What is the Curse of Cain?

[_huckelberry]

Gazelem, Are you sure that Jesus is not just using a well known story for illustration? After all I see no mention of you better believe the flood it really happened kind of speach. Instead I hear a warning about people ignoring the call to faithfulness.

However if my understanding of the flood as parable or fiction is wrong, and i have been wrong a couple of times in my life, I can still wonder who the descendants of Ham are. I am puzzled two ways. Why were west Africans identified with Ham? They are a long way from Egypt. Second why the other peoples of the sea are forgotten. How sure are you that Europeans are not from Ham?????

[_ajax18]

Well, I say, that as long as Mormons are 100% willing to participate in and support interracial marriages, they can't be accused of being racists. Ya just can't do that.

Only people who discriminate primarily o n the basis of race on issues of universal social significance like slavery, (full) church membership, and marriage can rightly be suspected of harboring racists sentiments. Even if they weren't racist to begin with, institutional requirements to treat races differently will develop personal discrimination. It may not be "hatred" of a race; it may be hateless discrimination. It's effect will be the same.

Can you say for sure that the church supports interracial marriages today? If so, why is it that every black female LDS that I know personally is unmarried? I was in a very large singles ward when I was LDS, and every other female of every other race in that ward dated, they pumped out marriages....even interracial ones. But the five black women had two choices: Ghana or non-member.

Did we do this to ourselves?

No you didn't do this to yourselves. It's about other individuals and what they want. They have their agency. I didn't feel like I was treated fairly by the Church during the dating process as well.

I thought Pres. Faust did point out that the brethren don't control the beating of men's and women's hearts. Marriage is about what each individual chooses. I can't really see it as a Church doctrinal issue when marriage between all races are solemized in the temple. Unless we ascribed to arranged marriages, I don't really see much more the Church could do about this. People get poor treatment from the opposite gender all the time. Unless the Church upholds them in their behavior and tells them its ok to treat people like this, I don't really see where the Brethren can be blamed for this.

Why is it then, that outside of the church, I never had problems dating whomever I wished? I never saw dating outside my race as an issue, because I had started my dating sojourn doing that. My family used to tease me about it relentlessly, saying I didn't like black men...but I just didn't like the types they brought around me. I've never been limited in the men I dated before the LDS church. It never occurred to me in the beginning that there would be a problem dating a white Mormon man. And now, outside the church, the impediment of race doesn't exist once again...as it should be.

I'm just saying the response you got had more to do with the bias of the individuals you met and not what the Church is teaching. I agree that most white Mormon men would prefer to marry inside their own race. I obviously can't be exactly sure of that but it seems that way to me as well. I know we had several interracial couples when I was at BYU. On the other hand one of my black roommates had a very hard row to hoe, as if getting married wasn't difficult enough. Yet as far as I know he was as stalwart in keeping his covenants as anyone and in the end that is all we can really do, and thankfully that is all that really matters.

[_Gazelam]

Gazelem, Are you sure that Jesus is not just using a well known story for illustration? After all I see no mention of you better believe the flood it really happened kind of speach. Instead I hear a warning about people ignoring the call to faithfulness.

However if my understanding of the flood as parable or fiction is wrong, and I have been wrong a couple of times in my life, I can still wonder who the descendants of Ham are. I am puzzled two ways. Why were west Africans identified with Ham? They are a long way from Egypt. Second why the other peoples of the sea are forgotten. How sure are you that Europeans are not from Ham?????

I have to go to work, so I'll have to comment on your Christs teachings question later, but If you do a google search on Noahs sons, theres lots of websites to peruse on the subject. Here is one result:

Source -- The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia


---------- HAM - (cham; Cham) ----------

1. The Youngest Son of Noah:
The youngest son of Noah, from whom sprang the western and southwestern nations known to the Hebrews. His name first occurs in Genesis 5:32, where, as in 6:10 and elsewhere, it occupies the second place. In Genesis 9:18 Ham is described as "the father of Canaan".

2. Ham as a Nationality (30 Nations came out of Ham):
The name given, in Psalms 105:23,17; 106:22 (compare 78:51), to Egypt as a descendant of Ham, son of Noah. As Shem means "dusky," or the like, and Japheth "fair," it has been supposed that Ham meant, as is not improbable, "black." This is supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means "to be hot" and "to be black," the latter signification being derived from the former.

It is interesting to note that the Biblical record defines Egypt as the Land of Ham.
-- Psalm 105: 23 "Israel also came into Egypt...the land of Ham."

3. Meaning of the Word:
That Ham is connected with the native name of Egypt, Kem, or, in full pa ta' en Kem, "the land of Egypt," in Bashmurian Coptic Kheme, is unlikely, as this form is probably of a much later date than the composition of Gen, and, moreover, as the Arabic shows, the guttural is not a true kh, but the hard breathing h, which are both represented by the Hebrew cheth.

4. The Nations Descending from Ham:
First on the list, as being the darkest, is Cush or Ethiopia (Genesis 10:6), after which comes Mitsrayim, or Egypt, then PuT or Libyia, and Canaan last. The sons or descendants of each of these are then taken in turn, and it is noteworthy that some of them, like the Ethiopians and the Canaanites, spoke Semitic, and not Hamitic, languages--Seba (if connected with the Sabeans), Havilah (Yemen), and Sheba, whose queen visited Solomon. Professor Sayce, moreover, has pointed out that Caphtor is the original home of the Phoenicians, who spoke a Semitic language.

The explanation of this probably is that other tongues were forced upon these nationalities in consequence of their migrations, or because they fell under the dominion of nationalities alien to them. The non-Sem Babylonians, described as descendants of Nimrod (Merodach), as is well known, spoke Sumerian, and adopted Semitic Babylonian only on account of mingling with the Semites whom they found there.

Another explanation is that the nationalities described as Hamitic--a parallel to those of the Semitic section--were so called because they fell under Egyptian dominion. This would make the original Hamitic race to have been Egyptian and account for Ham as a (poetical) designation of that nationality. Professor F. L. Griffith has pointed out that the Egyptian Priapic god of Panopolis (Akhmim), sometimes called Menu, but also apparently known as Khem, may have been identified with the ancestor of the Hamitic race--he was worshipped from the coast of the Red Sea to Coptos, and must have been well known to Egypt's eastern neighbors. He regards the characteristics of Menu as being in accord with the shamelessness of Ham as recorded in Genesis 9:20.

4. Four Sons of Ham (see map below):
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites,
Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)

5. CURSE OF CANAAN
1. Canaan was cursed, not Ham. (Gen. 9:25, "...cursed be Canaan..."
2. Genesis 9:25-27 "...servitude to his brothers..."
3. Exodus 20:5 --" A curse lasts three to four generations..."
4. Canaan does not exist as a nation today. Other three nations exist -- Egypt, Ethiopia
and Lybia.






---------- SHEM - shem (shem; Sem) ----------

1. Position in Noah's Family:
His Name:
The eldest son of Noah, from whom the Jews, as well as the Semitic ("Shemitic") nations in general have descended. When giving the names of Noah's three sons, Shem is always mentioned first (Genesis 9:18; 10:1, etc.); and though "the elder" in "Shem the brother of Japheth the elder" (Genesis 10:21 margin) is explained as referring to Shem, this is not the rendering of Onkelos.

His five sons peopled the greater part of West Asia's finest tracts, from Elam on the East to the Mediterranean on the West. Though generally regarded as meaning "dusky" (compare the Assyr-Babylonian samu--also Ham--possibly = "black," Japheth, "fair"), it is considered possible that Shem may be the usual Hebrew word for "name" (shem), given him because he was the firstborn--a parallel to the Assyr-Babylonian usage, in which "son," "name" (sumu) are synonyms (W. A. Inscriptions, V, plural 23, 11,29-32abc).

2. History, and the Nations Descended from Him (26 Nations came out of Shem):
Shem, who is called "the father of all the children of Eber," was born when Noah had attained the age of 500 years (Genesis 5:32). Though married at the time of the Flood, Shem was then childless. Aided by Japheth, he covered the nakedness of their father, which Ham, the youngest brother, had revealed to them; but unlike the last, Shem and Japheth, in their filial piety, approached their father walking backward, in order not to look upon him. Two years after the Flood, Shem being then 100 years old, his son Arpachshad was born (Genesis 11:10), and was followed by further sons and daughters during the remaining 500 years which preceded Shem's death.

Noah's prophetic blessing, on awakening from his wine, may be regarded as having been fulfilled in his descendants, who occupied Syria (Aramaic), Palestine (Canaan), Chaldea (Arpachshad), Assyria (Asshur), part of Persia (Elam), and Arabia (Joktan). In the first three of these, as well as in Elam, Canaanites had settled (if not in the other districts mentioned), but Shemites ruled, at some time or other, over the Canaanites, and Canaan thus became "his servant" (Genesis 9:25,26). The tablets found in Cappadocia seem to show that Shemites (Assyrians) had settled in that district also, but this was apparently an unimportant colony. Though designated sons of Shem, some of his descendants (e.g. the Elamites) did not speak a Semitic language, while other nationalities, not his descendants (e.g. the Canaanites), did.

3. Five Sons of Shem (see map below):
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)






----- JAPHETH - ja'-feth (yepheth; yapheth; Iapheth) -----

1. Etymologies of Japheth:
This name, in Genesis 9:27, seems to be explained by the phrase "may God make wide (yapht, the American Standard Revised Version "enlarge") for Japheth," where yapht and Japheth are represented by the same consonants, but with different vowel-points. The root of yapht is pathach, "to make wide."

This etymology, however, is not universally accepted, as the word-play is so obvious, and the association of Japheth with Shem ("dark") and Ham ("black") suggests a name on similar lines--either gentilic, or descriptive of race. Japheth has therefore been explained as meaning "fair," from yaphah, the non-Sem and non-Hamitic races known to the Jews being all more or less whiteskinned. The Targum of Onkelos agrees with the English Versions of the Bible, but that of Jonathan has "God shall beautify Japheth," as though from yaphah.

2. His Descendants (14 Nations came out of Japheth):
The immediate descendants of Japheth were seven in number, and are represented by the nations designated Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tiras; or, roughly, the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure. The sons of Gomer (Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) were all settled in the West Asian tract; while the sons of Javan (Elisah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim or Rodanim) occupied the Mediterranean coast and the adjacent islands.

3. His Place among the Sons of Noah:
In Genesis 9:27, as in other passages, Japheth occupies the 3rd place in the enumeration of the sons of Noah, but he is really regarded as the 2nd son, Ham being the youngest. In the genealogical table, however (Genesis 10:1), the descendants of Japheth are given first, and those of Shem last, in order to set forth Semitic affinities at greater length. Though this would seem to indicate that the fair races were the least known to the Jews, it implies that the latter were well disposed toward them, for Japheth was (ultimately) to dwell in the tents of Shem, and therefore to take part in Shem's spiritual privileges.

4. Seven Sons of Japheth (see map below):
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)

[_Loquacious Lurker]

And this prejudice was quickly and probably unconsciously incorporated into Joseph's text of the Book of Mormon.

You're problem here is that your have not a shred of documentary evidence to support this claim. Its an assumption, and nothing more. Joseph, in fact, called and ordained several black males to the high Priesthood when he was alive.

You don't have a shred of documentary evidence to back up the bulk of YOUR claims regarding the veracity of the Book of Mormon either, so maybe we should just call it even on this one. Or maybe we should delve into the question of why, if Joseph called blacks to the Priesthood in his time, the practice was later rescinded.

(hint: you don't understand the body of church teaching on the subject)

Heh. You're right. I don't. Not since I was eight. I thought I did, the day they explained why people have a different skin color in Primary. They said, it was because those souls could not decide whom to follow in the Pre-existence. So God colored their skin black as a punishment, and they were unworthy to hold the Priesthood. (This was before 1978.) When I went home and told my mother what I'd learned that day, she looked frightened, and told me never to repeat that story to anyone, ESPECIALLY not anyone with dark skin. I have actually been confused about that ever since.

Now, I speak German, and yet I am not quite sure to what you are referring when you invoke the term "Kulturkampf". Perhaps you could clarify. I do not need a definition, I need a context for its usage. I am a little mystified as to what you are referring to in your statement.

Yes, I'm sure you are. Kulturkampf means of course, culture war, but the specific manner in which this is used, in English speaking countries at least, usually carries connotations of secular ideological warfare against the presence of religion in those societies. I use it also as a generic term for the overall cultural struggle that began in late sixties and continues today.

Thank you for the clarification. I was actually hoping you would clarify as to why you used it in the particular contex you did, rather than its overall usage. And just as a side note, in fact, "Kampf" means "struggle", not "war". It's a culture struggle, not a war. If you want to be rather more incendiary and indicate war it would be best to say "Kulturkrieg", rather than "Kulturkampf".

You're mind, has been raped. This is ahistorical, PC mythology, and your have swallowed it whole.

Coggins, you believe the Bat Creek stone to be an actual historical artifact. Along with the Heavener runestone, and, something closer to home, the Kinderhook plates, it is a demonstrable fraud. If you consider me to have "swallowed whole" a historical mythology, so be it. I would just like to emphatically state that I do not consider Leonard Nimoy to be a qualified historian. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about this.

The smallpox epidemic was an accident of biology, not something carried out by whites against them.

Coggins, I think you would benefit greatly from reading the account of Lord Jeffrey Amherst, the British commander-in-chief for America during the French and Indian War. (From 1754-1763.) In actual correspondence, the plan to willfully distribute smallpox-infested blankets is fomented between himself and another officer. This is not PC "pop" history, this is verifiable fact. The letter approves the plan to distribute the blankets in a postscript and suggests as well as "to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race."

Here is an actual reproduction of the letter:

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/am ... 14_fn.jpeg

As it is difficult to read, here is the quote:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On another occasion, this same Lord Amherst says, "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them."

This is an excellent website which treats the subject matter fairly and exhaustively:

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/am ... _jeff.html

What we don't know is if Bouquet actually put the Amherst's plan into effect, or if so with what result. What is known is that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was readily available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. It is also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.

It would be an even better prospect for you to stop wasting your life and mind of ideological comic book history written by people whose purpose is not to educate but to indoctrinate.

Coggins, since I consider your view of history includes the belief that the native peoples of North America to be descended from lost Israelites, (a demonstrable impossibility) this comment is especially ironic.

[_Coggins7]

I rest my case.

Only a racist sees racism under every bed and within the mind of those with whom that person disagrees--as long as that person is of a different skin tone. That makes it all the easier.

[_Mercury]

So when you deride polygamy do you also deny the testimony of most early Mormon presidents?

Or is that "different"?

Are you addressing me? I personally believe Polygamy to be a true doctrine, and would agree with you in that you can't deride polygamy and still accept the Mormon faith.

You are not practicing it. Can you still get a temple recommend while not paying tithing but still extolling the virtues of tithing?

This si what is so incongruent about Mormon beliefs in polygamy. It is a "special case" used to save face.

[_Mercury]

I rest my case.

Only a racist sees racism under every bed and within the mind of those with whom that person disagrees--as long as that person is of a different skin tone. That makes it all the easier.

BZZZZT! Try again dumbass!

Cog, calling the person racist who calls you a racist is not a valid method of winning an argument.

[_moksha]

Only a racist sees racism under every bed and within the mind of those with whom that person disagrees...

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a racist is one who makes judgments of others based on their race?

[_Mercury]

Only a racist sees racism under every bed and within the mind of those with whom that person disagrees...

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a racist is one who makes judgments of others based on their race?

Yes, but that would make his point invalid. Instead he is working at his movie theater job as a class-a projectionist.

[_Coggins7]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a racist is one who makes judgments of others based on their race?

No, it wouldn't be more accurate, but its accurate. I think it also a primary component of a racialist mind to be continually and consistently aware of, sensitive to, and exercised by, race and racial issues.

I virtually never think about it unless I'm in a discussion with a Liberal. They are the only ones who really ever bring it up.