1. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    14 Oct '12 08:55
    I'm sure this will have come up before.

    "Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him" (Genesis 4:15-16)

    I've read that some institutions such as the Mormons for example, believe that the mark was dark skin colour The Mormons also believe that if a person of 'dark skin colour' becomes a LDS their skin gradually lightens (needs verification) - it seems incredible that the would believe such a hateful notion.

    What are the thoughts here on what this "mark" was? Clearly this mark was intended to protect Cain, so I hardly think changing his skin colour and therefore cursing him the associated affliction of the inevitable racism is the answer.
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    15 Aug '11
    Moves
    16106
    15 Oct '12 20:09
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I'm sure this will have come up before.

    "Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him" (Genesis 4:15-16)

    I've read that some institutions such as the Mormons for example, believe that the mark was dark skin colour The Mormons also believe that if a person of 'dark skin colour' becomes a LDS their skin gradually light ...[text shortened]... therefore cursing him the associated affliction of the inevitable racism is the answer.
    The mark might have been an explicit warning, like "Don't kill this guy. Regards, God."
  3. Joined
    30 Dec '04
    Moves
    59598
    15 Oct '12 23:36
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I'm sure this will have come up before.

    "Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him" (Genesis 4:15-16)

    I've read that some institutions such as the Mormons for example, believe that the mark was dark skin colour The Mormons also believe that if a person of 'dark skin colour' becomes a LDS their skin gradually light ...[text shortened]... therefore cursing him the associated affliction of the inevitable racism is the answer.
    Hi,

    I don't have an answer for ya, sorry.

    Nothing in scripture tells us. It had to be one doozie of a mark though if:

    1: Everyone who saw it knew that it was from God.

    2: Everyone who saw it knew to stay away from Cain.

    That leads me to believe that the mark must have showed some warning sign or that it was so significant that people knew that it could only have come from God.

    I did read a little about what you were saying the Mormons belief. The site I saw didn't specify the Mormons though so I'm not sure about that. I agree with you that the belief of his skin being 'turned' dark would be a racist take on that.

    Weren't the people's of that area of the world skin already a little dark anyhow? Giving their geographic location? Just a thought.
  4. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    16 Oct '12 00:37
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I'm sure this will have come up before.

    "Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him" (Genesis 4:15-16)

    I've read that some institutions such as the Mormons for example, believe that the mark was dark skin colour The Mormons also believe that if a person of 'dark skin colour' becomes a LDS their skin gradually light ...[text shortened]... therefore cursing him the associated affliction of the inevitable racism is the answer.
    Wikipedia says this. It reports that Mormonism adopted the general white Protestant belief so it should not be construed as unique to Mormonism, although

    "Like many Americans of the era, Mormons of the 19th century commonly assumed that Cain's "mark" was black skin,[24] and that Cain's descendants were black and still under Cain's mark. Mormonism began during the height of white Protestant acceptance of the curse of Cain doctrine in America, as well as the even more popular curse of Ham doctrine, which was even held by many abolitionists of the time.[citation needed] This belief seemed to be confirmed by a scriptural passage in the Book of Abraham which suggested that Cain's bloodline was preserved on the ark through Egyptus, wife of Ham,[25] (an interpretation now generally rejected by mainstream Mormons).[26] While Joseph Smith indicated his belief in the curse of Ham theory in a parenthetical reference as early as 1831,[27] the only early reference to the curse or mark of Cain was in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, which included the following statement:

    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.[28]

    There is evidence that Joseph Smith did not consider the restriction between blacks and the priesthood to be relevant in modern times, since he himself (and other church leaders close to him) did ordain black men to the priesthood.[29] notably Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis."

    end quote.

    The reference [24] refers one to a speech attributed to Brigham Young.

    That speech says, in part:

    " Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privelege of and more. In the kingdom of God on the earth the Affricans cannot hold one partical of power in Government. The the subjects, the rightfull servants of the resedue of the children of Adam, and the resedue of the children through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lords will they should receive the spirit of God by Baptisam; and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power."

    end quote

    Of course all the above is just what Wikipedia and its reference [24] say. It also discusses how this belief has been moderated since then.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain
  5. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140150
    16 Oct '12 02:23
    I remember I read most of the book of moron I mean....Mormon and There was a
    war between the Laminites and the Nephites and God cursed one of these groups and their skin became dark and that's how you could tell God cursed them. Of course the book of Mormon is easy to refute as it is basically plagiarized from the bible except they add a bunch of stuff. Also most of this is supposed to have happened here in the new world. However there is no archaeological evidence or otherwise to support the book of Mormon. The Mark of Cain mentioned in the bible I don't think it is ever stated what it was or if it was even a physical mark.

    Manny
  6. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    16 Oct '12 02:37
    Originally posted by menace71
    I remember I read most of the book of moron I mean....Mormon and There was a
    war between the Laminites and the Nephites and God cursed one of these groups and their skin became dark and that's how you could tell God cursed them. Of course the book of Mormon is easy to refute as it is basically plagiarized from the bible except they add a bunch of stuff. A ...[text shortened]... bible I don't think it is ever stated what it was or if it was even a physical mark.

    Manny
    What do you mean? There are quite a few books in the bible that state almost identical verses as many other books. Wasn't the bible plagiarized from god in the first place?
  7. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140150
    16 Oct '12 04:18
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    What do you mean? There are quite a few books in the bible that state almost identical verses as many other books. Wasn't the bible plagiarized from god in the first place?
    Guess I can't argue that LOL




    Manny
  8. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    16 Oct '12 04:51
    here is what the mark of cain looks like.

    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2sffA2vBRW2hpwu1kc_mnSvgw8ataXslX_Q_u7vdaaOxLTed9
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Oct '12 05:16
    Originally posted by divegeester
    What are the thoughts here on what this "mark" was? Clearly this mark was intended to protect Cain, so I hardly think changing his skin colour and therefore cursing him the associated affliction of the inevitable racism is the answer.
    You see black skin as a curse and affliction?
  10. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    16 Oct '12 05:255 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You see black skin as a curse and affliction?
    Apologies, if you think I was not clear in my OP; ANY change of skin colour from whatever the local norm was would have been a potential problem for Cain rather than a protective banner, so I don't think skin colour change would have been the "mark".
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Oct '12 06:08
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Apologies, if you think I was not clear in my OP; ANY change of skin colour from whatever the local norm was would have been a potential problem for Cain rather than a protective banner, so I don't think skin colour change would have been the "mark".
    Why would any change in skin colour be a potential problem, but a mark of some kind not be?

    If someone had said that Cain was white with blond hair, would you have called it an affliction and a curse?

    Do you blame the devil for the existence of different races? Or were black people and Chinese people created as part of some other curse later on?
  12. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    16 Oct '12 06:44
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Apologies, if you think I was not clear in my OP; ANY change of skin colour from whatever the local norm was would have been a potential problem for Cain rather than a protective banner, so I don't think skin colour change would have been the "mark".
    What if the people who were developing the Genesis myth ran into outsiders that had visible distinctions from them at the time these stories were being developed? Perhaps genetic, like skin color, or such as ritualized tribal scarification or piercing? It would fit quite neatly into a Cain story especially if they were not field-tillers. It would explain their origin.
  13. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    16 Oct '12 08:05
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I'm sure this will have come up before.

    "Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him" (Genesis 4:15-16)

    I've read that some institutions such as the Mormons for example, believe that the mark was dark skin colour The Mormons also believe that if a person of 'dark skin colour' becomes a LDS their skin gradually light ...[text shortened]... therefore cursing him the associated affliction of the inevitable racism is the answer.
    vampires!!!!!!

    cain was the original vampire. for further proof, check White Wolf's documentary World of Darkness and in particular Vampire The masquerade
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Oct '12 10:50
    Originally posted by divegeester
    "Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him" (Genesis 4:15-16)
    I am not particularly familiar with 'the mark of Cain'. People in this thread seem to be implying that it was an inherited trait (from Cain onwards). Is this the case? Or are they speculating?
  15. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    16 Oct '12 11:47
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I'm sure this will have come up before.

    "Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him" (Genesis 4:15-16)

    I've read that some institutions such as the Mormons for example, believe that the mark was dark skin colour The Mormons also believe that if a person of 'dark skin colour' becomes a LDS their skin gradually light ...[text shortened]... therefore cursing him the associated affliction of the inevitable racism is the answer.
    "God’s sentencing of Cain to banishment from the ground evidently meant his eviction from the neighborhood of the garden of Eden, and the curse already upon the earth would be increased in Cain’s case, the earth not responding to his cultivation of it. Cain expressed regret over the severity of his punishment and showed anxiety as to the possibility of Abel’s murder being avenged upon him, but still no sincere repentance. Jehovah “set up a sign for Cain” to prevent his being killed, but the record does not say that this sign or mark was placed on Cain’s person in any way. The “sign” likely consisted of God’s solemn decree itself, known and observed by others.—Ge 4:10-15; compare vs 24 where that decree is referred to by Lamech."

    IT book pages 367 & 368.
Back to Top