DiscussMormonism.com

Can someone confirm or correct my understanding?

The Bible addresses a mark on Cain. But it NEVER suggests this was a change of skin color or that the mark was passed on to Cain's descendants. Correct?

Prior to the prodution of the Book of Mormon and at the time of the Book of Mormon, likely because of racism long passed down, many believed the "mark" of Cain as referenced in the Bible was a skin color and used it as a basis to mistreat dark-skinned people. Correct?

The Book of Mormon contains a curse from God on the Lamanites that is a skin of blackness that was passed on to descendants (and at one point, the Church believed Native Americans were the descendants because, among other things, they had the curse of dark skin). Correct?

So, in the end, the Book of Mormon writers simply adopted a racist view of the time and put it in the Book of Mormon as scripture and now the Church is stuck with what was obviously a mistaken view of some racists regarding the Bible when the Bible said no such thing. Correct?

Wow. It seems like such a simple way to discard the Book of Mormon as mere writings of men of a certain time. How is the Church going to get out of this one down the road? It seems every Mormon who believes in the Book of Mormon has to believe God, at least in one instance in the Americas, used the darkening of one's skin as a "curse." Is this a ticking time bomb.

Please correct or add to my understanding on these points.

I feel that your understanding of the situation is correct.

It appears that the church plans to handle it by de-emphasizing it. They have made some slight changes to some of the chapter headings about the skin curse in the Book of Mormon. Of course, the actual text and teachings remain the same, so far.

It's hideous. We'll see how long it takes for it to die.

mms wrote:Can someone confirm or correct my understanding?

The Bible addresses a mark on Cain. But it NEVER suggests this was a change of skin color or that the mark was passed on to Cain's descendants. Correct?

If I recall correctly, it was a mark on Cain per se, no mention that it was to extend also to his descendants.

Genesis 4 wrote:
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

See also Book of Moses 5:40; cf. Book of Moses 7:22.

mms wrote:Prior to the produ[c]tion of the Book of Mormon and at the time of the Book of Mormon, likely because of racism long passed down, many believed the "mark" of Cain as referenced in the Bible was a skin color and used it as a basis to mistreat dark-skinned people. Correct?

Funny that line of thought. The mark on Cain was so that he could be easily identified and no one else would kill Cain, lest they be punished by god 7 fold. That marking, then, was so that others would not run afoul of this protection of Cain, and receive 7 fold punishment if they killed him. Those that might have believed the mark, and curse, passed on to Cain's descendants and have perhaps mistreated black persons (particularly killed them) would by their own belief be subjecting themselves to a penalty 7 fold from god.

mms wrote:The Book of Mormon contains a curse from God on the Lamanites that is a skin of blackness that was passed on to descendants (and at one point, the Church believed Native Americans were the descendants because, among other things, they had the curse of dark skin). Correct?

It does, well, it did. This has been softened. But for decades, this is exactly how the Book of Mormon read.

mms wrote:So, in the end, the Book of Mormon writers simply adopted a racist view of the time and put it in the Book of Mormon as scripture and now the Church is stuck with what was obviously a mistaken view of some racists regarding the Bible when the Bible said no such thing. Correct?

Mormons can be grateful for a forgiving membership that has let the Church use 'white-out' (pun intended) to soften the racism in the Book of Mormon.

mms wrote:Wow. It seems like such a simple way to discard the Book of Mormon as mere writings of men of a certain time. How is the Church going to get out of this one down the road?

Multiple simple ways.

mms wrote:It seems every Mormon who believes in the Book of Mormon has to believe God, at least in one instance in the Americas, used the darkening of one's skin as a "curse." Is this a ticking time bomb.

Please correct or add to my understanding on these points.

It could be very explosive in the next 75 days particularly.

Don't forget those racist gem of Mormon scripture:

Book of 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.

The seed of Cain were black, and segregated from the rest of Adam's descendants.

They need to make an addendum to the 2nd Articl of Faith. Right now it is an inaccurate portrayal of the last 150 years of Mormon Doctrine.

Article 2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

Should be changed to:

Article 2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression unless you are a descendant of Laman and Lemuel, then you and your progeny will be punished for their transgtressions with a dark skin curse for centuries that will make you dull to the spirit and a lazy, idle, and loathsome people. If you belong to the seed of Cain, you will also be punished for his transgressions and have a black skin curse and will not be able to hold the Priesthood for centuries until the Lord randomly deems the priesthood curse is satisfied.

Racer wrote:They need to make an addendum to the 2nd Articl of Faith. Right now it is an inaccurate portrayal of the last 150 years of Mormon Doctrine.

Article 2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

Should be changed to:

Article 2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression unless you are a descendant of Laman and Lemuel, then you and your progeny will be punished for their transgtressions with a dark skin curse for centuries that will make you dull to the spirit and a lazy, idle, and loathsome people. If you belong to the seed of Cain, you will also be punished for his transgressions and have a black skin curse and will not be able to hold the Priesthood for centuries until the Lord randomly deems the priesthood curse is satisfied.

I think, when the articles were originally written it went without saying that it was referencing things pertaining to white people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQFev9IX-70

Watch and please learn something folks.... The same things exist in the Bible.

Another interesting question is how come dark skinned people from central and south America got the priesthood before dark skinned people from Africa? Is the "curse" of Cain stronger than the "curse" of the Lamanites? And while we are at it, who the hell put a curse on the American Indian? I mean what did they do to piss off God?

Wilma Fingerdoo wrote:Another interesting question is how come dark skinned people from central and south America got the priesthood before dark skinned people from Africa? Is the "curse" of Cain stronger than the "curse" of the Lamanites? And while we are at it, who the hell put a curse on the American Indian? I mean what did they do to piss off God?

They tried to defend their homeland against the immigrants who God really wanted to own it.

Wilma Fingerdoo wrote:Another interesting question is how come dark skinned people from central and south America got the priesthood before dark skinned people from Africa?

Because they weren't of the same lineage....

The ban only applied to those of "African Descent", no matter the color. Some white members were denied the Priesthood or had it removed.

Blacks of the Islands, Central/South America, India, etc. WERE still given the Priesthood.
The issue had nothing to do with racism "by" the Church. If it had to do anything with racism, it was because of the racism against the black African, which note primarily ended the same period the ban was removed.

Is the "curse" of Cain stronger than the "curse" of the Lamanites? And while we are at it, who the hell put a curse on the American Indian? I mean what did they do to piss off God?

1. You clearly don't know what the "curse" was.... Why don't you read the Book of Mormon instead of quote mining it, and discover for yourself??? And please watch the video's I linked above.

2. "Lamanite" was a term used primarily in the Book of Mormon to refer to everyone "non-Nephite".
It was the Book of Mormon's term equivalent to the Bibles "Gentile". Thus, when LDS, the Book of Mormon's Title page etc. refers to "Lamanites", it's not simply and only referring to those descended from Laman/Lemual.

ldsfaqs wrote:The issue had nothing to do with racism "by" the Church. If it had to do anything with racism, it was because of the racism against the black African, which note primarily ended the same period the ban was removed.

You have no idea why or when the ban was instigated do you...?