What is the Curse of Cain?

[_KimberlyAnn]

As what Dr. Shades refers to as a Chapel Mormon, I believed the Curse of Cain to be twofold: dark skin and being denied the priesthood. It was clear to me that a skin of darkness was indeed a curse and a sign of God's displeasure. I understood that descendants of Cain were "fence sitters" during the war in heaven and were given a skin of blackness as a punishment. Those of us who were more valiant in the pre-existence were of a fairer complexion.

It was also quite clear in the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites were given a skin of darkness as a punishment for their wickedness, while the more righteous Nephites remained white and delightsome.

Here's my question: Were Lamanites ever denied the priesthood? Or is being denied the priesthood a part of only the Curse of Cain, along with dark skin?

And by the way, I know several people in my former ward who believe to this day that they witnessed American Indians (Lamanites) turning lighter-skinned when they joined the Mormon church. They truly believe God is removing their curse.

Also, I was specifically taught as a youth that mixed-race marriages were discouraged by the Lord and we should marry within our "kind". I even remember the name of the man giving the lesson and know that he is currently a Bishop here in Oklahoma.

In my experience, Mormonism is a racist institution, though I do not doubt that others have differing opinions. I am curious to know if the denial of the priesthood extended to Lamanites or was specifically a part of the curse that was placed on Cain and his progeny. I do not recall ever hearing that Lamanites were denied the priesthood and know that there was, at one time, an American Indian/Lamanite Placement Program which placed American Indian children in the homes of Mormon families. What was the motivation behind that experiment?

KA

[_Blixa]

And by the way, I know several people in my former ward who believe to this day that they witnessed American Indians (Lamanites) turning lighter-skinned when they joined the Mormon church. They truly believe God is removing their curse.

This bit of genocidal racism is not unique to Mormons. It was a common belief in the 19th century that lighter = more civilized; both Indian ways and skintones would fade before the superior values of Anglo-American culture. Indeed, this change could be visibly effected by introducing them to christianity via "indian schools."

I've been reading around about the specific uses of photography in creating various notions of "the west," and have come across the interesting example of the before and after photos taken by J. N. Choate, the official photographer for the Carlisle School in Pennsylvania.

This school was founded in 1879 by Richard Henry Pratt who summed up his "benevolent" mission thusly, "the Indian must die as an Indian and live as a man." Pratt commissioned Choate to make a series of before and after shots of incoming students; the transformation of "savages" to "human" to be evidenced by the visible differences between the two sets of photos. These photos were meant to attest to a deeper level of cultural transformation than just a change in clothing and hair style, too. Notice how in this representative example, the boy's skin has been lightened in the dark room!

[_KimberlyAnn]

Blixa, thanks for those photos.

I remember in a history class learning about the founder of Dartmouth, Eleazar Wheelock. He started Dartmouth with the same goal Pratt had over a hundred years later: to civilize American Indians and improve their situation by making them more like white men and women and by converting them to Christianity. He started with their appearance and worked from there.

Mormons certainly weren't the only folks who thought whiter was better, but they're the only group, to my knowledge, who has officially canonized such a notion.

Several Mormons, one on this board, have told me many members and former members of the Mormon church don't really understand the doctrine of the Curse of Cain, and I'd like to know exactly what it is that they (I) misunderstand about it.

Thanks so much for your input, Blixa.

KA

[_silentkid]

The darker suit coat would also make his skin appear lighter as opposed to the lighter clothing he is wearing in the first photo.

[_Blixa]

Mormons certainly weren't the only folks who thought whiter was better, but they're the only group, to my knowledge, who has officially canonized such a notion.

As far as I know that's true; although "christianity" was part of the indian school package, there was no comparable notion of the Indian as a "race" specifically god cursed with dark skin ala the "Lamanites." However, I do find it kind of funny that even this notion, like so much in Mormonism, is an elaboration or riff on conventional cultural beliefs of the times rather than an ideologically radical or ethically superior departure.

What did I learn about the curse of Cain? Several things. Negros were black because it was the curse of Cain. No they weren't, it was because they were War In Heaven Fence Sitters and not related to Cain at all. No, that's not it, its that the fence sitters became the descendants of Cain. Nope, we don't know exactly what it was but it was probably that horrible black skin. And one biology teacher I had in Jr. High (who read aloud to us from Argosy magazine) opined that the Curse of Cain/Cain's descendants were Big Foot---and he would refer to whatever LDS authority opined this before him.

[_Gazelam]

The burden of the priesthood can be viewed by looking at Noahs sons. Shem was the ancestor of Abraham, who asked God to bless his posterity to carry the priesthood, ensuring that Christ would be taught to his children in order to better ensure their salvation.

Japheths decendents strayed and became the Gentiles. The Gentiles had the priesthood witheld from them until after the time of Christ, who himself would not teach them during his mortal ministry.

Ham gave rise to the Cannanites. This is the Negro race, who had the priesthood witheld from them until President Kimball approached the Lord and asked that they be granted the right to bear it.

It may be that the darkening of skin and the witholding of the priesthood may be two seperate issues.

There is a common belief among members of the Church that denial of the right of the priesthood to the Cannanites is the result of the curse God placed on Cain. This assumption, however, is not supported by the scriptures. Abraham 1:26-27 is the only passage that explicitly mentions denial of the right to the priesthood and associates that with Ham because of his marriage to Egyptus, a "partaker of the blood of the Cannanites" (Abraham 1:21). No mention is made of Cain or any Genealogical connection with him. JST Genesis 9:25 states that Cannan was cursed and that "a veil of darkness shall cover him (Cannan), that he shall be known among all men." This darkness is assumed to refer to skin color. However the Cannanites of ancient Palestine were Caucasian, not black, and had no connection with Africa, where the black race seems to have originated. Moses 7:8 says that "a blackness came upon all the children of Cannan." That these people of Cannan were decendants of Cain is not explicitly stated, though it is often assumed. It is also not clear whether these antedeluvian Cannanites are the same people as the Cannanites found much later in Palestine. The Lord pronounced two curses on Cain because he murdered his brother, Abel. The curses were (1) that when he tilled the earth, it would not yield its strength, and (2) that he would be a fugitive and a vagabond (see Moses 5:37). No mention is made of a loss of priesthood or that the curse will be placed on to his posterity. In Moses 5:40 the Lord places a mark on Cain to identify him so others will not attempt to slay him. It does not say what this mark is, although it is generally assumed to be a dark skin, and again, there is no implication that this mark is to be passed on to his descendents.

In this dispensation, blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood until the revelation received by President Spencer W. Kimball in 1978 (see D&C Official Declaration 2). The Church has never given any official doctrinal statement as to why the priesthood was temporarily denied to blacks. The speculation that it is because they are the descendants of Cain is unsupported from the scriptures. In reality we do not know why God denied blacks the priesthood for a time. All we know is that He did, later making it available to them through a living prophet.

The Pearl of Great price: A verse-by-verse Commentary, Draper/ Brown/ Rhodes, pg. 256-257

It has always been my understanding that Hams wife was black, and that is how it continued through the flood. Egyptus settled Egypt, and in Abraham 1:27 Abraham emphasizes that , because of his descent through Ham, the first Pharaoh of Egypt did not have the right to the priesthood. This cause friction between pharaoh and Abraham, since Pharaoh was meant to be God incarnate, and Abraham was the Prophet of God who carried his authority and spoke for the one true God.

Gaz

[_harmony]

As what Dr. Shades refers to as a Chapel Mormon, I believed the Curse of Cain to be twofold: dark skin and being denied the priesthood. It was clear to me that a skin of darkness was indeed a curse and a sign of God's displeasure. I understood that descendants of Cain were "fence sitters" during the war in heaven and were given a skin of blackness as a punishment. Those of us who were more valiant in the pre-existence were of a fairer complexion.

A further confusion: Women are not allowed to have the priesthood. So since women don't have the priesthood anyway, why were black women unable to attend the temple prior to 1978?

[_Tommy]

Dear Sister Blixa,

The gospel matters you have raised this evening indeed are perplexing. But there are answers. Indeed the decendents of Ham were the least valient in the pre-existence. But that should not concern us as they have the same chances for salvation in this period of mortal probation as those who decend from Japeth or Shem. In fact, given the higher rates of infant mortality, many more of them shall receive their salvation purely through the mercies of the atonement than those even born under the covenant with skins of pure whiteness. A merciful God he is, my dear sister.

And finally, bigfoot is in fact Cain. Remember, Cain was sent forth to walk the earth alone for its temporal duration. Elder David Patten encountered him one day while riding his horse and rebuked him. Now, sister, I would recommend a priesthood escort if you should ever chose to walk deep into the woods as this holy authority is the only guaranteed means whereby an incident can be avoided.

[_Loquacious Lurker]

The curse of Cain, for anyone capable of opening a Bible dictionary and actually reading it, is NOT "dark skin". Genesis 4:15 -- "...And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

The word "mark" in Hebrew is "'owth" and it means "flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, mark, miracle, sign, token." The same word is translated everywhere else as "token" -- see Gen. 1:14, 9:12, 13, 17; Ex. 4:8, 9, 17, 28, 30; Ex. 12:13; Ezek. 20:12, 20.

In other words, God gave Cain a token or pledge that he would not be killed. That this verse is trotted out time and again as justification to put people of a different race into slavery or to utilize outright genocide against them, or otherwise oppress them, is tragic and despicable.

Ham gave rise to the Cannanites. This is the Negro race,

This is the Negro race...? You mean, the same Negro race that all "white" people are genetically descended from...?

DNA evidence is just as devastating to the dithering nonsense of the Old Testament.

[_harmony]

This is the Negro race...? You mean, the same Negro race that all "white" people are genetically descended from...?

DNA evidence is just as devastating to the dithering nonsense of the Old Testament.

The devil's in the details. Science is such a spoilsport!