The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Daheshist
_Emeritus
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:17 am

The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

Post by _Daheshist »

Many of you may know that from 1848 until 1978, all Mormon presidents and apostles taught the following:

*There was a War in Heaven, and two-thirds of the spirits fought for Jesus, and one-third for Lucifer. The two-thirds became humans on Earth, and the one-third became demons (without bodies).

*Some of the two-thirds were "less valiant" (lazy) and as punishmen they were born into the lineage of Cain.

*Cain was a white man, son of Adam and Eve, but became the first Negro after the LORD set a "mark" upon him, because he killed Abel. He married his sister, and she became Negro number 2. They became the parents of the Negro race.

*Ham married a Cainite woman who was already pregnant. Her firs child was Canaan (not the son of Ham, but of a Negro/Cainite man). The Canaanites became the black African race.

*Negroes are Cainites, and Canaanites, and cannot receive the priesthood in moral life. They will go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants.

This was called "THE CURSE OF CAIN DOCTRINE". It was an official doctrine of the Church for 130 years. Anybody says otherwise, they are lying (and many do) or they are repeating a lie they think is the truth, and they don't know better.

The origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine stems ultimately from Paracelsus: a Catholic mystic who lived (I think) in the 14th century. This doctrine was picked up by the Pratt brothers, who taught it to other apostles (including Brigham Young). Brigham first rejected it, but came to accept it after a black/Indian Elder named William Cary seduced a number of white Mormon women in Nebraska. He claimed he was the reincarnation of Adam, and each one of them was "Eve" reincarnated. After that, Young taught the Curse of Cain doctrine.

In June 1978, bowing to internal and external threats (the U.S. Government was threating to end all Federal grants to BYU students, and threatening to yank BYU's academic licenses---this we know for sure--rumor says that the Federal government was even threatening to yank the Church's tax-exempt status). Also, the Church was having trouble finding priesthood-leaders in Brazil; since most "white" Brazilian men have at least one Negro ancestor. Anyway, Kimball prayed and received a "Revelation" to allow Negroes the priesthood (by "revelation" it means he made a decision, prayed about it, and got a "good feeling" in his bosom about it). The rest is history.

Is there any "truth" to the Curse of Cain Doctrine? Mormons, not wishing to be tought of as "racists" say "No!" I will say there is "some" TRUTH to it, and will explain that in this thread.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Many of you may know that from 1848 until 1978, all Mormon presidents and apostles taught the following:



You have a number of errors in your outline above. First not ALL LDS presidents and apostles taught the concept that Negroes were descendants of Cain. Nor did all teach that spirits less valiant in the pre earth life. Some taught both of these things, but not all.

*There was a War in Heaven, and two-thirds of the spirits fought for Jesus, and one-third for Lucifer. The two-thirds became humans on Earth, and the one-third became demons (without bodies).


Essentially correct.

*Some of the two-thirds were "less valiant" (lazy) and as punishmen they were born into the lineage of Cain.


Actually the scriptures teach that valiant spirits were foreordained to lead as prophets or some other call. LDS leaders have carried that idea further to postulate that the positions that we were born into in this life may be based on our valiancy in the pre earth life. SOME, not ALL, LDS leaders postulated and taught that perhaps those spirits born black and thus restricted to the priesthood were really less valiant.
*Cain was a white man, son of Adam and Eve, but became the first Negro after the LORD set a "mark" upon him, because he killed Abel. He married his sister, and she became Negro number 2. They became the parents of the Negro race.


I am not sure I have ever heard it that way but I guess that is the line of thinking.

*Ham married a Cainite woman who was already pregnant. Her firs child was Canaan (not the son of Ham, but of a Negro/Cainite man). The Canaanites became the black African race.


Can you reference this to some source for me?


This was called "THE CURSE OF CAIN DOCTRINE". It was an official doctrine of the Church for 130 years. Anybody says otherwise, they are lying (and many do) or they are repeating a lie they think is the truth, and they don't know better.


Of course anyone who disagrees with you seems to be lying.
_Daheshist
_Emeritus
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:17 am

Re: The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

Post by _Daheshist »

JASON: You have a number of errors in your outline above. First not ALL LDS presidents and apostles taught the concept that Negroes were descendants of Cain. Nor did all teach that spirits less valiant in the pre earth life. Some taught both of these things, but not all.

DAHESHIST: Not all Prophets or Apostles spoke of of the Curse of Cain in General Conference, but all who spoke in General Conference about why blacks were denied the priesthood, said it was because of the Curse of Cain Cain.



DAHESHIST: Some of the two-thirds were "less valiant" (lazy) and as punishmen they were born into the lineage of Cain.

JASON: Actually the scriptures teach that valiant spirits were foreordained to lead as prophets or some other call. LDS leaders have carried that idea further to postulate that the positions that we were born into in this life may be based on our valiancy in the pre earth life. SOME, not ALL, LDS leaders postulated and taught that perhaps those spirits born black and thus restricted to the priesthood were really less valiant.

DAHESHIST: All who spoke or wrote about the subject as to why Negroes were banned, referred to sins committed in the pre-existence. NONE (zero) Mormon leaders who spoke on the subject, until only in recent years, ever spoke against the Curse of Cain Doctrine. Cain was a white man, son of Adam and Eve, but became the first Negro after the LORD set a "mark" upon him, because he killed Abel. He married his sister, and she became Negro number 2. They became the parents of the Negro race.

JASON: I am not sure I have ever heard it that way but I guess that is the line of thinking.

DAHESHIST: Yes, that is what Brigham Young and every Church president or apostle who spoke on the subject taught. Ham married a Cainite woman who was already pregnant. Her firs child was Canaan (not the son of Ham, but of a Negro/Cainite man). The Canaanites became the black African race.

JASON: Can you reference this to some source for me?

DAHESHIST: I will when I find it again.This was called "THE CURSE OF CAIN DOCTRINE". It was an official doctrine of the Church for 130 years. Anybody says otherwise, they are lying (and many do) or they are repeating a lie they think is the truth, and they don't know better.

JASON: Of course anyone who disagrees with you seems to be lying.

DAHESHIST: Wrong! This is what YOU did to ME until recently! :lol: I'm saying that many Mormons who know better DO LIE ABOUT IT (and they DO), but many younger Mormons are not lying, but only repeating what they were told.
_Daheshist
_Emeritus
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:17 am

Re: The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

Post by _Daheshist »

A Daheshist View of the Curse of Cain Doctrine:

1) The Curse of Cain Doctrine is TRUE, but it applies to the QAYIN (Cainites) of Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Yemen. They are a wondering tribe of blacksmiths who have a "mark" of protection on their foreheads. If one Qayin is killed, seven will avenge his death. Jethro, the father of law of Moses, was a Qayin. The Qayin are not black-skinned, but are Arabs with the same skin color as other Arabs. They are also called the "Sleb". They acknowledge that Qayin is their first father, and that they must wander because the ground does not yield fruit to them; so instead of farming they must be blacksmiths (like Tubal Cain) and take their goats to where they may find new grass.

2) Negroes (black Africans) are not in any way related to the Qayin.

3) Adam and Eve were not first human beings on Earth, but the first of a new "race" of mankind. In Hebrew AWDAWM means AW ("to show"), and DAWM ("blood"); to blush. Only one race can 'blush' (show blood in the face).

4) When the Sun was smaller and coller, Venus was like Earth, and the Earth was like Mars is today. Human spirits lived on Venus for millions of years. Venus had prophets as the Earth does. Those who followed those prophets constituted two-thirds of all spirits that lived on that planet. Those who did not follow the prophets composed one-third.

5) Our spirits existed on Mercury billions of years ago, then Venus, now Earth. After Earth, then Mars, and so on, as the Sun expands outward. Those spirits which were "evil" and rejected the Law of God on Venus were punished by coming to Earth with a black skin, as the Qur'an says:

"The Mujrimoon [polytheists,criminals,etc.] will be known by their marks (black faces), and they will be seized by their forelocks and their feet." (55:41) Hilali/Khan Translation

In Arabic "Mujrimoon" means "Those who steal the fruit of the labor of others". For example, many blacks in the United States get free food, free lodging, free medical care, free education. They do not work or pay tax. The money to support them comes mostly from white tax-payers, who supply 95% of all taxes. Thus, they are Mujrimoon; meaning they steal the fruit from the labor of others.

It says in a Saying of the prophet Muhammad:

"Allah created Adam when he created him. Then He struck hiso wn right shoulder and took out a white race as if they were [white] seeds, and He struck his own shoulder and took out a black race as if they were [black] coals. Then He to those on His right side [whites] 'To paradise and I don't care'. He said to those on His left [blacks]: 'to Hell-fire and I don't care.'" Mishkat 5.3.117

The meaning of this is that Allah took the good spirits and put them into Adam, and put him in Paradise (Salalah---in what is now Oman), and he took the wicked spirits and put them into "Hell-Fire" which meant the part of the Earth where the Sun blazed like fire (i.e. sub-suharan Africa/southern India/Australia). Yes, the Garden of Eden still exists! It is called "Salalah". Look it up.

The black races have always been subjugated by the white race (i.e. in colonial Africa, in Australia, in South India by the Aryans, etc.). This is the meaning in the Qur'an where it says that the criminals will be known by their marks (black faces), and they will be dragged by their heads and their feet; meaning their chiefs will be subjugated and they themselves will become slaves or servants.

6) In Daheshism, everything that happens is for a "reason". The Law of Karma (punishment and reward) is operative upon all things. So, if the black Africans are enslaved, it is "bad karma". And bad karma must be "earned" just like good karma. If I kill 1000 people, then in the next 1000 lives I will be killed. This is my reward for my karma. And so, those who "stole the fruit of the labor of others" on another world, were destined to be born into spots upon this planet where the Sun is burning hot (i.e. Hell-fire). The Earth is Hell.
_Paracelsus
_Emeritus
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:29 am

Re: The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

Post by _Paracelsus »

Daheshist wrote:The origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine stems ultimately from Paracelsus: a Catholic mystic who lived (I think) in the 14th century.


CFR
(http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/*any_subpage* doesn't count)

I wasn't ever catholic mystic.

I was physician, chemist, and alchemist.
I was surgeon, physichian, metallurgist, mineralogist, botanist, astrologer, toxicologist, psychotherapist, chirurgist, and philosopher.

I wasn't ever catholic mystic. Got it?

Particularly, I was humble, one man of no pretension.

........... Paracelsus Theophrastus Philippus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim

I am sorry, folks. Truth rulez !
I know of nothing poorer
Under the sun, than you, you Gods!
...
Should I honour you? Why?

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe : Prometheus
_Daheshist
_Emeritus
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:17 am

Re: The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

Post by _Daheshist »

I never said the Catholic Church accepted Paraclesus' theories, in fact, the Catholic church several times officially rejected the concept of pre-Adamites. They always insisted that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

Was Paracelsus "Catholic"? Well, everybody born when he was born, in the country he was born in, was born
Catholic. But I doubt he was a true believer. He was probably a "Sunstone Catholic"; similar to a Sunstone
Mormon today. Highly intellectual. Untrusting of the foolish simpleton beliefs of true believing Catholics. He
was highly influence by Hermeticism.

Paraclesus said that whites descended from Adam and Eve, and Negroes descended from apes. That is in fact, what Daheshism teaches as well (although whites are not pure-Adamites, but a mixture of Adamites and pre-Adamites). So, we all have a little "ape" in us; just Negroes far more than the rest of us.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/02/080207163811-large.jpg

Paracelsus did convert a few intellectual Catholic monks, one who (Giodarno Bruno) taught that the Sun was the center and that the stars were other Suns, circled by planets some of them inhabited. That monk was burned at the stake for being a heretic (i.e. teaching false teachings such as the earth revolved around the Sun and the stars were
other suns that had planets around them and some of those planets had inhabitatants). What he taught went against what the Catholic Church taught as "Gospel Truth" at that time. He too believed that Negroes were from apes, but whites from Adam and Eve. So, he was burned alive.

Paracelsus did teach what I claimed he did:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wy7M5d ... es&f=false

Paracelsus wrote:
Daheshist wrote:The origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine stems ultimately from Paracelsus: a Catholic mystic who lived (I think) in the 14th century.


CFR
(http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/*any_subpage* doesn't count)

I wasn't ever catholic mystic.

I was physician, chemist, and alchemist.
I was surgeon, physichian, metallurgist, mineralogist, botanist, astrologer, toxicologist, psychotherapist, chirurgist, and philosopher.

I wasn't ever catholic mystic. Got it?

Particularly, I was humble, one man of no pretension.

........... Paracelsus Theophrastus Philippus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim

I am sorry, folks. Truth rulez !
_Nomomo
_Emeritus
Posts: 801
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:42 am

Re: The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

Post by _Nomomo »

Daheshist wrote: Paraclesus said that whites descended from Adam and Eve, and Negroes descended from apes. That is in fact, what Daheshism teaches as well (although whites are not pure-Adamites, but a mixture of Adamites and pre-Adamites). So, we all have a little "ape" in us; just Negroes far more than the rest of us.

Have you anything to back up this claim that Daheshism teaches this? I am afraid your saying so is not adequate. Please do provide the evidence to support your claim this is a Daheshist teaching.
The Universe is stranger than we can imagine.
_Seeker
_Emeritus
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

Post by _Seeker »

Daheshism teaches no such thing.

However, each person (regardless of race) has (possibly) a link to an animal, insect, and vegetable.

How?

Via what is known in Daheshist theory as "Spiritual Fluids." (Kindly Note: The notion of Spiritual Fluids in Daheshism is different than anything that might have preceded it) http://www.daheshville.com/forum/showthread.php?t=723

Simply stated: each person was at one time or another (to some degree) linked to an animal. So, and looking at it from a purely (and true) Daheshist perspective, a person might have Spiritual Fluids from a Shark and a Rhino, a bee, and a carnation flower.
That does not mean, however, that he directly evolved from them. Not in Daheshism anyway...

And, furthermore, not unless it is via Divine Revelation, it would be impossible to confirm who was linked to what animal etc.

Sure, some people are tall like Giraffes, or walk like bears... and may even have features resembling a bulldog, and most probably (please humor me) there might be a measure of truth in that. But it would be impossible to confirm.

And even so. So what?

A person might have a spiritual fluid in common with a dog... that neither means he will be loyal... nor chase after the mailman...

Furthermore, a king might have a spiritual fluid in common with a bug, whereas a homeless man could have spiritual fluid from a Lion... We can't generalize an say that we "evolved" from this or that animal.

The fact of the matter is (again, from a Daheshist perspective, and even though it may seem like it, and this is a long discussion) there is no such thing as "Evolution."

By the way. Where are the "prototypes." ?

I mean, no one asks the question of whatever happened to all the mishaps along the way: Where are the apes with three arms and 4 legs... ? You know... The "mistakes" that "evolution" should have produced, as it (allegedly) perfected the formula... until, bingo, one day, "Man."

Again, that is a tangent.

So, back to our issue at hand:

A person — any person — could have (for example) Spiritual Fluids that have existed within the collective that might have constituted a Rhino and a Shark...

That means that any one of us could have Spiritual Fluids from an (sure... why not) Ape.... or a horse... or any other animal... including insects, and even plants!

But, one thing for sure, the above claims that are allegedly Daheshist in nature are not true.

Therefore, there was no such thing as "evolution from an animal."

There is one known instance where there was an exception to this rule: Bees.

According to Daheshism: Bees were a race a giants who were punished. So they were transformed (instantly) into Bees. And (still within the realm of that Daheshist Myth) these (now) Bees had one job: To serve the Queen. That Queen, it turned out, was a woman who was (I believe, and I have re-check the original story) brutally murdered by the giants. Evidently, "GOD" (or whatever it is we refer to as "GOD") punished them by turning them into bees instantly.

Anyway, I hope this addresses some of your concerns and thank you for reading.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Seeker wrote:I mean, no one asks the question of whatever happened to all the mishaps along the way: Where are the apes with three arms and 4 legs... ? You know... The "mistakes" that "evolution" should have produced, as it (allegedly) perfected the formula... until, bingo, one day, "Man."

We see deformations and mutations in humans and animals all the time.

Anyway, I hope this addresses some of your concerns and thank you for reading.

Yep, that addresses all my concerns.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Jorge7100
_Emeritus
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: The Origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine....

Post by _Jorge7100 »

The person passing himself off as "Daheshist" is not accepted by any known Daheshist as a person who accurately reflects Daheshist values, beliefs or doctrine. If you spend any time reading his comments, you will never get a true picture, insight, or perspective of Daheshism. He distorts the doctrine of almost every belief he espouses. Read his comments with care. He may well be Satan in disguise.
Post Reply