Comments on: What is the Mormon Church’ stance on the Mark of Cain?

By: Mr. Berry

Mr. Berry — Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:44:00 +0000

Oddly Joe, all that you have referenced above is only in LDS scripture and the re-write of the bible by Joseph Smith. In fact the curse of Cain was nothing until around the late 1700’s when the Southern Evangelicals started this false narrative to justify slavery. They concluded that the mark of Cain was black skin and had evil motives for doing so. But the bible never indicates what the mark really is and therefor applying black skin is speculation at best. The entire curse of Cain application to black Africans is nonsense promoted by the Southern Baptist to justify their position on slavery and then it was further complicated by Joseph Smith. His rewrite of the bible said the mark of Cain was a black skin. The Southern Baptists have completely disavowed the curse of Cain and have fully admitted and disclosed that this was a false doctrine created for evil purposes. The LDS has disavowed the curse of Cain application to African blacks and the theory that somehow people of color were less valiant in the pre-existence. But they have yet full apologize for this mistake.
So, the idea was first introduced by Southern Evangelical protestants and then borrowed later by the early Mormon Church. It was a mistake, plain and simple. The modern Mormon church has disavowed this position, yet members hold onto this position because it was taught for nearly 140 years. It will take another 100 years to weed it out completely.
Holding on to the idea that white is better, as evidenced by what you said above and the white and delightsome in the Book of Mormon, is not a worthy Christian attribute. This line of thinking should be condemned at every level, both in and out of the Church.

By: Steven Jensen

Steven Jensen — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 01:27:00 +0000

You said what I was taught and believe also. Even tho moot now.

By: A Lee

A Lee — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 05:02:00 +0000

That is a beautiful interpretation! I love it.

By: A Lee

A Lee — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 05:01:00 +0000

It was commonly taught in the 19th century in various Christian denominations that the Mark of Cain was Black Skin. That is how Southern Christians justified slavery. As the early church leaders came from Protestant backgrounds, it would make sense that they also took that belief. We know for sure that black skin came from Ham’s descendants because of the Book of Abraham because of Egyptus who went to Africa. But was that curse because of Ham and not Cain? I really don’t know. Does anyone know?

By: Kristi DeFuchs

Kristi DeFuchs — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:02:00 +0000

In reply to doc.

That’s true, doc, but it doesn’t say that the blackness was the Mark of Cain, nor does it say that all black people were his descendants. We know that the Mark of Cain was a divine blessing given to Cain (see Genesis 4:15), but nowhere is the mark described.

There is also no reason to believe that Cain’s mark was related to the darkness of many of the Lamanites. In fact, Hugh Nibley argued in his quintessential *Lehi in the Desert*—and a careful reading of the Book of Mormon strongly supports this theory—that the Lamanites’ dark skin was a distinction common in Lehi’s Bedouin culture, that it was not a direct result of sin but rather the city dwellers’ standard description (even to this day!) of the tanned and dirty skins of those who dwelt in the wilderness.

Hope that helps!

By: doc

doc — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 03:36:00 +0000

To say that this issue is not found in Church Doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is incorrect, please see: Moses 7:22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

By: Kristi DeFuchs

Kristi DeFuchs — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:38:00 +0000

I don’t know that the message does imply that, Joe. It states that we don’t know the origins of the restrictions, only how they were lifted.

As for Brigham Young, of course he was racist, by today’s standards, but he lived in a time when the concept of racism hadn’t even been invented, yet. (Seriously. It didn’t even exist in 1913: http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters.) Even if it had been, though, he was a mortal human being with mortal imperfections. Except in those areas where God taught him otherwise, Brigham Young—like Joseph Smith and every other person in history—understood things according to how he learned them. That doesn’t make him less of a prophet; it merely makes him human, just like every other prophet.

Hope that helps! :-)

By: JJ

JJ — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 09:07:00 +0000

thank you Gramps.
We really love you. You always take time to try to help people the best you can, to help people understand truth, and to answer questions. You are very good at this, it is a gift.
Thank you for helping be a wonderful instrument and resource for good.

God bless you Gramps.