"Mark of Cain"

[Dee23]

Please help me understand something. I've been a member of the church for almost 8 years and my life has truly changed because of the gospel. I am the only member of my family. I am an African American woman and my parents are African American as well. My father doesn't understand why, as a child he couldn't join the LDS church because of his being African American. I am not sure what the exact specifics are. I am just wondering to help explain this to my father. Thanks...

Dee23 in WA

[BenRaines]

African Americans have never been denied membership in the church. If someone told your father he could not have joined the church in his childhood they are mistaken.

He would not have been allowed to hold the Priesthood until 1978. He would have to ask the Lord why he couldn't.

Ben Raines

[darrel]

Thank you Dee23 for your question. While serving a mission in North Carolina we had opportunities to teach African American brothers and sisters when they requested it. We never felt that we could not baptize them or they could not join the church.

I have heard of many faithful members who joined before the proclimation on the priesthood who were not discouraged in their faith because of not being able to hold the priesthood.

I was excited when the priesthood was extended to all worthy male members. Thank you for your being a part of this marvelous work of the restoration in the latter days.

[Aelswyth]

Please help me understand something. I've been a member of the church for almost 8 years and my life has truly changed because of the gospel. I am the only member of my family. I am an African American woman and my parents are African American as well. My father doesn't understand why, as a child he couldn't join the LDS church because of his being African American. I am not sure what the exact specifics are. I am just wondering to help explain this to my father. Thanks...

Dee23 in WA

I would like to point out that it is not any kind of official Church doctrine that the "mark of Cain" was black skin. That is an old Protestant notion that has been around for centuries and unfortunately was also brought into the Church by many of the members; I cannot find the paper now (it may have been a FAIRwiki article) but I read something clearly demonstrating that the mark of Cain was a sign on the forehead, and had nothing to do with skin color.

Yes, there are instances in Scripture where people have their skins changed from light to dark, but the reason is explicitly stated as being to set them apart from another group, so that they would not intermarry. This may sound like racism in modern times, but up until fairly recently in human history people usually didn't marry outside their own ethnic group, for multiple reasons, including religion, culture-specific beauty standards, and even plain old xenophobia. So, of course, God accomplished his purposes.

ANYWAY, as the previous answer states, there has also never been a policy of denying membership to African-Americans, only up until the late 70s black men could not hold the priesthood.

Here is an excellent FAIRwiki article about the matter, containing numerous links to specific topics and questions.

EDIT: I found something along the lines of what I've read in this address given by Armand L. Mauss at the 2003 FAIR Conference:

""Indeed, it was apparent to many of us even four decades ago that certain scriptural passages used to explain the denial of priesthood to black members could not legitimately be so interpreted without an a priori narrative.3 Such a narrative was gradually constructed by the searching and inventive minds of early LDS apologists. With allusions to the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, the scenario went something like this : In the pre-existence, certain of the spirits were set aside, in God’s wisdom, to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain’s fratricide and obeisance to Satan, and then again later by Ham’s lèse majesté against his father Noah. We aren’t exactly sure why this lineage was set apart in the pre-existence, but it was probably for reasons that do not reflect well on the premortal valiancy of the partakers of that lineage. Since the beginning, the holy priesthood has been withheld from all who have had any trace of that lineage, and so it shall be until all the rest of Adam’s descendants have received the priesthood, or, for all practical purposes, throughout the mortal existence of humankind.

"Neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot be so interpreted unless we start with the scenario itself and project it retrospectively upon the scriptural passages in proof-text fashion. For if we set aside the darkened glass of this contrived scenario, we see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals.4 The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharoahs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription.5 At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham’s son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed!6 There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It’s true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black,7 but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time.8 There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.

"Much of the conventional "explanation" for the priesthood restriction was simply borrowed from the racist heritage of nineteenth-century Europe and America, especially from the slavery justifications of the antebellum South.9 Understandable–even forgivable–as such a resort might have been for our LDS ancestors, it is neither understandable nor forgivable in the twenty-first century. It is an unnecessary burden of misplaced apologetics that has been imposed by our history upon the universal and global aspirations of the Church. Until we dispense with it once and for all, it will continue to encumber the efforts of today’s Church leaders and public affairs spokespersons to convince the world, and especially the black people of America, that the Church is for all God’s children, "black and white, bond and free, male and female."""

The rest of the article can be found here.

[Doctor Steuss]

I think you might want to pick up a copy of the "Blacks in the Scriptures" DVD. It might help answer some of your questions. The price is a little steep, but I think it's worth it.

Blacks in the Scriptures - Black / Negro Mormon LDS history & Doctrine

[Moksha]

Here is an excellent presentation of Blacks and the LDS Priesthood. It is with Darius Gray, Margaret Young and John Dehlin.

http://www.mormonstories.org/blacksandtheldspriesthood/

[darrel]

Another interesting tidbit is the Research Dr. Stewart on 72languages.com has done on the Jeridites who came to this contenant from the Tower of Babal, shows them to be decendents of Ham. Ancient American magazine shows stones from the Burrows cave discoveries which show figures carved with features showing bone structure and hair styles similar to our African Amarican brothers and sisters.:)

[prisonchaplain]

Another irony is that the mark of Cain was not a curse, but a blessing. God promised to protect him from those seeking revenge. Later in Genesis we read that the descendants of Cain becomes skilled tradesmen.

[darrel]

Isn't it interesting that Joseph Smith was able to include a history of the Jaradite People in the Book of Ether, one of the books in the Book of Mormon,

These people were very advanced in their civilization having been saved from the confounding of languages at the tower. They must have been very favored of God for him to lead them here.

Hmmm How could Joseph Smith have done that? That knowledge was not available to him at the time he translated the Book of Mormon and yet more and more of the things He translated are being shown to be true.

Maybe He was a true Prophet. Maybe the Book of Mormon is True. Maybe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the Restored Gospel sent to prepare us for the Second coming.

I think it is.:)

[Dee23]

Thanks everyone for the replies! I will definitely look into those resources! I will definitely let my dad know as well--as I know he's interested in the church...and so is my mother (yayayayayay!) Again I really appreciate everyone's responses!!

D in WA

[Maya]

Nothing to say Aleswyth said it all!! You go Dee! Hi from very pink Mailis...

[darrel]

We have a wonderful Aferican American member in our area who is proclaiming the gospel to many through music and song. Has anyone ever heard of Gladis Knight.:)

[tubaloth]

Why This Web Site :: Blacklds.org

[WillowTheWhisp]

We have a wonderful Aferican American member in our area who is proclaiming the gospel to many through music and song. Has anyone ever heard of Gladis Knight.:)

:) She came to our Stake Centre a little while ago and bore her testimony. It was beautiful. It was such a pleasure and a privilege to meet her and shake her hand (we British do hand shaking a lot!)

[Moksha]

I think the struggle between Cain and Abel was part of an allegorical story involving the new agrarian lifestyle versus nomadic hunter-gathering. There must have been conflict within the tribe over the choice of which mode to follow.

The usage of this supposed curse to justify regretable practices is unfortunate.

[a-train]

Let me just remind everyone here that Mormons NEVER believed that blacks were to be deprived of the right of Priesthood because of the mark of Cain.

-a-train

[VoluntaryPrison]

I think I'll make reference to a book you may have heard of. It's called History of the Church, and was written by none other than Joseph Smith. When he and others went to Missouri the first time, he wrote in the History the following:

The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience over the boundary of the United States, wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; several of the Lamanites or Indians--representative of Shem; quite a respectable number of negroes--descendants of Ham;…. (HC 1:191).

You may recall that Shem was the ancestor through whom Abraham (and thus Israel and Joseph) traces his lineage, and Ham being the cursed son of Noah. Ham was the son who marrie Egyptus, and therefore "preserved the curse in the land" (see Abraham 1:21-25). Many assume that this curse means black skin, but the evidence in the Standard Words on that assumption is shaky.

A couple years later, Smith had to clarify the Church's position on slavery. His letter on the topic is quite interesting, and I encourage you all to read it in it's entirety. In this letter, Smith stated that the Northern States had no right to try and tell the Southern States that they shouldn't own slaves. He then advises the members of the Church to avoid the conflict, suggesting that slavery would abolish itself in time in a much more peaceful manner than what history records. He then writes the following paragraphs.

After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South will cry out against me as uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings from the ancients upon the matter as the fact is uncontrovertible that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude. "And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant" (Gen. 9: 25-26).

Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will it be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel. (HC 2:438)

First, just to be clear, the Church isn't really in favor of slavery, but it appears that the Church was willing to defer to the laws of the nation at the time. In this same letters, Smith states that those proclaiming the Gospel should not deny slave holders the Gospel, but slave holders should be taught that their slaves should be treated with compassion and kindness. If you want to hear more of my thoughts on the Church and slavery, that's an entirely different thread.

The other thing of interest in this quote is it attributes the African-American race not to Cain, but to Ham, and Canaan. There was a land of Canaan before the flood, but the scriptures don't definitively tie the Canaanites to Cain. In Moses, however, we do read that, "the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barreness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Moses 7:8). The evidence seems more consistent with black skin being a mark set on the Canaanites for their wickedness as a people than a curse placed on Cain himself.

Lastly, Smith stated the the curse of servitude had not been lifted from the descendants of Ham at this time. Part of me wonders if this is not the line used to justify the myth that the Priesthood would not be given to African Americans. However, such interpretation is wrong. I have never come across any statement in the Church records that implies that those of any heritage should be denied the Priesthood when they accept the Gospel.

Consider further that slavery was a huge political issue in Missouri. Since the majority of converts to the Church were coming from the North East (abolitionist states), the pro-slavery people in Missouri felt somewhat threatened. When the persecutions started, some leaders in the Church tried to put as much distance between the Church and African Americans as possible in order to alleviate the persecution (to no avail, I might add). Some of their comments have been rejected by the Church, such as one appearing in the Morning and Evening Star, entitled "Free People of Color", stating that African Americans shouldn't be baptized. The comment was corrected in the same paper about a year later.

Okay, I suppose that's enough for now. In summing up, according to Smith, the African Americans are descendants of Ham. There is inconclusive evidence that the dark skin came through his wife, Egyptus who was a Canaanite. But the real curse on the race came through Ham's son, Canaan, for Ham's own rebellions. Did I leave any loose ends?

[VoluntaryPrison]

I forgot to put the reference to the article "Free People of Color." It's in HC 1:377.

[jiggie]

A point to consider: As far as I am aware, people of African descent were always allowed to join the Church, all the way back to Joseph Smith times. However, the males could not hold the priesthood.

Another point to consider: If you look at history as a whole, blacks are far from being singled out for not being allowed to hold the priesthood. As I understand it, in ancient Israel, only the Levites held the priesthood...other Israelites of other tribes could not hold the priesthood. And as we near the time of Christ, certainly Gentiles (non-Israelites) were not allowed to have the priesthood. We see God widening the privileges of the priesthood beginning with the gospel being sent to the Gentiles in the time of Peter and Paul. Here in the last days we have seen another progression in expanding the privileges of the priesthood to every worthy male in the world, if they desire to have it and take appropriate steps.

[Palerider]

go and visit.....Why This Web Site :: Blacklds.org

[Palerider]

you need to visit the web site titled.........BlackLDS.org

[Palerider]

if you google the above mentioned title I gave you ...there is alot of info that will help you......:)

[Hemidakota]

I think I'll make reference to a book you may have heard of. It's called History of the Church, and was written by none other than Joseph Smith. When he and others went to Missouri the first time, he wrote in the History the following:

You may recall that Shem was the ancestor through whom Abraham (and thus Israel and Joseph) traces his lineage, and Ham being the cursed son of Noah. Ham was the son who marrie Egyptus, and therefore "preserved the curse in the land" (see Abraham 1:21-25). Many assume that this curse means black skin, but the evidence in the Standard Words on that assumption is shaky.

The curse was not the skin pigmentation but a mark [GEN 4:15] to separate Cain decedents from those of Seth.

People need to look past the skin pigmentation and know, we are still brothers and sisters in this mortality, as it was in the spirit world.

[the Ogre]

I never knew about the site Why This Web Site :: Blacklds.org. I really enjoyed it. I have Margaret Young's books and we read them as a family.

When I was a teen returning to Utah, I didn't think there was any racism here, but when I brought my Korean wife here (we've since divorced) I discovered otherwise. It is a sad state when there can be so much hate here.

My best friend is married to a woman from the DR and there have been a few problems for her, but none of those were in the church rather when they were shopping or eating out, but she says those are the same people who are racist everywhere else. She thinks Utah will be a great place to raise her kids.

I think the Ham, Shem, and Japeth discussions to be irrelevant. It no longer matters. There is a lot of work to be done to counter the work of the antis who protray us as racists. We as members need to be open about our racist past here in Utah and work hard to be sincere in or denunciation of those who are or were racist.

It will take time.

There is a kid a Provo High who often calls my youngest a chink. I know his parents and am surprised to hear that their son uses language. Racism comes from the home in most cases. We have to make sure we are not being racist in our speech, attitudes, and behavior. The current political discussion regarding illegal immigration sounds racist at times and it disgusts me when it is found here (Rep. Buttars from Sandy for example).

[Adeipho]

... but I read something clearly demonstrating that the mark of Cain was a sign on the forehead, and had nothing to do with skin color.

Please find that because I have never heard any difitave answer to what the mark of Cain was.

...Yes, there are instances in Scripture where people have their skins changed from light to dark, but the reason is explicitly stated as being to set them apart from another group, so that they would not intermarry.

Wouldn't you think that Cain's mark was also to set him apart? Why not black skin? And perhaps the Lamanites would have also recieved black skin but Cain's linage already had that mark so they recieved brown?