I spent a considerable amount of time discussing this with several friends in the church, and we came up with the following solution to how to teach this section:

Abraham and Isaac did not want their sons to “marry in the covenant” because, until Jacob’s children (i.e. the Twelve Tribes of Israel) enter the narrative, there was no covenant people in the Abrahamic Dispensation. What Abraham and Isaac wanted were for their sons to marry women who would accept the covenant with the Lord (i.e. Jehovah). Rebekah and Rachel (and Leah) were all willing to accept this covenant with their husbands. Previous to their marriages, they had been raised in idolatrous families, but they recognised the truth when they were taught it, and they accepted it.

As far as why Abraham and Isaac had the sons’ wives selected from the near kinsmen, it was simply a matter of maintaining endogamous marriages – to wit, Abraham wanted his son Isaac to marry a Hebrew woman, not a Canaanite woman. Isaac counseled his sons to marry Hebrew women, not Canaanite women. Esau rebelled and married Canaanites, but Jacob, being the faithful son, followed his parents’ counsel and married a woman from among the Hebrews.

Please let me know if you think this is a valid explanation of what is going on in Genesis at this time!

It turns out that they ran some risk of that even by marrying within the extended family (Genesis 31:19, 31-34), but apparently the risk was not as great. Presumably the household idols of Laban were something the family believed it could deal with, in contrast with the child sacrifice of the worship of Moloch. Since we don’t hear of those idols later, it appears that the problem disappeared (at least for a while).

The previous lesson says to teach Abraham’s desire for Isaac to marry the daughter of a kinsmen as such: “Why was Abraham concerned that Isaac not marry a Canaanite woman? (Genesis 24:3–4; Canaanites worshiped false gods. If Isaac married someone of another faith, he would marry outside the covenant. Abraham wanted Isaac to marry a woman who would help him remain faithful. Only in this way would the priesthood remain with Abraham’s descendants and would they receive the special blessings the Lord had promised to Abraham and his seed.)” [Primary 6, Lesson 12]

I find this incredibly frustrating, as there is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures to indicate this is so. In fact, the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that the “covenant” is with Abraham first, is then passed on to his son Isaac (but not Ishmael), and then from Isaac goes to Jacob (but not Esau). At the time of the Patriarchs, there was no covenant people the way we have it now. The covenant people, by the time Jacob received the covenant, consisted of five people: Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, and Jaco. Can someone help me out here? What am I supposed to teach about why Isaac and Jacob both married near relations?

There must have been some sense in which the family shared the same faith. The book of Abraham implies that Abraham’s father had given up idolatry and turned to the Lord, though he later returned to idolatry (Abraham 2:5). We know that Lot, Nahor’s son, went with Abraham when he left Ur, which suggests that the family was on good terms, which in turn suggests that they shared the same religion. So Nahor at least knew about Abraham’s faith and perhaps had once shared it. (But the fact that Nahor didn’t leave Ur when Abraham, Abraham’s father, and Lot did suggests otherwise.)

So, though Nahor at least knew about Abraham’s faith in Yahweh, the textual evidence for Isaac and Nahor sharing the same faith is slim, particularly at the time when Isaac wants to marry Rachel. Clearly he isn’t by the time that Jacob and Rachel leave (Genesis 31:19) and it appears that neither was Rachel (Genesis 31:32-34).

Perhaps the problem with Canaanite religion was not just that it was polytheistic–everyone but Abraham and his immediate family seems to have been–but that they also practiced human sacrifice.

In fact, the answer you gave to my question in #3, which is close to my own, is directly contradictory. The manual basically talks about Laban being an inspired member of the church in Issac story, but someone who fell away by the time Jacob came for a wife.

To read the text assuming Laban is of the same religion as Abraham seems to a huge assumption. I am not saying the reading is wrong, but I am saying the text is not as cut and dry as stated by the manual.

“Intermarriage with the Canaanites, a lethal threat to Abraham’s identity and destiny, is strictly forbidden in Deut. 7:1-4. The prohibition is extended to intermarriage with other groups in Ezra chs. 9-10.”

My problem with Elder McConkie’s answer is that, as we see later, Rebekah’s brother, Laban, is a practicing polytheist. Perhaps he was an aberration in the family, but there’s nothing in the text to suggest that he was.

The text suggests that Abraham’s interest is in a person of the same family rather than in a worshipper of the Lord. He has his servant swear by the Lord, not to bring back a woman who worships the Lord, but to bring back one who is of his household.

The question about why Abraham needed to marry someone within his own family is one that is always brought up during SS lessons. The answer I hear is almost always related to what
Elder Bruce R. McConkie, said about the subject in Mormon Doctrine.

McConkie believes that Abraham had “entered into celestial marriage” which meant that the sealing keys were upon the earth to perform enternal marriage. Therefore, Isaac could not enter into an etneral marriage covenant unless he married a righteous woman of the faith. This woman would also need to be prepared for celestial marriage (pg. 13).

Now I do not doubt that Issac was sealed to his wives. However, was that really the explanation Abraham would have given Issac at time? And when Issac married Rebekah was a sealing performed right off?

This is something I have wondered about, and I am sure the topic will come up on Sunday when this lesson is taught.

For this promise to be fulfilled for a person, they have to be on God’s side, so it is a promise that implies prophetic authority. If someone curses a prophet, they are the prophet’s enemy and an enemy to righteousness, so they are cursed by their own behavior. If someone blesses a prophet, it shows they respect the prophet and revere him as such, and of course following the prophet brings blessings.

This idea can be seen elsewhere in the Bible, such as where Balak wants Balaam to curse Israel because he knows that whoever Balaam curses will be cursed, although he doesn’t quite know what’s behind it.

Perhaps that is just a modern failure to understand the binding, irreversible nature of a sworn oath in OT times, but these notes have helped me consider another possibility.

Is it possible that the raiment and skins that Jacob put on was the birthright clothing that Jim speculates Esau may have sold for pottage? Is it perhaps this clothing that Isaac recognizes and then remembers/realizes that Esau has sold his birthright and therefore that Jacob is the more deserving of the blessing he pronounces?