Cain


Guest Scott
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm just curious as to what others think on this topic.

Why did God place the mark on Cain as a protection so he couldn't be killed?

Genesis 4:15 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.

Was this out of compassion?    Why did the Lord place the mark on Cain as a protection?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on this part of the story is that we should not seek vengeance. Additionally, mortal probation is supposed to be the time in which people repent. If God were to allow Cain to be killed, it would terminate his time to change his heart. God was not giving up on Cain, and the mark placed upon him was a reminder to the righteous that they should not give up on him either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, could be a translation error. Perhaps he was put under God for our protection. Or maybe protection is a rough translation of 6 other rough translation of the original meaning he was put under custody of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The descendants of Cain become metal workers, wood workers and musicians. Not rich. Not powerful. Yet, useful. Likewise, with Adam & Eve. They took the fruit, yet continued to offer sacrifices to God. They taught their children to do likewise. Out of ashes, beauty, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scott said:

I'm just curious as to what others think on this topic.

Why did God place the mark on Cain as a protection so he couldn't be killed?

Genesis 4:15 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.

Was this out of compassion?    Why did the Lord place the mark on Cain as a protection?    

Was it a "protection" or simply an outward sign of the curse, and what brought about the curse? Were there individuals who would seek out retribution for Abel's death? Possibly, these are the individuals Cain was saying would kill him (vengeance for their brother's death). A mark and a curse that allowed Abel's brethren to recognize that the punishment God already affixed is more than what they could do -- God already dealt the blow (so to speak) -- can you deal a better punishment than God?

 Cain is Perdition, so there is no hope for him (repentance) in this life nor the after life. He, Cain, will rule over Satan in outer darkness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with @Vort - some has been lost in the translation.  Cain was the first to covenant with Satan and establish a order of "darkness" rather than "light" as an institution among the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.  The terms of light and darkness are symbolic to worship of G-d and worship of Satan.  It is my personal belief that G-d placed a "mark" upon Cain to warn others of Cain's covenant with Satan.  The term "seven" in anent Hebrew scripture symbolism was not a number but something of eternal consequence.  I believe the warning of vengeance is not G-d's vengeance but the vengeance of Satan.  Thus the warning is that by seeking vengeance one submits to the order of darkness and becomes under the rule of Satan.

There is a theory that Cain was condemned to wander the earth until the end of time (somewhat like a translated being) to assist those that establish "Secret Combinations" and to play a role in the final conflict between good and evil at the end of time.  There are vague references and rumors but I am not aware of any creditable information to this legend. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

There is a theory that Cain was condemned to wander the earth until the end of time (somewhat like a translated being) to assist those that establish "Secret Combinations" and to play a role in the final conflict between good and evil at the end of time.  There are vague references and rumors but I am not aware of any creditable information to this legend. 

The Traveler

The theory comes from David W. Patten. The perpetuation of this theory comes from "The Miracle of Forgiveness" by which Patten's experience was given again. In many cases, two apostles, could easily be seen as "credible" sources. So we have then questions with this idea also:

1) Would David W Patten (apostle) create a fictional story to tell the members when he returned home? (We already know what anti-Mormons would say)

2) Was the story shared added to by those who wrote his biography?

3) Would an apostles experience be "credible"?

That would be one heck of a lie from David W. Patten, an apostle. We aren't talking about personal interpretation of scripture, which everyone has (including the Lord's anointed). We are talking about experience.

The question one could ask themselves, how is this any different than the first vision, or simply other experiences from past apostles and prophets? In the end, one day we will meet Elder Patten and we may "see" and "hear" the truth ourselves. At this moment though, haven't received any personal revelation/witness myself, but it is an interesting story given by an apostle and ultimately shared in one of the most read books in our Church.

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

The theory comes from David W. Patten. The perpetuation of this theory comes from "The Miracle of Forgiveness" by which Patten's experience was given again. In many cases, two apostles, could easily be seen as "credible" sources. So we have then questions with this idea also:

1) Would David W Patten (apostle) create a fictional story to tell the members when he returned home? (We already know what anti-Mormons would say)

2) Was the story shared added to by those who wrote his biography?

3) Would an apostles experience be "credible"?

That would be one heck of a lie from David W. Patten, an apostle. We aren't talking about personal interpretation of scripture, which everyone has (including the Lord's anointed). We are talking about experience.

Here's what FAIR says on the matter:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Does_Cain_still_roam_the_earth,_and_does_this_account_for_stories_about_"Bigfoot"%3F

Apparently it was a third hand account made decades later and wasn't written by Patten himself.

That doesn't mean it can't be true though, but personally I don't believe the story.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here's what FAIR says on the matter:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Does_Cain_still_roam_the_earth,_and_does_this_account_for_stories_about_"Bigfoot"%3F

Apparently it was a third hand account made decades later and wasn't written by Patten himself.

That doesn't mean it can't be true though, but personally I don't believe the story.

Which would then fall under #2. Was the account provided accurate (according to memory), or did the person giving the account add details that weren't part of the original story?

The part that gives credence to the story is it being quoted by another apostle who later became the prophet, by which has been published in a book that has been read by many in the Church. I would be more likely to side with President Kimball in that it is more likely true than not.

I also found this site interesting with regards to Cain and David W. Patten. I am not too much in the Big Foot concept, but interesting enough David W. Patten isn't the only person with such an experience from this article. The third-hand account from the granddaughter is intriguing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 2:00 PM, MarginOfError said:

My take on this part of the story is that we should not seek vengeance. Additionally, mortal probation is supposed to be the time in which people repent. If God were to allow Cain to be killed, it would terminate his time to change his heart. God was not giving up on Cain, and the mark placed upon him was a reminder to the righteous that they should not give up on him either.

 

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 2:27 PM, Vort said:

The history of Cain and Abel is much older than our Old Testament. I suspect much has been lost in the transmission of the story through the millennia. Not sure what, if anything, we can rightfully infer from this story.

True.

There are those that will still speculate...of course.

If we feel Brigham Young had an understanding of the Law (meaning the Laws of Heaven) then we would accept his idea of what some may term as Blood atonement.  What this entails is if one shed the blood of another, he can only be redeemed if his own blood is shed on the ground.

This was one of the reasons Utah supported the Death Penalty for many years from what I understand, and the preferred method normally was one that allowed the murderer's blood to touch the ground in death.

It can also be seen as one of several reasons why someone who has murdered another before they even learn about the Church and find out about the gospel may not be eligible for baptism (and needs approval from a higher authority normally than the Missionary District or Zone leader interview).

If we even accept this idea, we then would also have to accept the idea that this is a Law that has been around from the beginning.  It is one of the many things restored. 

IF, once we accept that, it would be seen that this law may be known to Adam and his descendants at the time.  They would know that the ONLY way that Cain could be redeemed from first degree murder would be is if he died himself and his blood fell to the ground.

This mark, then, would be a protection to Cain against any killing him, even later as a vagabond upon the earth. 

In addition, it could also be seen as a mark to let others who were part of the Lord's domain that they should not mix their seed, or intermarry with Cain (and possibly, Cain's seed).  It was to show a difference between he who had rebelled and those who remained faithful.  He was marked as a servant of another, who wholly subsumed their heart to the adversary rather than the Lord and as such was an enemy to all the Lord represented and those who followed him.

Cain did not just kill Abel, he killed Abel in an attempt to thwart the Plan of Salvation.  He knew that the Lord was seen to come through Abel's line of genealogy (if Abel continued), and thus by Killing Abel was attempting to stop the Lord from ever being born.  It was a calculated action of physical and spiritual warfare of the most dire evil.  The Lord provides a way (and backups even I imagine, if the story of Seth is any indication) and thus the plan could not be thwarted so easily, but the intent and desire was there and the heart to try to destroy this law and win the war for the adversary ruled over Cain...thus why his punishment was so dire.

He COULD have repented still most likely, but as a Son of Perdition, he had no desire.  He had chosen his side at that point and I feel that he was fully committed to it.  However, this is the time for men to prepare to meet their maker, and as such, the mark could give him more time to repent if he should ever choose to, even though most likely he would never choose that path with how hard his heart had become and how consumed by his master the adversary he was.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My unpopular opinion (my husband and I debated this topic non-stop while driving from Florida to Ohio and never came to an agreement):

The mark of Cain is a reminder to all that the judgment of life vs death can only be made by God.  Therefore, taking a life (not all killing is murder) can only be done through God's judgment and not Man's.

The debate between my husband and I is on capital punishment.  I am not anti-capital punishment.  I am anti-killing without God's authority and I do not believe that secular governments have God's authority.  My husband disagrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Which would then fall under #2. Was the account provided accurate (according to memory), or did the person giving the account add details that weren't part of the original story?

The part that gives credence to the story is it being quoted by another apostle who later became the prophet, by which has been published in a book that has been read by many in the Church. I would be more likely to side with President Kimball in that it is more likely true than not.

I also found this site interesting with regards to Cain and David W. Patten. I am not too much in the Big Foot concept, but interesting enough David W. Patten isn't the only person with such an experience from this article. The third-hand account from the granddaughter is intriguing.

 

When I said creditable - I was talking about methods that I understand as truth.  For spiritual things, G-d has promised that there will always be two or more witnesses.  The same holds for physical truths.  But there are many truths that are not made manifested or of which we only have a glimpse.  I personally am under the impression that there is very little of the vast cadre of truth available to us mortals.  There are many questions that I have not found answers for concerning Cain and especially if he is still wandering physically on the earth and how was it that Cain conversed directly with G-d and not through channels of priesthood authority and keys?  It does not mean the Cain epoch is true or false or that I should believe or disbelieve - It falls squarely in the category of "I don't know" because there are critical elements missing.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

My unpopular opinion (my husband and I debated this topic non-stop while driving from Florida to Ohio and never came to an agreement):

The mark of Cain is a reminder to all that the judgment of life vs death can only be made by God.  Therefore, taking a life (not all killing is murder) can only be done through God's judgment and not Man's.

The debate between my husband and I is on capital punishment.  I am not anti-capital punishment.  I am anti-killing without God's authority and I do not believe that secular governments have God's authority.  My husband disagrees.

I am of the opinion that capital punishment is not the same as judgments of life and death - though they are related there are some critical differences.  I also think the belief that taking a life only through G-d's judgment is two simplistic and incomplete.  There are too many examples where individuals are faced or forced to make a decision concerning who should live and who should die on their own without G-d's direct or unquestionable instruction.

When it comes to the authority of governments - often is seems that things are viewed too simplistically.  By revelation we are to be "subject" to laws and governments - even when we may personally disagree.  The scriptural symbolism of Law and justice is a two edged sword that both protects and punishes.  I personally have unresolved problems with the concept of taking a human life as punishment.  The prime example is when Nephi was commanded to kill Laban.  I do not understand (yet) why G-d would require Nephi to kill Laban when G-d could have easily done so himself in a much more humane manner (which defines a merciful and compassionate G-d).   I faced this conundrum personally while in the military when I received orders that would take me into combat.  After much prayer and fasting I believe I received instruction to follow my orders and take human life - which I determined I would do.  I later worked with a friend that suffered PDSD from killing children being forced and used as weapons. 

For me, it seems that whenever I come to a simple conclusion concerning important things - I come face to face with an experience that greatly complicates it.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Moses 5 gives a pretty clear account of Cain's deeds. God did put a mark on Cain, but I suspect that it was Cain's idea. It is fitting of a weasel to ask for such things. My personal perspective on it is simply that God allows us to make our choices and we have to live with the consequences of them. If blood atonement would have fixed the problem for Cain, he chose not to die thus sealing his fate as perdition. God only gave Cain what he wanted leaving Cain to carry the burden of his crime for eternity.

We often read the scriptures that say ask and receive, knock and it will be opened, seek and find and assume that it is only for those who ask for good things and seek for truth, but I believe it goes both ways, though, with the exception of Cain, most of those who seek bad things don't ask God to help them do it. They just do it and maybe ask for others to help them do it, but it seems apparent to me, that whatever we seek, we'll find and whatever we ask for, we'll get (I don't mean onetime shots at winning the lotto or getting a job we want, I'm talking about the general direction in life we want to take.) What one's heart truly desires, they will obtain. Cain got what he asked for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2019 at 4:27 PM, Vort said:

The history of Cain and Abel is much older than our Old Testament. I suspect much has been lost in the transmission of the story through the millennia. Not sure what, if anything, we can rightfully infer from this story.

Moses 5:40 says "And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance
shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any
finding him should kill him
".

A blessing of protection is inferred in that verse.

But the word mark is linked back to Alma 3:7 - "And their brethren sought to
destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them,
yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women
"

What do you infer by the story in Alma?  Is the mark on Cain a curse or a blessing
of protection?

Thank you,

Gale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GaleG said:

Moses 5:40 says "And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance
shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any
finding him should kill him
".

A blessing of protection is inferred in that verse.

But the word mark is linked back to Alma 3:7 - "And their brethren sought to
destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them,
yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women
"

What do you infer by the story in Alma?  Is the mark on Cain a curse or a blessing
of protection?

Thank you,

Gale

It is my understanding that the use of a "mark" on Cain or upon Laman and Lemuel is a symbolic reference to a "warning" rather than a blessing or curse.  Thus it deals with being loyal to one's covenant with G-d and not necessarily a reference to blessings or curses to Cain (or others).  Symbolically in ancient scripture the number 7 is a reference to eternal or divine things - this does not mean that such vengeance is intended to protect Cain or others from divine action but rather intended to protect those that wish to remain loyal to G-d and their covenant with Him from transgressing divine law or breaking their covenants with G-d.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A warning, or a mark, is only any good if its meaning is clear. There's no point in putting a stop sign at an intersection if people don't know that that sign means to stop. As illustrated by the multiple possible meanings expressed in this thread, the meaning of the mark on Cain is unclear and open to multiple interpretations. It therefore seems to me that as a warning, or mark, or indicator, it has failed to serve its primary purpose. 

I'm also a bit curious as to why the mark persisted for so long amongst Cain's descendants. Surely the desire to kill Cain in revenge for his killing of Able ceased long ago but the mark has persisted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

A warning, or a mark, is only any good if its meaning is clear. There's no point in putting a stop sign at an intersection if people don't know that that sign means to stop. As illustrated by the multiple possible meanings expressed in this thread, the meaning of the mark on Cain is unclear and open to multiple interpretations. It therefore seems to me that as a warning, or mark, or indicator, it has failed to serve its primary purpose. 

I'm also a bit curious as to why the mark persisted for so long amongst Cain's descendants. Surely the desire to kill Cain in revenge for his killing of Able ceased long ago but the mark has persisted.

Many exact truths (especially of religious nature) have become obscured and argued with the passing of time.  The warning concerning murder for gain or revenge has never changed within the culture of the faithful righteous (as it has with DC and Marvel comics).  And yet secret combinations (which could be argued to be the "mark" or blight of Cain)  prosper in all nations even today.  And so we can ask ourselves - who are the decedents of Cain?  Could it depend on "physical" or "spiritual" DNA?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is my understanding that the use of a "mark" on Cain or upon Laman and Lemuel is a symbolic reference to a "warning" rather than a blessing or curse.  Thus it deals with being loyal to one's covenant with G-d and not necessarily a reference to blessings or curses to Cain (or others).

Did Cain's wife and their children get a mark placed on them for protection?

The curse upon Cain is pronounced in Genesis 4:12.  "When thou tillest the ground,
it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt
thou be in the earth
".

If this curse passed unto other peoples, what people groups inherited this curse?

Thank you,

Gale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, GaleG said:

Did Cain's wife and their children get a mark placed on them for protection?

The curse upon Cain is pronounced in Genesis 4:12.  "When thou tillest the ground,
it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt
thou be in the earth
".

If this curse passed unto other peoples, what people groups inherited this curse?

Thank you,

Gale

I understand this as two different issues.  The mark is a warning to the covenant "children" of G-d to not participate in Secret Covenants (or Combinations) with Satan.  I believe this is a covenant to murder for gain or power.  As Cain did with Able and as Laman and Limual attempted to do with Nephi.   There is a curse for all that participate in such covenants with Satan that has a direct reflection on planting and harvesting (being able to sustain one's self without having to rely on being a fugitive and vagabond to obtain the good and fruits of the earth.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, GaleG said:

Did Cain's wife and their children get a mark placed on them for protection?

Neither the Bible nor the Book of Moses state that the mark was passed on to Cain's posterity. There are non-LDS traditions that such a mark was 1) black skin and 2) passed on to his posterity to Ham's posterity (because it's supposed that Ham's wife descended from Cain), but neither of these are strongly supported in scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

I understand this as two different issues.  The mark is a warning to the covenant "children" of G-d to not participate in Secret Covenants (or Combinations) with Satan.

What do you believe is the mark Cain received from God?  Would you show me one scripture
where a person other than Cain received a mark for committing a secret murder or
combination?

Thank you,

Gale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cain studied gongfu, which in the Adamic tongue was wushu, later lending a variant of its name to a wonderful pork dish. He was an average student, but well-liked by his gongfu master, who called him "Grasshopper". Or maybe that was the master's pet grasshopper; Cain was never sure.

One fine day, Cain's gongfu master was brutally murdered. Cain considered following the ugly path of mindless revenge, returning blood for blood. In the end, Cain found himself unAbel to follow through with his vengeful plans, and instead moved to the Old West and spent his time gently beating up bad guys. It's a magical story of redemption, of love of self and others.

Also, while he was yet young, Cain found out there had once been someone else with his same name who was a real jerk. So Cain changed the spelling of his name. But I have retained the original spelling so as to avoid confusion.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share