January 30, 2012

Hey Dad,

  Thanks for all of your letters!   It was great to get all the updates.  Dont feel bad about missing out last week.   It's fine.  Im sorry you didnt get any elk though. 
   I heard about Mitt getting creamed in SC.  That sucks.  Im hoping things go well for him in Florida.  Im sure that Oddbjørn will let me know all about  it tomorrow. 
   As for the doctrinal question, I think I found most of my answer.  I studied it out for a week, and have concluded that both Ham and Canaan must have been guilty of something.  One LDS book said something about Ham stealing noahs garment when they were leaving the arc, but because Ham had been blessed the curse fell on his son.  One Jewish site said that the verbiage in the text implies that either Ham seduced noahs wife and canaan was the result, or that Ham sodomized noah while he was drunk (they justify this by comparing the state of the world before the flood and the influence it had on Ham)  There was another site that suggested that Ham castrated Noah.  Whatever the case, Ham did something wrong that warranted Noahs anger.  And if Ham was punished, and fell away to any degree, it would have influenced his son Canaan to also be less active and not worthy of the priesthood...which would have ten trickled down through generations.  I also know that after noah divided the lands between his sons that canaan settled in a land that belonged to someone else, thus making him a slave in that land automatically.  maybe that was the curse.  i also know that in Canes circumstance, the curse of cain was that he was cut off from the presence of God.  The mark of cain was different.  So maybe that is the same type of curse.  Also, Abraham opened a dispensation, so it makes sense that pharaoh didnt have the priesthood at that time, even though he knew the traditions of the patriarchal order and stove to live it, he didnt have the authority.  And there was also something about select groups only being allowed to hold the priesthood, and not until 1978 were all worthy men allowed to hold the priesthood. 
    Wow, that was a lot of information.  This apparently has been debated for over 2000 years.  But, as far as I can conclude, both Ham and Canaan did something wrong that drove the seed of that line away from the opportunity to hold the priesthood and it carried over into the next dispensation.  Any additional insights would be appreciated.  My one question left still is Why, if God is unchanging, did He not allow all worthy men to hold the priesthood in earlier dispensations?  it's nothing that ill lose sleep over, im sure theres a reason.  But if you have any ideas, they would be appreciated.
    I hope all of that made sense.  It was kind of a mish mash.  Sorry.
   Well, have fun in Costa Rica,  I hope you get to decompress, soak up some sun, and throw down a few books. 
-Elder Rasmussen