciate the debate! Makes me dust off some of the cob-webs in areas of my brain that havent been used in some time.)
JM you might want to check out:
https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/16/the-flood-allegory-exaggeration-or-literal-world-wide-disaster/
We’ve previously discussed the flood at length here.
I always thought Pangaea was a theory where the Bible was the Word of God. Are you saying you believe a theory over the Bible?
I have always wondered why the Bible points out that the Rainbow was God’s sign that he would not flood the earth again. Do we then assume that before the flood there was no rainbow?
I believe scientific theories when it comes to science. I believe the Bible when it comes to spiritual matters.
So if you reject the concept of the whole earth being flooded, do you also reject the LDS teaching that the flood was the Earth’s Baptism? Instead of Baptism, do you believe the Earth was Sprinkled?
I had a JW tell me that they believed Adam was Black and so was Jesus.
I do not reject such a belief, but given its speculative nature, I do not embrace it either. There are problems with the belief that the earth’s existence parallels our mortal probation.
I think the reason President Kimball didn’t refer to the curse of Cain is that he didn’t believe it to be the truth.
Today is June 19th and in Texas blacks celebrate an interesting holiday. Juneteth is the day they learned they had been freed. So they stay home from work and celebrate.
Kim – You have mentioned a few times that you do not embrace certain parts of the gospel that has been taught by past leaders. Are there parts of past teachings that you will admidt that you reject?
Can I assume that since you do not accept (embrace) all of the teachings, that you are a free thinker?
Bill, your definition of the gospel must be different than my definition of the gospel. For example, I have no idea what the extent of Noah’s flood has to do with the gospel as defined in 3 Ne. 27:13-21 or what the location of Eden has to do with the gospel as defined in D&C 76:40-43.
Of course I think freely. Why would I want someone else to dictate what I think?
How long have you been an active member? Free thinkers can co-exist if they live in a small ward or a branch. If you live in a large ward then you are expected to live, act and believe a certain way. For example, I used to live in a Stake where if you had facial hair, you were unworthy of a church calling (not following the brethern). If you did not wear a white shirt to Church, you would be pulled aside and told not to come to church without a white shirt.
The thoughts you have expressed in these threads would cause the brethren to remove you from any positions of authority. I can assure you, you would not be an Elders Quorum President with your thoughts, at least in some of the Stakes I have lived in.
I know there will be those that do not believe this but it happens.
I have been active for over 25 years.
I feel sorry for you, Bill. I not only have facial hair, but I wore a blue shirt to church on Sunday. Not only do I have a calling, but I was not told to not come to church without a white shirt. I am so glad I have not lived in the same stakes as you.
“The thoughts you have expressed in these threads would cause the brethren to remove you from any positions of authority.”
Which is actually kind of funny, because all I have received since being married is callings of leadership: EQ counsellor, EQP (2x), ward mission leader, stake mission presidency, YM president, ward clerk.
In fact, I know of several members in our ward who have read (and still read) Our Thoughts and no one has ever approached me about anything I have said here.
I guess I could also make this remark in the E and HP thread. Perhaps a new thread is in order?
There seems to be blurry line between cultural practices, official policies and procedures, and the unwritten order of things (thank you BKP).
Nowhere is there a mandate that a shirt needs to be white on a priesthood holder. But this is a little more than a local, cultural practice and probably fits in the realm of UOT. In fact, I have been in priesthood leadership meetings where the visiting area authority has asked that this practice be observed in the stake. We also hear references in general conference on how acceptable and “Good it looks” for priesthood leaders, specifically deacons passing the sacrament, to be wearing a white shirt and tie.
Using the right hand for sacrament… Was this a case of “well, we are required to use the right hand in (context A) so it must be required everywhere else”? I would say it’s 50/50 if this is UOT or cultural.
Same with facial hair. I know personally of bretheren being released from callings because they would not appear clean cut. But this practice was not consistent across different stakes, and even within the same stake, but with different stake presidents.
I also know of newly called bishopric and stake presidency councilors that were invited to shave their facial hair. The one making the invitation was either the stake president or area authority who was extending the call.
I wonder why such things even matter at all? (Actually I have a pretty good idea, but I wonder what everyone else thinks).
Maybe we should post to Kim’s unanswered post about beards from 2004, but I’ll chime in here for now.
Beards have never been inherently wrong in the eyes of the Lord, obviously. From my limited knowledge, it seems that the church tried to standardize its public face by adopting the look of a 1950-60s American business class. Dark suits, white dress shirts, short hair and a clean shave became the standard look of missionaries and the church leadership. It seems before this period that the church leadership had more variation in styles of fashion and grooming. The fact that this conservative look has been “codified” at church schools and is required of missionaries, I don’t see facial hair and other variations in fashion being widely accepted among the church leadership until the millenium perhaps. The cultural movements that may have influnced this change 40 years ago (hippie movement) are largely irrelevant today.
JM said: I guess I could also make this remark in the E and HP thread.
I wish you would. I’m front runner in the C race (sorry, Kim).
JM said: Using the right hand for sacrament . . . I would say it’s 50/50 if this is UOT or cultural.
I have to respectfully, but vehemently disagree with your assessment that this may be UOT. I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of why the right hand must be used. It makes no doctrinal sense. The ritual aspects and precision come from the Priesthood: the bearers of the symbols of the Savior’s body and blood. Each individual who partakes of the sacrament brings a broken heart and a contrite spirit in renewal of their baptismal covenant to take the Savior’s name in consideration for a remission of sins.
My fear is that we are imposing symbolism on a cultural expression, rather than interpreting existing symbolism in an existing ritual.
BTW, what is the ratio of rightys to leftys? Could it be that (most) everyone uses their right hand when reaching for the bread or cup because they are more dextrous with their right hand?
Well, thats why I said 50/50. If it’s not UOT, its cultural.
The right hand is supposed to be the preferred hand. You sit on the right hand of god. The right hand is the clean hand, etc.
Do you think the Lord really cares if you have facial hair or wear a blue shirt or even a pink shirt to church? I think being at church and worshipping is far more important than the color of your shirt. In my Ward if you wear a non white shirt, you cannot say a prayer.
White shirts and dark color suits are expensive. There are families that just cannot afford to clothe their children in the required dress and so they do not come to church. We can take about them not being humble but I wonder if some of these policies are really racist on many levels.
Where I live, you can get the same style shirt in white or any other available colour for the same price.
Nice white shirts are most plentiful at thrift stores and are often the cheapest button down, long-sleeve shirt you can get there.
“Nice white shirts are most plentiful at thrift stores”
Not at a 17.5 neck and a 34-35 sleeve. :)
Why should someone be required to buy a white shirt to attend church? It does not matter if the shirt is bought at a Dillards or Goodwill, the scriptures do not teach that you must have on a white shirt to worship or serve him. Why is this policy taught in the Lords Church? Is it a true teaching of Jesus or a racist plan to keep the poor out of the Church?
I have been in Goodwill and I do not recall seeing white shirts available for purchase. Does anyone know of a scripture where it mentions you need a white shirt to pray or give blessings?
“Why is this policy taught in the Lords Church?”
I have never seen this policy taught. From my understanding, it seems to be cultural.
Mary Siever said: “Why is this policy taught in the Lords Church?†I have never seen this policy taught. From my understanding, it seems to be cultural.
While it is not a policy, and is more certainly cultural to require all males who come to Sunday meetings to wear a white shirt, Elder Holland in the November, 1995 Ensign spoke about the sacred nature of the sacrament, and offered suggestions about how we should approach this ordinance.
Elder Holland suggests, “that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions.” I think it is a sound reason for those preparing, blessing, and passing the sacrament to wear white shirts. (Note that he says nothing about which hand should be used when partaking of the sacrament. The right hand of God argument is not convincing because it refers to the side of God that the righteous will stand, not his actual hand.)
I think it is also important to note that Elder Holland does not suggest what those members not administering the sacrament should wear.
Polly
Just to clarify, I don’t have a problem with white shirts being worn to bless the sacrament. Just as I don’t have a problem with women wearing dresses and skirts to church, and being encouraged to do so. I believe in dressing my best and in others doing so, to show respect.
Besides that, white shirts are just as affordable as coloured shirts.
There’s only one Egyptus in Abraham 1, and she’s the daughter of Ham, not his wife. Ham having a wife named Egyptus is only by tradition and misreading.
Pharoah tries to claim the priesthood through Ham, but he’s the son of a daughter of Ham, not the son of a son of Ham. Pharoah never makes a claim through his father–one reason being the throne of Egypt is matrilineal. Which, historically, it was.
The usual interpretation is that Pharoah marries his sister, the unnamed daughter of Egyptus who discovers the land while it is still underwater and settles her sons on it.
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.
Please explain how Egyptus was the daughter of Ham when verse 23 says speaking of the woman who discovered Egypt – “who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus”. It does not say the granddaughter of Ham.