Curse of Cain "never a doctrine of the Church"?

[_daheshism]

Today, many younger Mormons have never heard of the "Curse of Cain Legacy". Neither their parents nor their Seminary teachers tell them anything about it. When asked, their parents often change the subject, or say, "The blacks weren't ready for the priesthood yet" and leave it at that. Most Mormons are very embarassed about the Curse of Cain Legacy, and do not like talking about it.

Many older Mormons will concede that they were taught this as young people, but will add: "It was never a doctrine of the Church!" This is false!

The historical evidence is quite clear and unmistakable, that the Curse of Cain Doctrine was always referred to as "a doctrine of the Church" by Church leaders.

On October 8, 1947, Dr. Lowry Nelson, a Mormon professor at the University of Utah, wrote to The First Presidency and said:

"The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad.I do not believe God is a racist." (Mormonism and the Negro, p.28)

The First Presidency wrote back and said:

"We feel very sure that you are aware of the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men, however well founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all sincerity, that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning. You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can reorient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed Word of God." (Mormonism and the Negro, p.28 emphases added)

The First Presidency issued this letter on July 17th, 1947:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel [i.e. the Priesthood]." (Mormonism and the Negro, p.47 emphases added)

On August 17th, 1948, the First Presidency issued it's official Statement by The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the Negro Question which said in part:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become Members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.
***
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."
***
Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the Priesthood. In the meantime, those of that race who receive the testimony of the Restored Gospel may have their family ties protected and other blessings made secure, for in the justice of the Lord they will possess all the blessings to which they are entitled in the eternal plan of Salvation and Exaltation." (Mormonism and the Negro, pp.16-23 emphases added)

In 1951, the First Presidency issued another statement (signed by all three Members):

"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate...Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is known. The few known facts about our pre-earth life and our entrance into mortality must be taken into account in any attempt at explanation.
Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world." (First Presidency Statement, 1951)

The 1951 statement calls the "Less Valiant Doctrine" by the term "another doctrine of the Church" and furuther states: "Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is known."

In 1954, Elder Mark E. Peterson, a Mormon apostle, said:

"Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood. Are we prejudiced against him? Unjustly, sometimes we are accused of having such a prejudice. But what does the mercy of God have for him? This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection." (Race Problems--As They Affect the Church, August 27, 1954, address at CES convention at Brigham Young University)

In April of 1963, Joseph Fielding Smith (then an apostle and later Church President) wrote the following:

"According to the doctrine of the Church, the Negro, because of some condition of unfaithfulness in the spirit--or pre-existence, was not valiant and hence was not deied the mortal probation, but was denied the blessings of the Priesthood." (JFS Letter to Joseph H. Henderson, April 10, 1963)

Joseph Fielding Smith was the grand-nephew of Joseph Smith Jr. He was the grandson of Hyrum Smith, the brother of Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith was the 10th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--in the mid and late 1960s.

In October of 1963 William B. Arthur, the editor of LOOK magazine, in an interview with Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormon apostle) asked if the Church would change its doctrine on the Negro. Joseph Fielding Smith replied:

"The Negro cannot achieve priesthood in the Mormon Church. No consideration is being given now to changing the doctrine of the Church to permit him to attain that status. Such a change can come about only through divine revelation, and no one can predict when a divine revelation will occur." (LOOK magazine, Oct. 22, 1963, p.79 emphases added)

In 1967 a reporter for Seattle magazine asked N. Eldon Tanner (then 2nd Counselor in The First Presidency) if the Church would change its policy of not ordaining Negroes to the Priesthood. President Tanner responded:

"The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the Priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God." (Seattle magazine, Dec. 1967, p.60 emphases added)

In 1972 LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball declared:

"A special problem exists with respect to blacks because they may not now receive the Priesthood. Some Members of the Church would justify their own un-Christian discrimination against blacks because of that rule with respect to the Priesthood, but while this restriction has been imposed by the Lord, it is not for us to add burdens upon the shoulders of our black brethren. They who have received Christ in faith though authoritative baptism are heirs to the Celestial Kingdom along with men of other races." (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.237 emphases added)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an Apostle of the LDS Church, wrote in the 1960s his very popular book Mormon Doctrine which states:

"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty."

"The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings." (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).

[_Polygamy-Porter]

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseof ... ndix_c.htm

[_bcspace]

Much of the OP here is not taken from doctrinal works published by the Church. But yes, the Church does continue to have a doctrine on the Priesthood ban; that is divine in origin, that it was from the time of Adam, and that we are now in the "long promised day", etc. The rest of the doctrine and proof of these are left to the student since the student persists in using non doctrinal references.

[_bcspace]

Actually, the Church does have doctrine on Cain's curse:

Moses 5:36–39. Cain Was Cursed

Part of the curse Cain received for killing Abel was that the ground would no longer “yield unto [Cain] her strength,” and that he would be a “fugitive and a vagabond” (Moses 5:37). A fugitive is a person who is running from the law, and a vagabond is someone who has no home. Cain was also driven out “from the face of the Lord” (Moses 5:39). The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “The power, glory and blessings of the Priesthood could not continue with those who received ordination only as their righteousness continued; for Cain also being authorized to offer sacrifice, but not offering it in righteousness, was cursed. It signifies, then, that the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise their Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 169).

Moses 5:39–40. A Mark Was Placed upon Cain

It must be noted that the mark that was set upon Cain was not the same thing as the curse that he received. The mark was to distinguish him as the one who had been cursed by the Lord. It was placed upon Cain so that no one finding him would kill him. A parallel that illustrates the difference between a mark and a curse might be the account of the Lord placing a mark and a curse upon the Lamanites and their posterity (see 2 Nephi 5:20–24; Alma 23:16–18). It should be noted that the curse was based on individual disobedience and that by obedience to God the curse was removed, although the mark may not have been removed immediately. Eventually, however, the mark was also removed from some (see 3 Nephi 2:12–16).

http://www.LDS.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-moses?lang=eng

[_harmony]

Actually, the Church does have doctrine on Cain's curse:

Moses 5:36–39. Cain Was Cursed

Part of the curse Cain received for killing Abel was that the ground would no longer “yield unto [Cain] her strength,” and that he would be a “fugitive and a vagabond” (Moses 5:37). A fugitive is a person who is running from the law, and a vagabond is someone who has no home. Cain was also driven out “from the face of the Lord” (Moses 5:39). The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “The power, glory and blessings of the Priesthood could not continue with those who received ordination only as their righteousness continued; for Cain also being authorized to offer sacrifice, but not offering it in righteousness, was cursed. It signifies, then, that the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise their Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 169).

Moses 5:39–40. A Mark Was Placed upon Cain

It must be noted that the mark that was set upon Cain was not the same thing as the curse that he received. The mark was to distinguish him as the one who had been cursed by the Lord. It was placed upon Cain so that no one finding him would kill him. A parallel that illustrates the difference between a mark and a curse might be the account of the Lord placing a mark and a curse upon the Lamanites and their posterity (see 2 Nephi 5:20–24; Alma 23:16–18). It should be noted that the curse was based on individual disobedience and that by obedience to God the curse was removed, although the mark may not have been removed immediately. Eventually, however, the mark was also removed from some (see 3 Nephi 2:12–16).

http://www.LDS.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-moses?lang=eng

So... what was the mark?

[_bcspace]

So... what was the mark?

So far, one can only speculate. My personal opinion is that the Lamanite example is the best speculation.

[_Drifting]

So... what was the mark?

So far, one can only speculate. My personal opinion is that the Lamanite example is the best speculation.

The Book of Mormon says a skin of blackness is the mark of the curse upon the Lamanites but bcspaces ears would drop off if he typed that...

[_bcspace]

The Book of Mormon says a skin of blackness is the mark of the curse upon the Lamanites but bcspaces ears would drop off if he typed that...

I actually put some of those very words up in several posts already in other threads here such as this one which you have participated in so you can't fail to miss it:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23204

It is the official doctrine of the Church on 2 Nephi 5:20-25 found here:

3. What was the mark or sign set upon the
Lamanites?

It is also explained in verse 21 that so “they might
not be enticing unto my people [the Nephites] the
Lord did cause a skin of blackness to come upon
them [the Lamanites].” It would appear that this was
done to limit the spreading of more wickedness.
Later Alma suggested this same motive when he
explained that “the skins of the Lamanites were
dark . . . that thereby the Lord God might preserve
his people, that they might not mix and believe
in incorrect traditions” (Alma 3:6, 8). Throughout
scripture we find warnings of the Lord not to marry
unbelievers (see Deuteronomy 7:2–3; 2 Corinthians
6:14); the result of doing so was often that the
righteous were turned away from the Lord (see
Deuteronomy 7:4; 1 Kings 11:4; D&C 74:5).
Some people have mistakenly thought that the
dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the
curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972)
explained that the dark skin was not the curse:
“The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so
that they could be distinguished from the Nephites
and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark
skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself ].
The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the
Lord. . . .
“The dark skin of those who have come into the
Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the
curse. . . . These converts are delightsome and have
the Spirit of the Lord” (Answers to Gospel Questions,
comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66],
3:122–23).

https://si.LDS.org/bc/seminary/content/library/manuals/institute-student/book-of-mormon-student-manual_eng.pdf