In the first part of Genesis 9, we see some discussion of Noah and God talking over what's going to happen now that the flood is done. In Joseph Smith's commentary that we call the Joseph Smith Translation, more detail is given about this, in the form of covenants God made with Noah and his children.
Then, in v. 18, the topic shifts, and the sons of Noah who "went forth of the ark" are listed: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And, for some reason not specified in the verse, it notes that Ham is the father of Canaan.
I'm pretty sure that Noah had other children, both before and after the flood, but these were the three who went into the ark with him and the three who, came out of the ark with him and rebooted the human race -- and the covenants of God with members of the human race.
V. 19 asserts that descendants of Noah's three sons spread throughout the earth.Then in v. 20 we read that Noah got started on cultivating the ground again, in v. 21, he made wine from some of the grapes.
And, uncharacteristicly, in v. 21, we read that he drank too much and "was uncovered" in his tent. One might ask why it is worth noting.
And we often interpret v. 22 to talk about Ham being a peeping Tom and a gossip.
V. 23 is generally taken up as demonstrating the respect which Shem and Japheth had for their father, where v. 22 is often taken as Ham not having had respect for Noah.
In v. 24, we have Noah recovering from his drunkenness, but perhaps not the overhang because he got upset at his younger son for having, we assume, seen him in his disgraceful condition, and, in v. 25, cursing, not Ham, not all of Ham's children, but Ham's son Canaan.
But a lot of things are left out of the story. I'm going to try to tie loose threads together and see if it reveals a little more. I may end up tying the wrong threads together, so I hope nobody takes this as gospel truth.
I've pointed at the main loose threads I'm interested in, above:
- Why does Canaan get so much press in here? He is the only one of Noah's grandchildren mentioned in this chapter, but it doesn't really say what he did other than that he bore the brunt of Noah's disapproval.
- Why did Ham happen to see his father in his embarrassing state, and why did Ham himself not simply get something to cover his father with?
- Noah is elsewhere recommended as a righteous man, on much the same level with Enoch, Seth, and Adam. Why is he then so arbitrarily angry with his son Ham, and why does he then vent his anger against is grandson, Canaan? Where is the patience of the righteous here?
It would have been helpful to us if Joseph Smith had been allowed or instructed to tell us more about this, but there is a lot of the Bible that Joseph Smith didn't seem to have the time to deal with. And this chapter already gets quite a bit of treatment for the covenants God made with Noah, which are definitely more important.
So, say Canaan had more to do with the story. Say he was something of a practical joker, and had spiked this batch of punch, and was thus the reason Noah had overheated and passed out. And say he had something of a grievance against his grandfather because Noah had not allowed Ham to teach him certain mysteries that Noah thought he wasn't ready for yet.
Yeah, pure speculation.
(I'll note that others have followed this path of reasoning, and acknowledge the influence of one Ronald L. Dart on my interpretation here.)
But, all too often, youngsters, young men in particular, confuse certain mysteries of Godliness with talismans of power to be arbitrary -- not power to be kind or righteous, but power to be arbitrary. We see that to a certain degree in others of Ham's descendants, particularly when the first Pharoah attempts to imitate the patterns of government Ham had learned from Noah, and then later Pharoahs turn to idolatry. Reference Abraham 1, particularly noting around vs. 25-27 or so for this.
So, say Canaan had slipped his grandfather a Micky Finn, and then had snuck in and stolen Noah's priestly vestments.
Ham became aware of this and consulted with his brothers, and Shem and Japheth felt that it was at least advisable to give Noah something to cover himself with.
(And those who pass on the story feel that it's important to assert that the elder brethren were more careful to observe forms of respect than the youngest. Note that Ham is listed in Moses 8 as being the youngest, even though the Bible tends to list him second everywhere.)
And when Noah woke up, we look carefully at v. 24 for the antecedent to "his" whose younger son had done something, and maybe the antecedent isn't Noah, but Ham. And that would explain why Noah then explains to the grandson, not Ham, that before he can access the real power of God's Priesthood, he's going to have to learn that it is not in talismans.
And Canaan refuses to listen to anything other than Noah's displeasure, interpreting this as having been cursed.
Yes, I'm interpolating details here. The specifics don't matter much, but I'm guessing the missing details are something like my above interpolations.
One thing I am certain of is that we rely way too much on pre-existing short-circuits in our understanding.
Ham himself is nowhere that I know of listed as being under a curse. In many places, his righteousness is noted. Only certain, and not all, of his descendents are noted as being under a curse.
Canaan is specified in this chapter as being placed under a curse concerning the Priesthood of God, and I'm inclined to believe the reason was more related to Canaan himself than to Ham's indelicate handling of his father's embarrassment.
(And this is as far as I should go with the topic in this post.)
