"Mark of Cain"

[Elphaba]

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.:)

I admit I am not well-versed in the Book of Mormon, but saying Joseph had no knowledge of the Jaredites is proof the Book of Mormon is true is a straw man.

If he had written the book himself, writing about the Jaredites would be part of his fiction. So when you say he knew nothing about the Jaredites before he wrote about them and included them in the Book of Mormon, that doesn't prove anything.

In other words, Joseph didn't know about most of the characters in the Book of Mormon before he wrote it. What does that prove? Nothing.

Elphaba

[the Ogre]

In other words, Joseph didn't know about most of the characters in the Book of Mormon before he wrote it. What does that prove? Nothing.

Only that it was a translation and not a preplotted book, but then we all knew that anyway.

[Moksha]

... 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?

-------------------------------

I would think with the Church anxious to share their message with the entire world, that it would be wise to lose all traces of the skin curse nonsense. It smacks of racism through and through and would repel many pootential listeners who would otherwise share in our Gospel message.

[Elphaba]

Only that it was a translation and not a preplotted book, but then we all knew that anyway.

Not really. Joseph had years to put together a plot.

Arguing for or against the validity of the BoM is something I am not interested in at all. I have no position on it and am totally unversed, except for the basics.

I concede putting together a plot, which as I said, Joseph had years to do, and then writing it down in a short period of time are two different things.

Elphaba

[Hemidakota]

... 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?

The other unexplained mystery is the asian caper.

[darrel]

I admit I am not well-versed in the Book of Mormon, but saying Joseph had no knowledge of the Jaredites is proof the Book of Mormon is true is a straw man.

My point was to say that the evidences of the Book of Mormon people are being discovered to support Joseph Smiths translations.

If he had written the book himself, writing about the Jaredites would be part of his fiction. So when you say he knew nothing about the Jaredites before he wrote about them and included them in the Book of Mormon, that doesn't prove anything.

Fiction writers invent people places and events. My reference to the Jeradites was that the evidences discovered show them to be of black race.

In other words, Joseph didn't know about most of the characters in the Book of Mormon before he wrote it. What does that prove? Nothing.

Elphaba

In my opinion it is evidence that the truth af the Book of Mormon is supported by discoveries and evidences not known to Joseph Smith.

I include a challenge I use in my missionary work for you to consider.

You seem to be an intelligent capable person. Tell me if this describes a work of fiction.:)

This is the challenge the Book of Mormon makes to the World:

Produce a similar record under similar circumstances the following conditions would have to be complied with:

1. Write a history of an ancient people covering a period from 2200 B>C to 400 A.D.

2. Include the history of two distinct, separate nations along with histories of different contemporary nations or groups of people.

3. Describe their religious, economic, social, and political cultures and institutions.

4. Weave into their history the story of Jesus Christ and the pattern of Christian religion.

5. Consider yourself 23 years of age without formal school education.

6. Write this record on about 520 pages, with 500 words to each page.

7. You must never make any absurd, impossible or contradictory statements.

8. You must finish this record within 90 days and make no changes in the text. The first edition must last forever.

9. You must proclaim that this narrative is not fiction but sacred history.

10. You must invite the ablest scholars and experts to examine the text with care, to expose any flaws in it.

11. You must write this history on the basis of what you know now.

12. You must publish it in every nation to every kindred, tongue and people declaring it to be the word of God.

13. You must include within the record a marvelous and unigue promise, a way to prove the truthfulness of the book. (Moroni 10:4)

14. This record must fulfill Bible prophecies, even to the exact manner in which it shall come forth, to whom it shall be given and its purpose and accomplishments.

15. Your discription of the cultures of these peoples are not know when you bring forth the record.

16. Many of the facts, ideas and statements given as true in your record must be entirely inconsistant and in direct opposition to the prevailing beliefs of the world.

17. Thorough investigation, scientific evidence and archeological discoveries for the next 175 years must verify its claims and prove its truthfulness even to the minutest detail.

18. After 175 years of extensive analysis, no claim or statement in the book is disproven, but all are vindicated. All theories and ideas opposing its origin rise only to fall, leaving your own claim as the only possible or plausable one.

19. Internal and external evidences and prophesies must be confirmed and fulfilled in the next 175 years.

20. Fair, honest and credible witnesses must testify to the whole world that an angel from heaven appeared to them and showed them the records. That they handled the records and felt the engravings thereon.

21. You must cause the voice of the Redeemer to call out from Heaven to declare to these men that the record is true and for them to declare its truthfulness and message to the world, and cause these witnesses to do it.

22. They must bear this testimony, not for personal gain, but at geat personal sacrifice and through persecution, even to death.

23. Thousands of great scholars and intellectuals must subscribe discipleship to this record and its movements even to the point of laying down their lives.

24. Many other thousands must bear testimony that it is true because they have put the promise (Moroni 10:4) to the test and received a testimony of its truthfulness.

25. After 20 years of revilement and persecution, you must then be ready to give your own life as a testimony that the record is divine and true, and that its message of truth is from God.

[prisonchaplain]

Darrel, there is another string dedicated to this BoM challenge. The difficulty with it, is similar lists could be compiled for almost any set of Scriptures. The Bible: Three different languages, 1400 years in the making, 40 different writers, kings, prophets and fishermen joined in the work, etc. Muslims have compiled a similar list for the Quran. These are the type of lists that the faithful find re-assuring, but I'm not so sure skeptics will find them compelling.

See attached (I offer it as example, not endorsement): The Quran is the Word of God and an undeniable proof for Muhammad's Prophethood

[Hemidakota]

Getting back to the 'Mark', this was done by the Lord to prevent others later in taking vengeance upon Cain. The answer is in Moses chapter 5, verse 40:

"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."

What may be a curiosity, who instructed Cain in the killing another human? I highly doubt Cain knew how. Some may argue, well, he learns it based on the current ritual sacrifices done by Adam.

Seeing Cain's heart hardened, he then marries one of his brother sister and migrated to the land west of Eden called Nod [eastern Missouri and western Illinois area?]. Nod in Hebrews is Nud and if my memory serves me right, it means 'Back & Forth"; another way of saying, they were a nomadic culture.

What is note worthy [few areas listed] about the Cainites: first city builders, smiths, and perhaps started the first monetary system.

[Aelswyth]

Getting back to the 'Mark', this was done by the Lord to prevent others later in taking vengeance upon Cain. The answer is in Moses chapter 5, verse 40:

What may be a curiosity, who instructed Cain in the killing another human? I highly doubt Cain knew how. Some may argue, well, he learns it based on the current ritual sacrifices done by Adam.

Seeing Cain's heart hardened, he then marries one of his brother sister and migrated to the land west of Eden called Nod [eastern Missouri and western Illinois area?]. Nod in Hebrews is Nud and if my memory serves me right, it means 'Back & Forth"; another way of saying, they were a nomadic culture.

What is note worthy [few areas listed] about the Cainites: first city builders, smiths, and perhaps started the first monetary system.

I thought Cain married his brother's daughter (his niece), not his sister...?

[jimbob631]

Hi I was just flipping through this page browsing the web and I must say that people r being very very very dishonest.

This are some quotes from Brigham Young

"What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro?" Young responded, "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."

Young said, "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind .... Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree."

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, and be governed by it or not according to their wishes and abide the result; and that those who would be able to maintain correct principles under all circumstances, might be able to associate with the Gods in the eternal worlds."

Im also positive that ur church believes that people had there skin burned black for not siding with god or the devil during their battle. I realize I have no buisness being on a mormon fourm as a disagree with ur beliefs and the logic of the church but I dont think ur being fair to the person asking questions, the Mormon church has been very racist in the past as well as lots of other religions. Im not trying to bash ur church but I think ur not being truthful to urselves. I could be wrong about my info as im not avid studier of the church but I think a lot of it is right.

[Aelswyth]

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

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?

No, Cain's mark was not to set him apart from other humans and prevent intermarriage. Scripture says God marked him as a form of protection, to prevent him from being killed. Why would black skin stop someone from killing you? Skin color is not a "mark", anyway. Throughout the Scriptures there is a clear difference between receiving a "mark" and having your skin color changed.

As for the article I read, I can't find it anywhere (figures!). But I do know that the forehead view is the traditional Jewish interpretation (they believe it was a letter of God's name), and many Christian denominations also teach that it was a mark on the forehead (they believe it was a letter Tau). The article I read linked the Cain account with other Scriptural references and made a very convincing case for the forehead mark, including the fact that some modern tribes believed to be descended from the Qenites still tattoo a mark on the forehead as part of their tribal customs.

[Aelswyth]

Hi I was just flipping through this page browsing the web and I must say that people r being very very very dishonest.

This are some quotes from Brigham Young

"What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro?" Young responded, "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."

Young said, "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind .... Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree."

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, and be governed by it or not according to their wishes and abide the result; and that those who would be able to maintain correct principles under all circumstances, might be able to associate with the Gods in the eternal worlds."

Im also positive that ur church believes that people had there skin burned black for not siding with god or the devil during their battle. I realize I have no buisness being on a mormon fourm as a disagree with ur beliefs and the logic of the church but I dont think ur being fair to the person asking questions, the Mormon church has been very racist in the past as well as lots of other religions. Im not trying to bash ur church but I think ur not being truthful to urselves. I could be wrong about my info as im not avid studier of the church but I think a lot of it is right.

Jimbob, Jimbob, Jimbob... you are mistaking personal remarks of a flawed human being for official doctrine given by God. Our official doctrine is not and has never been that black skin was either the curse or the mark of Cain, or that black people are in any way lower human beings than people with any other skin pigmentation. Brigham Young was a product of the times, and had a low personal opinion of black people. But when he said these things, he was not speaking as a prophet of God, but giving his personal opinion.

The things you state as representative of the beliefs of our Church are not official doctrine, or even views shared by the majority of members. They are folklore that was somewhat accepted many years ago and which still, unfortunately, lingers around in the fringes of the Church, mostly due to people learning it from their parents or from reading these older books (like you obviously did) and not understanding the context of place and time or the difference between opinion and official doctrine.

All of this is exactly what we are trying to explain to the questioner, who has also unfortunately been subjected to a member or two who have tried to pass off outdated folklore as official doctrine. We are not lying or being less than truthful, we are correcting inaccurate information.

[Adeipho]

I would think with the Church anxious to share their message with the entire world, that it would be wise to lose all traces of the skin curse nonsense. It smacks of racism through and through and would repel many pootential listeners who would otherwise share in our Gospel message.

Well, no one gets their red flags flying over the claim that the native american who's skin is dark is a decendant of the lamanites who's skin was turned dark due to the wickedness of their fathers. Fear of political correctness wont spread the gospel any faster than pure truthful history. If my skin was turned white because my fathers did something good or bad I'd want to know that. I wouldnt want my ego or feelings to be spared just because other's were afraid that I'd call them a racist. I have quite a bit of native blood in my veins and that part of my family tree does not shame me in the least. I am very very proud of them in fact.

thanks for your comments. The othe posters on the thread drove right past me. ha ha

[jimbob631]

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: "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 denied the mortal probation, but was denied the blessing of the priesthood."

There r many racist sections of the book of mormon.

For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

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.

If thats not racist i dont kno wat is.

Plus god burning the betrayers skin black in the big battle between god and the devil is in the book of mormon.

[Canuck Mormon]

Plus god burning the betrayers skin black in the big battle between god and the devil is in the book of mormon.

Please state your reference. Where exactly is this? I don't recall this as being the case, but I could be wrong.

Also, please read the rules of the site and follow them. They can be found at the bottom of the page under "Terms and Conditions"

Thank you.

[Elphaba]

You seem to be an intelligent capable person.

Why thank you! I don't hear that too often. Usually it's "What are you doing here you atheist you!" (Not really. Everyone is very nice to me here.)

Tell me if this describes a work of fiction.:)

This is the challenge the Book of Mormon makes to the World:

In my opinion the challenge has been met. PC has already posted a site that meets it using Mohammed as an example. I also know of a site that responds to Nibley's points as well. However, I have no wish to start a discussion re: the BoM, because, as I said, it is not my strong point. If anyone is interested in the link to the site, PM me.

So, thank you for the discussion.

Elphaba

[Adeipho]

No, Cain's mark was not to set him apart from other humans and prevent intermarriage. Scripture says God marked him as a form of protection, to prevent him from being killed. Why would black skin stop someone from killing you? QUOTE]

You're right. God did mark Cain as a form of protection...kinda. All the mark signified was that if Cain was killed by another that it would totally suck for that other person who killed him. God never promised Cain that no one would attempt and perhaps succeed in killing him. And also, why shouldnt skin color stop someone from killing if that was the mark given by God? Why would a letter of a name on his head be a more effective protection? And how could you see a little mark on a forhead from a distance? Sometimes people kill with long range weapons (bows arrows). A full dark skinned figure would be a much better mark.

I don't see how this is racist. The scriptures don't deny dark skinned people because they are dark skinned. The father's of the dark skinned people did something that resulted in them loosing their priesthood blessings and as an outward sign they then recieved dark skin. Those born afterwards simply inherrited their fathers' linage.

I hope I make sense I'm more interested in beefing up my play list right now. ha ha

PS Add me to your friend list!

[Moksha]

I would think with the Church anxious to share their message with the entire world, that it would be wise to lose all traces of the skin curse nonsense. It smacks of racism through and through and would repel many potential listeners who would otherwise share in our Gospel message.

Well, no one gets their red flags flying over the claim that the native American who's skin is dark is a descendant of the Lamanites who's skin was turned dark due to the wickedness of their fathers. Fear of political correctness wont spread the gospel any faster than pure truthful history. If my skin was turned white because my fathers did something good or bad I'd want to know that. I wouldn't want my ego or feelings to be spared just because other's were afraid that I'd call them a racist. I have quite a bit of native blood in my veins and that part of my family tree does not shame me in the least. I am very very proud of them in fact.

thanks for your comments. The other posters on the thread drove right past me. ha ha

The dicey thing about discussing skin curses is that it is inherently racist, especially considering the curse falls on the side of those who have in the past been discriminated against. The truth is that skin color is a function of genetics and has nothing to do with curses. The curse idea was just a lack of scientific knowledge in the past being transmuted into superstition, for want of a proper explanation. It is dysfunctional to the Church to persist in this particular superstition.

[Adeipho]

The dicey thing about discussing skin curses is that it is inherently racist, especially considering the curse falls on the side of those who have in the past been discriminated against. The truth is that skin color is a function of genetics and has nothing to do with curses. The curse idea was just a lack of scientific knowledge in the past being transmuted into superstition, for want of a proper explanation. It is dysfunctional to the Church to persist in this particular superstition.

Two points: First, do you think it's just a roll of the dice that those who some say are from a cursed linage are the ones who have been persicuted? Seems to me that if a line is cursed that it would only be logical that it would also be persicuted or discriminated against. Look what has happend to the Jews after they rejected Jesus as the Christ. Lots of hardship there.

Second I do believe that God subjects himself to natural law and of course if the dark skin is the mark then it would be manifest in a natrual way, ie pigmintation. Its not like God threw some black ink on Cain.

Of course I, like everyone else would love some actual proof of what Cain's mark was from God, but I don't see it being a letter of the alphabet on his forhead, or horns, or a cardboard sign on his back saying dont kick me or else...

[rameumptom]

The problem with racism is that if you really get down to it, the Bible is full of it. Jesus told his disciples to not preach to the Gentiles, only to the house of Israel.

When a Canaanite woman asked him to heal her daughter, Jesus replied by saying that dogs do not eat from the Master's table. To this day in the Middle East, calling someone a "dog" is one of the lowest forms of insult.

That God only gave the priesthood to the Levites was also a racist issue. Several people tried challenging Moses on it back then, as being unfair (of course, God swallowed them up in the earth - definitely a racist response to a Civil Rights movement).

Why was there a priesthood ban in our day? I don't know for certain. I do believe that Brigham Young, based upon his Protestant upbringing that taught the curse of Cain, may have read it into the scriptures and assumed that there was a skin curse that was suppose to continue until God lifted it. Given that there obviously was a priesthood ban in times past on who could hold the Levitical priesthood, or preaching to the Gentiles, this could easily be seen as something that could be misconstrued.

Why would God allow it? For the sake of the Church. It was already being beaten up for polygamy and other issues. The Church may not have survived long or been successful in obtaining converts in its first century and a half, had blacks been actively pursued as converts. Why? Because the world was and in many places still is racist. The Church had to expand beyond Utah and become strong enough to open the doors. And the world had to prepare the way, by introducing Civil Rights and arrive at an acceptance of blacks in standard American life.

The reality is, the Church would not have grown in the South prior to the ban being lifted. I lived in Montgomery for almost 17 years. When first there, I was called into the stake mission presidency, and we began the first efforts to spread the gospel in that area actively to the blacks (about 1987). Most other churches handled these issues by having two separate congregations: one black church and one white church in separate areas of town. Our Church doesn't do that, and so it was very difficult for many members to accept the integration and changes that occurred. I've seen members go inactive over the introduction of blacks into our wards and branches. But I've also seen people lose their racist attitudes until now wards are well integrated in much of the South, and people see brothers and sisters, not black and white.

Other religions still have that issue of segregation throughout our nation. Yet, you won't see or hear anyone calling them racist.

The issue is that we are past this. For 30 years, we have not had any policies that discriminate against people according to race. We have actively brought the gospel to the South and to African nations. There are blacks in bishoprics and stake presidencies and as area authorities in many areas of the world. As we move into the 2nd generation of black members holding the priesthood and ensuring those areas with large black populations are strengthened and prepared, we will probably see more become General Authorities.

The thing to know is that God did end the ban via revelation. And the Church has quickly sought to embrace all who seek to join the brotherhood of saints.

[rameumptom]

One of the things about the "curse" of the Lamanites, is that different LDS scholars read it differently. What does it mean for them to have "dark" skin, when most describe it as reddish?

Secondly, it was a temporary curse. It was only acknowledged in accordance to their disobedience. However, when the Ammonites converted, they were praised for their faithfulness decades later, even though their skin was still "cursed."

I believe that what happened was the Lamanites absorbed Native American groups already in the area and took on their properties, including the reddish skin. More of the curse seemed to be described as being lazy, and eating the raw meat of wild beasts. Perhaps we are too quick to view the curse as only a skin coloration, and not as a whole package deal?

[Maureen]

...The father's of the dark skinned people did something that resulted in them loosing their priesthood blessings and as an outward sign they then recieved dark skin. Those born afterwards simply inherrited their fathers' linage. ...

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. (2nd Article of Faith)-------------------------If LDS do not believe in original sin, where mankind is cursed with a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, why would you think they should believe that Cain's progeny would be cursed due to Cain's transgressions?

[prisonchaplain]

The problem with racism is that if you really get down to it, the Bible is full of it. Jesus told his disciples to not preach to the Gentiles, only to the house of Israel.

Please reassure me that you are not suggesting that the Son of God was racist? For the Savior to withhold spreading the gospel beyond the children of Abraham for a season is not racist or racism. The time for expansion was with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

When a Canaanite woman asked him to heal her daughter, Jesus replied by saying that dogs do not eat from the Master's table. To this day in the Middle East, calling someone a "dog" is one of the lowest forms of insult.

I quite certain that Jesus was teaching the observing Jews a lesson--even this Gentile, in the face of the standard Jewish attitude of the day, was humble and patient in her incredible faith. Please...we do believe that the Son of God was without sin.

That God only gave the priesthood to the Levites was also a racist issue. Several people tried challenging Moses on it back then, as being unfair (of course, God swallowed them up in the earth - definitely a racist response to a Civil Rights movement).

Tribe does not equal race. God's sovereign election is a matter of his sovereignty, not race. Remember, there are only a handful of races in humanity.

Why was there a priesthood ban in our day? I don't know for certain. I do believe that Brigham Young, based upon his Protestant upbringing that taught the curse of Cain, may have read it into the scriptures and assumed that there was a skin curse that was suppose to continue until God lifted it. Given that there obviously was a priesthood ban in times past on who could hold the Levitical priesthood, or preaching to the Gentiles, this could easily be seen as something that could be misconstrued.

Since the OT examples point, not to racial discrimination, but rather to God's promises to the children of Abraham, and his delegation of responsibilities within that family, I'm doubtful it can be used to justify the exclusion of an entire race from the blessing. IMHO, Joseph Smith may have gotten this wrong. Is it not possible, even if he was a prophet, that he simply assumed this ban, without seeking God for it, and that the leaders who followed, simply accepted his human judgment?

Why would God allow it? For the sake of the Church. It was already being beaten up for polygamy and other issues. The Church may not have survived long or been successful in obtaining converts in its first century and a half, had blacks been actively pursued as converts. Why? Because the world was and in many places still is racist. The Church had to expand beyond Utah and become strong enough to open the doors. And the world had to prepare the way, by introducing Civil Rights and arrive at an acceptance of blacks in standard American life.

The pentecostal revival of the late 19th and early 20th centuries started in the midwest, but took off on the westcoast (CA to be exact). Why? The message that God's Spirit was being poured out on all flesh was illegal in the midwest--intergrated meetings were all but impossible. The west coast was more "liberal"--and the word could spread like wildfire.

Other religions still have that issue of segregation throughout our nation. Yet, you won't see or hear anyone calling them racist.

Actually, we readily admit that having monocultural churches in multicultural areas is a huge spiritual issue--and something we need to repent of.

The issue is that we are past this. For 30 years, we have not had any policies that discriminate against people according to race. We have actively brought the gospel to the South and to African nations. There are blacks in bishoprics and stake presidencies and as area authorities in many areas of the world. As we move into the 2nd generation of black members holding the priesthood and ensuring those areas with large black populations are strengthened and prepared, we will probably see more become General Authorities.

The thing to know is that God did end the ban via revelation. And the Church has quickly sought to embrace all who seek to join the brotherhood of saints.

IMHO, what keeps hounding the Church on this issue is whether or not the ban was the will of God, or the error of men. Most churches have evaluated their histories and concluded the latter. Reconcilation meetings have been held where our white leaders have apologized and even washed the feet of leaders of black churches. Additionally, much soul-searching and strategizing has gone into further uniting our communities.

It's a hard message for us outsiders to swallow that God intended to ban a particular race from the priesthood. He may have permitted the ban, due to the hardness of hearts--but that this was his best will...that's a tough argument to make.

[rameumptom]

I was not suggesting that Jesus was a racist. I was suggesting that a person could read racism into the Bible. I understand that Jesus has/had a timeframe for all things, including when the Gentiles would receive the gospel, when the Canaanites would no longer be considered "dogs", and when the priesthood would be expanded to other groups than just the Levites.

I see that God permitted the ban, because the Church and the world were not ready for it prior to the ban being lifted. Evidence suggests this, as David O. McKay also took the issue to the Lord in the 1950/60s, and felt the Lord did not yet want it lifted - though Pres McKay did not see it as an issue of "curse of Cain", and saw no problem in adjusting it to allow Indonesians (also dark skinned) to hold the priesthood without a revelation.

Was Brigham Young racist? I suppose he was, just as the vast majority of Americans in the 19th century were. It isn't easy to change centuries-old beliefs that are supposedly based upon the key religious book of the people. And we see that to be true in many of the Christian churches of the 19th century, and many of the enlightened people of that day. Thomas Jefferson doubted whether free blacks would be able to manage in a white man's world, where he believed whites were more intellectually inclined. And this from one of the great thinkers of the times.

God has limited blessings in the past, such as those given to Israel at Sinai, because they were rebellious. Why would He react any differently today to us, knowing we can be just as stubborn and opinionated as anyone else in the past? The LDS Church has reached out a lot to the black community, and worked diligently in trying to improve relations. Our integration of blacks into our congregations is a major step in that direction - something some of the other religions have given lip service to, but no real action for integration. What good is having a few Church leaders wash some feet, but still have the congregations meeting separately? There's still lots for all our churches to do.

I would suppose if we had grown up in such times, we probably would be as racist as they were. Our difference is a new conditioning brought about by greater truths, knowledge, and understanding. My belief is to forgive the ignorance of the past, because we have so much ignorance of our own to deal with today. And let's move on.

[Adeipho]

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. (2nd Article of Faith)-------------------------If LDS do not believe in original sin, where mankind is cursed with a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, why would you think they should believe that Cain's progeny would be cursed due to Cain's transgressions?

I dont believe any of Cain's seed will be judged for Cain's own deeds. And to answer the other half of your question, I guess God can curse one's line for your mistakes the same way he can bless your line for your rightiouness. Look at Abraham, his seed was blessed before they were even born.