Talk:Curse and mark of Cain/Archive001

Mormon article?

If you think this is going to become a Mormon article, you can forget about it.

Ham's wife was not a descendant of Cain.
The Mormon scriptures came after the fact that the Curse of Cain blasphemy was established. They were not the source or origin of the misinterpretations.

Don't even try to put a "pro" Mormon POV into this article. (unsigned by User:68.60.55.162)

I'm not sure what exactly you mean or who you are directing your comments to. I do however, know that your edits to the Mormon section are done without much knowledge of the LDS Church or Mormon history (or at the best a superfical introduction). If this article treats Mormon's views, it should be complete and in context. This is why I've added back in some content. You can expand Jewish or baptist or even AME (yes even AME) beliefs about this and expand the article, but space is not an issue on wikipedia and we'll expand sections needed to give needed context.

You other edits are very good and were needed. I think how this article was originally written was in context of Mormonism (at least when you created it, it appeared that way to the reader), but an attempt was made to broaden it to include all the religous movements who felt the same way at the time. In expanding, I'm sure such satements such as the first you list above were "leftovers" from the re-organization.

Such edits such as "Mormon version of the bible" - that would be the King James Version currently. Which do you use? Not sure why you added it in, as it is the same version that 60 percent of the english-speaking Christian world uses. I'll stick to how the Mormons interpret their scriptures and doctrines, as well as the history of American protestantism until the 1940s and you stick to what you have knowledge of. I do know a thing or two about them.

The article still does not flow smoothly, and has a number of issues, which were not addressed in my comments (which were removed). You may know what you mean, but other readers don't. I didn't - hense my comments inline of text. Please seek to clarify them, instead of over-protecting your thoughts - just a caution - you seem very tied to the article - please remember that Wikipedia articles do not have "owners" - if you want to own an article, you can download wiki software and start your own proprietary wiki. Keep up the good work, this is a much needed article to help overcome and educate historical bigotry that existed in the 19 century. Some of my ancestors were lynched, shot at, killed, and one son of my ancestor shot at point blank range so he wouldn't become an adult with the same heritage as his father. The standards placed on minority groups in the 19th century (and before) was inexcusable - especially by those who proclaimed themselves christian. While Blacks, Jews, Mormons, Native Americans, Irish, Chinese and Japanese were hated and often hunted and discriminated against, I personally feel that America has come along way, but still has farther to go. I hope this effort and collaboration with you will aid in that.

I'm re-introducing some material that you deleted, as I feel it significant. If you think it not, please explain here on the talk page prior to reverting. (see WP:3RR). You can sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~). -Visorstuff 19:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created to properly address the very POV oriented Mormon articles dealing with Blacks and the Priesthood.

I also know a few things about Mormonism, and the Bible they had been using throughout the 19th and 20th centuries was the "JST" version, which was not identical to the KJV. Even on the LDS website, they were using the JST version up until about 2003. I remember this, because I had used it as live references for a while, until the version had simply vanished from the site.

Some of your comments, firstly wondering why mentioning that Tzipporah, being Black, was not a partaker of the curse, and why a mark is a blotch on a person's skin need some kind of reference. The word "mark" inherently describes a blotch or irregular discoloration on a surface. Which is why I placed the reference to God's commandment not to cut or place a mark on your skin. Obviously the two ar e within the same context... and if they are not, in your opinion, how much further from sensible reality would the notion that an entire change of skin color (which is of a greater magnitude than a mere blotch). Tzipporah's very presence, and the lack of content about her being cursed from this is a reasonable reference in itself. If Tzipporah, being Black, and being considered therefore a descendant of Cain, is not called to be cursed, and God makes no negative mention of her nor her children, how on earth can the Black skin interpretation hold any water? I do believe sometimes in Wikipedia, there are those who wish to maintain erroneous belief systems, despite evidence that refutes them.

And if you have further comments, make them here. Putting them IN the article is pointless, as I cannot respond clearly IN the article to your comments! (unsigned by User:208.254.174.241)

Anon, if this "article was created to properly address the very POV oriented Mormon articles dealing with Blacks and the Priesthood" it should be combined with the said article. Wikipedia does not create articles to respond to other articles, but works collaboratively to improve POV content. Should we ask for the articles to be combined?

You stated: "I also know a few things about Mormonism, and the Bible they had been using throughout the 19th and 20th centuries was the "JST" version, which was not identical to the KJV."

This is incorrect and makes you look ignorant as to the church's history. The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) has never been a part of the Canon of the LDS Church. It is for the Community of Christ, but the LDS Church has never "used it throughout the 19th and 20th century" as a reliable version. LDS scholars for a long time believed the Reoganized Church tampered with it, and it was not included as footnotes or as indexes until 1980 in the current LDS edition of the King James Version (KJV). The KJV has always been the official bible used by the LDS Church. Portions of the JST are found in the index section of the KJV the Church uses - but it is the same KJV as the rest of the Christian world. Incidentally, the JST exerpts are found online at http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/contents. Maybe that's why you think it "simply vanished from the site." What the LDS use, didn't. But it's not changed in the Bible we use.

As for my in-text commments. What does Tzipporah have to do with Cain or the curse or the mark? I don't dispute her cursing, or her skin color, just why it's relevant to this article. If she's not refernced in regard to the curse as you mention, then why is she included in the article? Or should we also include Job as he wasn't included in the curse either, niether was St. Augustine or Jonah or Mohammed. Should they be included? Why include her? How do you get that she was a descendant of Cain? I don't see that stated anywhere in the Bible. It does appear she was black, but so were others in the bible and after who were uncursed. I'm missing relevance.

You can't just say "all mormons belive this or that" - or that the church historically taught against blacks. Yes, it discrimitated (per the terminology on Blacks and Mormonism) against them in regard to the priesthood for about 100 years, but for the other 75 years of Mormonism, the Church fought hard for equal rights for blacks, or to abolish slavery, or to give support to blacks and promised them all the same blessings in regard to their white or asian or native american or oceanic counterparts. You are only pointing to a portion of LDS history and saying it is typical. That is POV and non-holistic. Portions of my LDS family fought for civil rights, as did many Mormons in the 1950s and 60s. But blacks couldn't hold the priesthood during that time. I don't say it was right or wrong. It was what it was, and I wish it were different, but it wasn't.

Second, Mark does not denote "a blotch on a person's skin" or that it "inherently describes a blotch or irregular discoloration on a surface." The word "mark" is translated from the Hebrew word "Owth" which means a token or a sign or a distinguishing feature or a warning or a miracle. see [1]. I do not beleive any man alive today knows what that mark or token was, but I don't think that it denotes a "blotch." I don't have an opinion on what it was, but I don't think it was black skin, nor do I think it was a blotch. If you have a reliable source for this opinion, great. If not, then lets leave uninterpreted - as in reality, niether of us really know for sure what it was.

You wrote: "Obviously the two ar e within the same context." Again, I'm not so sure it was. Different authors of different portions of books, and different applications=different contexts. We simply don't know.

You wrote: "how on earth can the Black skin interpretation hold any water? I do believe sometimes in Wikipedia, there are those who wish to maintain erroneous belief systems, despite evidence that refutes them."

I don't think the black skin interpretation holds water. I don't agree with that. Who is promoting this belief on Wikipedia? Certainly no one who edits this article. There is no one who supports the theory that Blacks are cursed that is editing here - or at least from what I know of the other editors. You seem to be taking a victim attitude - that we are attacking your article and it's point of view, when in reality we are trying to improve and give a holistic context to it.

As for the comments in the article, they still need to be addressed or they will be removed. The edits make no sense to any reader. You may understand them, but as a fellow wikipedian, you'll need to clarify or others will interpret and try to clarify them for you. -Visorstuff 23:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So that there is no future confusion, I'm the one that added that Ham's wife was a descendant of Cain.

Also, I confirm that the KJV Bible was the official version of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until 1980. I still have my Bible from childhood, and it was not published by the LDS Church. The 1980 KJV Bible published by the LDS Church in 1980 is the KJV text with footnotes crossreferencing to the other Standard Works (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price). Some of the footnotes contain portions of the JST Bible, but the text is still the KJV Bible. The Joseph Smith Translation of a chapter of Matthew and a few chapters of Genesis (as the Book of Moses) are included in the Pearl of Great Price.

This is just to allay your confusion about what you know about Mormonism. Val42 06:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mormon portion of article

The Mormon portion of this article needs to be rewritten, but I don't have time to do it tonight. It is missing that in Missouri, the Mormons were opposed to slavery, to the peril of their lives.

And at that time, there were blacks that were ordained to the priesthood. (This section should also be linked to the related article "Blacks and Mormonism".) The exclusion from the priesthood took place during or after the move to Utah. I don't know if this exclusion also happenned to those groups that stayed behind (and formed other sects). But in 1978, the exclusion was lifted for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know that the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still excludes blacks from holding the priesthood, but I don't know about the other Utah-split sects. But these things should be touched on briefly here because the "priesthood exclusion" is (and should be) dealt with on the "Blacks and Mormonism" page.

And with the numbered list in this section, is there a reason that it is in this order? If not, then I'm planning to do some rearranging for flow and clarity. Val42 05:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent edits, Val42. I'll add in a link to Blacks and Mormonism, which leads to a full discussion of the Missouri issue. I don't think that should be included in this article, (or perhaps ancilliarily) as it did not deal with the Curse, but Mormons views on Blacks. Also, I'm removing the hidden comment section, as I want to make sure the author treats these items that do not flow. The article is young enough and is tagged for cleanup, so I don't think visible comments are bad for now.

There was some reasoning to the order, however, I'm not tied to it. Feel free to change. -Visorstuff 16:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-All of the Mormon "positives" will need citations, because it's a common activity for pro-Mormon advocates to put anything that will make their position look good, but show no references. IN addition, the Mormon people may have acted differently than how the Mormon scripture and leaders taught, that is not relevant here. This article is not called "Mormon reactions to Black People".

-Priesthood ordination is also not relevant to this article. One can be a slave, and become an important person, but in the end the person is still a slave. The Mormon scriptures specifically point to an inherent inequity of Black people spiritually... this teaching therefore is far more important than a positional promotion. Let me put it to you this way, if Black people ruled the world and had a religion that said that white people are inferior spiritually (or less valiant or whatever), and you were not allowed to be a priest at a church that your family goes to, because the black clergy prevented it... how much of a difference would it make if one day the church said you could be a priest, even though the teaching that "Whites are less valiant in heaven, or were cursed from Cain, etc" had not been rescinded? It would not really matter too much. So therefore that is why the priesthood should not be given so much publicity, because it's a mere diversion from the more important issue. Black people are not stupid.

I don't have any issue with how you rearrange the article as long as the POV and the diversions are left out. The quotes from the Mormon scholars relating to Cain will be put (back) into this article, as the Mormon section is being so meticulously rearranged to give the reader the impression that Mormonism didn't 'really' support racism against Blacks. But we all know that it did. (unsigned by Anon)

Val42, COGDEN, he is right. Let's add into the article the references he's requested. All of our claims are referenceable, and the Anon's should do the same for his unreferenced topics that we've pointed to.

You wrote: "Mormon people may have acted differently than how the Mormon scripture and leaders taught, that is not relevant here." Again, some leaders taught one thing or another (just as the Baptists or Methodists of the same time period did) but the people reactions is significant. For example if a mormon leader taught something and it was denounced by every LDS person, then that would mean the doctrine would have died. So reactions of individuals to the so-called "curse of cain" doctrine is important. Smith taught that slavery should be abolished. When he ran for president of the United states when he was assasinated, one of his major platforms was to abolish slavery. That was prior to Brigham Youngs teachings about Ham. That should be added in, as it gives a holistic view on how Mormons view blacks and how they interpreted the Book of Abraham passages.

You wrote: "The Mormon scriptures specifically point to an inherent inequity of Black people spiritually." I am unaware of such a passage in any part of our canon - can you reference? Even the teachings in Abraham and Moses do not say Blacks are not equal to whites. That is your interpretation - and can easily be interpreted the same way from the bible.

You wrote: Priesthood ordination is not relevent. It is. Priesthood ordination, and associated temple blessings was the only thing denied blacks by the application of the doctrine of the "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain." Intermarriage was strongly discouraged, but not denied to those applying for marriage. Their children just couldn't hold the priesthood. But they got the rest of the blessings of the gospel and still would make it to the celestial kingdom. Joseph Smith taught against the idea that some leaders taugth about "Whites are more valiant in heaven." Joseph Smith taught that each man and woman had differing levels of valiancy - but it was not segregated by race. I believe many asian and blacks and native americans were more valiant than many mormons.They just have a different responsibility on this earth. I believe my wife was more valiant than I was. The other church leaders that taught that blacks were not as valiant (as there were some that taugth this) disregarded SMith's teaching on the matter. I don't excuse it, but it was their opinion, not doctrine, and not in accordance wiht Smith's teachings. The issue is priesthood ordination. I'm sorry that you think Mormons are trying to pull a fast one on Blacks. I definitely don't think Blacks are stupid. That would make me stupid.

I do agree that many LDS leaders were racist and supported racist ideas. I'm truly sorry for this, but historically, this did not equate to wholesale racism and denial of blacks from church services, or the ordinances they needed to be saved. Elijah Abel and other Black mormons had to endure a great deal, but they will be saved just the same as other white mormons. All are equal in the sight of God, even if the priesthood was denied them. -Visorstuff 23:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that we should rehash the entire Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article here. I meant that a short summary should be here with a link to that article. The link is now there. But I was out late doing something tonight, so I don't have time to address the POV that the anonymous editor (User:208.254.174.241) has introduced. I've just taken care of the easy-to-correct (spelling, etc.) mistakes that the anon made. Val42 06:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've added in references for my edits. I didn't footnote them, but they are there. -Visorstuff 19:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I think this page was slapped with a "higher standard" because much of it sounded like an opinion - and there are no references or sources, aside from four editors interpretation of 19th century doctrines. That won't fly. User:68.60.55.162 do you have sources for this, or is this article based solely on your 'understanding' of the interpretation of the doctrines? Is there a Non-LDS-facing book on the doctrine? -Visorstuff 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An example of poor biased scholarship

Here is an example of what should NOT be allowed:

"Ironically, the Church was forcibly expelled from the state of Missouri and the state government legalized the killing of Mormons through the Extermination Order because of the Anti-slavery, abolistionist stance of Joseph Smith, Jr. and his followers, and their equal treatment of Blacks in the state and their liberal views in allowing blacks and women to vote unlike most of their Non-Mormon neighbors."

I am familiar with the Extermination Order, and it had very little (and that only speculative) to do with Black people. The Mormon citizens of Missouri were armed and had been fuighting areas of Northern Missouri, they were known as the Danites, and were a militant and agressive group, who were not unlike the KKK in their intensity. They took up arms as militias according to Joseph Smith on July 27th, 1838

"Thus far, according to the order of the Danites. We have a company of Danites in these times, to put to right physically that which is not right, and to cleanse the Church of every great evil which has hitherto existed among us inasmuch as they cannot be put to right by teachings and persuasyons [sic]. This company or a part of them exhibited on the fourth day of July [—] They come up to consecrate, by companies of tens, commanded by their captains over ten" (Faulring, p. 198)

Originally the Danites were a religious militia (like the Janjaweed of Sudan) who wanted to remove those dissenters (dissenting not due to the issue of slavery, but to other issues, like Polygamy) to Smith's own religious changes. This militia group eventually expanded into fighting against other non-mormons as well as Mormon dissenters. Over time the two sides fought, and the tension escalated with the state. And the state responding in typical prejudice, instituted the Extermination ORder... NO WHERE does the racism against Blacks show itself to play a role, and to claim such is misleading. THIS is an example of the Mormon POV distortion that I have had to bring up. It should not be tolerated in Wikipedia, guys stop it!

First of all, you do not "own" this article and cannot dictate what should and shouldn't be allowed. If so, you need to talk to the founders, who believe that the Wiki shoudl be built by consensus. The Gallatin, MO skirmish which directly led to the extermination order, was over voting rights. Mormons were barred from entering the voting place. Missourians feared the "northerners" who were Mormons of puritan descent would vote in a bloc on such issues such as slavery and how much black votes should count for. I would say that was a pretty significant reason, wouldn't you?

The Danites involvemnt or even organization is suspect at this time. You are over simplyfying and confusing dates. you state "They took up arms as militias according to Joseph Smith

on July 27th, 1838" Smith could not have led them at this time. In addition, I am more familiar with the danites than you realize and Danites have absolutely nothing to do with the article. they do have to deal with the extermination order, but so does mormon views on slavery, blacks and indians. -Visorstuff 23:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in Mormon, Non-Mormon sites and references to demonstrate that the extermination order was in fact partly in response to Mormon's views on slavery. -Visorstuff 19:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from Mormon scholars about the Curse of Cain

I'll just go ahead and post a bunch of quotes from Mormon leaders regarding the curse of Cain. We don't want to leave the readers with a false impression of the church's position.

Anon, please sign your posts. It makes the talk pages flow much better. You are ignorant with regard to the LDS Church.

Please do add in the quotes - it will round out the article. But it will also make the Mormon section much bigger.

NPOV

I've slapped a NPOV template on the page, because you have not cited such things that I left in notes, such as the Mark of Cain being a blotch on his face, etc. In addition, you have introduced unfactual informaiton about the Joseph Smith Translation, etc. Feel free to reach out to Non-Mormon or even other Anti-Mormons on the WP:LDS to balance out your opinion edits. You may want to start with User:Sheldon Rampton, who is a very outspoken critic of the Church - especially outside of Wikipedia. REmember not all of us that have edited this page are LDS, but from reading your posts above, it is obvious that they have more understanding of this topic than you do. I've studied Mormonism for about 30 years, and think I do know a bit about it. I remember living through the Mormon culture at the time blacks received the priesthood. I remember the happiness of my black mormon friends and nieghbors. I also remember the sadness and racism they felt at times. But to make such blatant POV statements as you have is very unencyclopedic. -Visorstuff 23:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality disputed

I took the NPOV dispute off. There are plenty of opportunities to address this issue in the discussion board first. The mormon position on the article is clearly one of propaganda to omit where possible evidence that the Curse of Cain was a MORMON religious founding principle and on the other hand somehow these same people try to make it a Christian founding principle(which is obviously is not).

The racism was a Mormon-scriptural tenant, not a Christian-scriptural tenant.

Outside of that, there is no other controversial issue worth NPOVing.

I don't think the article is claiming that racism was a founding tenant of Christianity. It's also not saying it was a founding tenant of Mormonism, because it wasn't introduced until long after Mormonism was established. It's just something that crept into common Christian theology for a time, including Mormonism—but not exclusively Mormonism by any means. COGDEN 23:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your choice of words interests me. YOu said "long after Mormonism was established". Fifteen to twenty hyears is not a long time, and in fact, the entire first 30 years of Mormonism is considered the "founding" period. (Like in Christianity, it was a 50 year period, not an instantaneous process). How long is long? Let us be honest, and not play with words. The racism IS a founding tenant of Mormonism as it is clearly laid out as such IN the Mormon scriptures (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon). If it is IN the Mormon scriptures then it is a founding tenant of the religion. And the exclusivity of it is not relevant. Christianity had been running along for centuries without the anti-black racism. And for many Christian groups OUTSIDE of White influence, it never expereienced that kind of influence.

Using your same logic, we are still in the founding period of Mormonism, because we believe that new doctrines are being revealed - and that we are in teh middle of the "restoration of all things." So the doctrine was taught for a period of time in the founding of the religion. This makes no sense. The "founding" doctrines and basic tenants of the LDS church were done by 1836. Some new things were introduced or refined after that time, but the "curse" as you speak of it was not taught by the church until 1846 after Smith's death, when the council of the 12 voted on the policy in Winter Quarters. Yes there are some passages that people use in the LDS Standard Works to justify the doctrine, but tehre are also passages in teh bible that Christians used to justify it. The text was in the scripture first, then interpreted. Not taught in the scripture as clear as you make it. Since the idea was in other christian scripture, using your same logic, it must have been a foudning doctrine of Christanity - but we both know it was not. Nowhere in LDS scripture does it say Cain was cursed with a skin of blackness. It may have been interpreted this way because of the lamanites skin color change (which was not a curse), but it is not found there. -Visorstuff 21:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that will be a credible way for you to get that idea across. The scriptural elements that were established are the same scriptural elements. To use an excuse of "continual change" to abrogate (and yes you are supporting the abrogation principle) does not lend credibility to what HAS happened. What HAD happened was that Joseph Smith had written articles that taught that there was a curse on Black people in his writings in the Pearl of Great Price and on Native Americans in the Book of Mormon. You do not include these as "Joseph Smith" because you want to blame God for this. Well, I am here to make it clear that Smith, being the writer of the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price was the originator of the Mormon doctrine and policy. Not "after his death", because it was his hand that compiled the Pearl which had the racist doctrine in it. "If I had anything to do with the Negro, I would confine him to his own species and put him on national equalization." (seperate but equal doctrine). --ANON

Also, the curse of Cain doctrine was only ever semi-officially adopted by one branch of Mormonism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its break-offs. Other branches, such as the Community of Christ and its own break-offs, never went there. There is nothing in LDS canon that states that black skin is the curse of Cain. The only thing that comes close is a statement in Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible that "the seed of Cain were black" (Moses 7:22). What that means, Smith didn't elaborate. But it takes a mental leap to go from there to the absurd proposition that anyone with black skin, especially after all these millennia (and especially after the Flood supposedly wiped-out all of Cain's descendants), has the curse of Cain. It was others, such as Brigham Young and John Taylor, who made that leap, based on their preconceived notions taken from popular American theology of the time, and that was after the various Mormon denominations separated from each other, and thus was after the founding era of Mormonism. COGDEN 23:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. People read too much into LDS official doctrines versus LDS folk doctrines. We've hashed them out in other places - Mormons believe that they can be a god of their own world with purple dinosaurs, that Mormons still teach polygamy, etc. I can take the bible and make just as many claims about other church's doctrine, and mormon teachings about race. None of the above are doctrines of the church, but have or are perpetuated by some members. The Strangites is another Branch of Smith's church that never went there. -Visorstuff 23:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what the hell IS Mormon doctrine? I am so sick of this play on words. The word "doctrine" is used and retracted from Mormons all the time. it's a spider-web. In fact, I am taking the word "doctrine" out of the article and putting a better word. "scripture" because the Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon, and a few other Mormon writings are called SCRIPTURES.

That's fine, but there is less evidence for support of the policy in Mormon scriptures than in folk doctrine. If 70 percent of Christians believe in some form of re-incarnation or former life or pre-existence or pre-life (whatever you want ot call it), that doesn't make reincarnation a christian belief does it? If 95 percent of christians believe that some human man who is an anti-christ will take over the world prior to or at the time of the rapture, that doesn't make it Christian doctrine. If it's not in the scripture, it's not doctrinal. It may be widely taught, it may be widely believed, but it is their interpretation, and supposition, not doctrine. Just because 70 percent of mormons believed that black skin was the mark, doesn't make it mormon belief. Look to what is in the standard works and you stick close to doctrines. No spiderweb, not confusion. Just cultural propagating. There is little scriptural support for re-incarnation. There is little scriptural support for a human anti christ and the scenarios in "left behind" and there is little scriptural support for black skin being a mark of the curse of cain. Believed or not, it simply is theory and conjecture. -Visorstuff 13:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking from an LDS point of view, so this may not be totally accurate for the others, but this is the way that I see it. (This is POV, so I know it doesn't go in an article.) The Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and the sects of Mormonism have an authority that their faithful believes "speaks for God" and is therefore doctrine. For Mormonism, there is a formal process beyond the prophet speaking for adoption of new doctrine, which is detailed in other articles. I also suspect that for the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches that there is also a formal process beyond the leader speaking to have a change in doctrine.

I hate to split hairs on protestant christian doctrine, but their doctrine seems to be changeable by a large number of believers. The formal process varies, but it seems to be from 2/3 to 3/4 of the delegates at a formal convention to change the doctrinal beliefs of that sect. To look at a currently-changing doctrinal policy in protestant christianity, we can look at policy toward homosexuality. The above process has recently been used to change the doctrine (in many sects) from considering homosexuality as being a serious sin to it being (near) nothing. The Bible clearly says what it means about what christian policy toward homosexuality should be, but such conventions have clearly changed what church doctrine is.

And to the anonymous editor: The longer that you continue to be ignorant of how to sign your comments, the more ignorant it implies that you are to Wikipedia policy in particular and encyclopedic writing in general. Thank you. Val42 17:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that you may not remove the NPOV template until the issues are resolved on the talk page through consensus. The issues are not resolved. From Zipporah to Mormonism, to the mark of the curse. See NPOV. If you'd rather I can do a Template:POV check for other editors throughout the wiki to come look to see if it is POV or not. I'll add that one in secondly. -Visorstuff

Yea, ok we will address them.

NPOV Help

Please see discussion and history of removal of some edits (article history) for POV edits. Language such as "obviously" and "refute" are too strong of words and POV language - and what is and isn't relevant to the article have been disputed. Factual problems such as the use of the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible, the mark of Cain being a blotch (as opposed to a token or sign or other signifying mark), the Extermination order ties to abolistionist mormons, and if this article was hijacked to become mormon propaganda are all issues. We welcome help with improving this article. -Visorstuff 23:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think one possible problem with the article, which complicates the NPOV issue, is the conflation of the "curse of Cain" with the "curse of Ham/Caanan". I think there really ought to be two separate articles. The "curse of Cain" has a lot of relevant material, some of which has nothing to do with racism. It's the "curse of Ham" that was most directly linked to to racism. And even within racist theology, the "curse of Ham" and the "curse of Cain" are sometimes treated differently. For example, some people thought that blacks were from the curse of Cain, while "other races" (other than white or black) were from the curse of Ham. Accordingly, I've created a separate Curse of Ham article. COGDEN 00:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Working towards decency

Visorstuff - I agree that some level of decency is necessary to create a positive enviroment, but one bad habit that a lot of people do in the matters of racism is that they try to reintrepret historical events with as much justification as possible against the perpetrators and using as much vindication as possible for their actions. It is very clear a difference between heresies in a religion and founding principles in the religion.

2000 years ago, Christianity had zero anti-black racism. There is nothing absolutely nothing, to justify trying to link 18th AMERICAN interpretations into the fundamental founding principles of this religion.

In this article, I saw someone try to put in that Ham's wife was from the line of Cain (A Mormon specific POV). No one refuted or took it out, except myself. That inaction contributes to the lack of decency that we all here should aim to maintain.

So here we are, discussing the neutrality of the article, and ignoring that before Joseph Smith came along, all of the Mormon "historical articles" did not exist. And except Joseph Smith, no one has any historical evidence that we can look at. Nothing outside of the Bible supports any granule of historical information from the Mormon founder.

So in the matter of faith, we can make all sorts of assumptions, but we should predicate them "according to Mormon beliefs, so and so said this"... however in the matter of historical context, there is nothing in Christian doctrine that has supported anti-black racism throughout the ages. None of the church fathers, nor the Apostles of Jesus made any comments that we have found that show a hint of anti-black racism. It's just not there.

Now, what is dishonest and misleading is when someone tries to make the Mormon racist theology on par with Christian racist HERESIES and replace the word "heresy" with an implied legitimate Christian theological position.

Anon, please sign your posts. It helps people reading the talk pages to properly attribute viewpoints. Signing a post is easily done by including four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Knowing how to sign your posts will also tell people that you know something about Wikipedia markup and policies. Thank you. Val42 06:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Momonism treatment

Not to make matters worse, but I've noticed that I've been the only editor who has done research on any other views of the curse of cain for this article. If this article is supposed to be focused at Mormons, then we should add a (Mormonism) tag to the title. If it is not, then the original author should add in other belief sets - as the article focuses too much on the Mormon church and not other american protestant denominations. Anon, CODGEN, VAL42, do you want to expand the Baptist section? Add in views from African Methodist Episcopal? How about Methodism in the US? What about Churches of Christ of Assembly of God or Pentacostal? All had similar teachings, some lasting ntil the 1960s. Why are we focusing so much on Mormonism beliefs? because they were the last to change policy? If so, they weren't the last, and we should addin information from ultra conservative groups who still teach it. to me it's like focusing on south africa in the racism article. If you don't want to expand, let's either roll it into an existing article, rename, or do something - because this is definitely not encyclopedia-like. contextually in america it is just as embarrassing to push a POV against mormonism or judaism as it is of racism. this type of ignorant discrimination is unwarranted in today's world. Not tyring to be mean, but let's expand the article so it doesn't look like a hidden attack on Mormons, as that is what it appears like now. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 13:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MY thought is that the Mormon church is the ONLY church even today that still holds to this belief. if there were other churches of any noticeable existence (not some small irrelevant sects hidden in the woods), I would include them also, in a heartbeat. No one is attacking Mormons... instead, what you fail to understand is that this Black-people-curse belief is an attack on Black people, and I am taking the responsibility to point it out for what it is. If this curse were taught as a curse on the white race, I do not believe you would have a problem with how the candidness of this article. --208.254.174.148 20:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)(unsigned by anon)[reply]

You wrote: MY thought is that the Mormon church is the ONLY church even today that still holds to this belief. The Church does not hold to this belief. It does not excuse itself but says that all previous teaching about Blacks and the LDS Church by former leaders is now replaced by OD 2. -Visorstuff 17:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is not responding to my statement. Here is why. The Mormon church is saying that their god changed his mind. I am saying that that the Church still teaches/believes/whatever that God at any point in history had cursed Black people. I am not interested in whether or not later on the church leaders flipped flopped. I can still go to a Mormon church and they still teach/believe/whatever that at some point God HAD created Black people from a mark of Cain, and that at some point God had cursed the Black race. What you are failing to understand is that noone of those replacements can undo the fundamental issue. It's like killing someone and then saying that you didn't kill the person because you no longer consider it a crime when it happened, or you no longer consider killing a crime. Maybe I explain it another way. Ask any Mormon scholar or leader, and they will inform you that God still created Black people from Cain (or Caanan or whatever). Until the Mormon church disavows this, the fundamental issue will not be resolved and this is part of the curse of cain misinterpretation.--208.254.174.148 20:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself a Mormon scholar, and they will not tell you that. We will tell you, however that it was once taught by some leaders and disavowed by others. -Visorstuff 20:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I came to this article about two weeks ago, there was the general christian perspective and the Mormon perspective. I do agree that we need more perspective on this article. I do appreciate those who have been able to add other perspectives. But I can't realistically contribute to any other perspective at this time. But I will contribute to cleanup as I have been doing. Val42 17:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've been considering transferring most of the Mormonism material to Blacks and Mormonism, where it goes into much more detail anyway. Then, we could leave a link on this page. Mormonism is just one of many religions with some sort of link to the curse of Cain doctrine, and there's no reason to include a long, detailed Mormonism section when the same material is included in Blacks and Mormonism. Moreover, in Mormonism, the "curse of Cain" and the "curse of Ham" doctrine were intertwined in a unique way by John Taylor. All the detail on that is more appropriately described in Blacks and Mormonism, rather than here. COGDEN 18:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

What other denominations still teach this stuff? (unsigned by anon)

Let me rephrase the question: What Christian denominations of any substance teach that Black people are somehow related to or cursed by Cain. You said you added them in, but I have not seen any. I see you made references to earlier misrepresentations in protestant groups in the 18th-mid 20th century... but no one today still teaches this. (except the white racist KKK groups, and obvioulsly they are not included as a credible group as they openly practice racism... not disenvow it)--208.254.174.148 20:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to add them in, have you read the article? -Visorstuff 17:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yep, and this is deteriorating --208.254.174.148 20:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the others are smaller denominations and fringe groups that you'd discount, becuase they are white racist groups. I've begun adding them in, but am still researching what I can find of them to get a holistic view. Stay tuned. "begun" means I've started, not finished. It's much easier to see who was taught it in the 20th century - This man was taught it growing up [2], The Children of Yaweh [3],

It was taught to this presbyterian minister [4], but to find out who taught it to them, and if they were religious is more not as easy to do. The LDS Church was more controversial because it was eight or nine years later than one of the baptist conventions and well after the bulk of the civil rights movement was over and moving into affirmative action era. -Visorstuff 20:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of the article could be transferred to Curse of Ham or Blacks and Mormonism. I'll watch for what you decide to do. -Visorstuff 19:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with moving the bulk of the Mormonism section to the Blacks and Mormonism article. I've got other things to do tonight, so I won't have time. But if no one objects by tomorrow, I'll move it then. If I've moved too much or too little, others can make a readjustment. Keep editing in the meantime. At least on these two articles, I seem to be better at tidying than material content. Val42 01:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I made some minor edits and the article is smaller. Some of the article is in Curse of Ham and Blacks and Mormonism. However, most of the material seems to belong to this article. Val42 23:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Anything dealing with Cain and Black people will remain in this article. Any OTHER kinds of anti-Black racism can go elsewhere. And any Black-Mormon racial issues can be in both articles, but any Mormon-Cain-Black issues will remain in this article, even if repeated in the other articles.

Didnt know where to put this. Is the issue that the "curse of blackness" (bit politcally incorrect there) has been attributed to Ham instead of Cain in the article anywhere (I just kind of skimmed it)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eno-Etile (talk • contribs) 09:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Mormonism - fairness - integrity

There are a few problems with how the article has been handled.

1.Any mention of Mormon theology or scriptures or prophets relating the curse to Black people is either played down or deleted. This is a gross distortion of facts via omission. The list of what the curses consistency has routinely been edited to remove any reference to Black people, despite the clear comments by Brigham Young that specifically discusses them. In fact, the commentary by Young in 1853 was in order to address the African people, how rediculous is it to edit the main event out of this article. Enough! http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm And no, removing the whole section in order to solve the P.R. dillemma in this article will not be allowed, I will keep this list in here. (Thanks to whoever decided to put it in the first place). 2. The Pearl of Great Price IS a Joseph Smith testimony that Blacks were cursed. There have been comments in here that Smith did not contribute to the Curse of Cain on Black people issue. But he did contribute with his writings in the Pearl of Great Price. 3. Softening of the candid wording against the racism should not be condoned. It was wrong, still is wrong, and should not be "retold in a softer way". 4.The Mormon church is given the most attention, because it is the Church that attracted the most attention to this issue. All other churches simply followed a folk-ideology. The Mormon church went much further, by creating a doctrinal, scriptural, and prophetic elaboration on this. Where the Southern Baptists apologized for their heresy, the Mormon church has continued to promote this as something God actually said, even to the point that sections of their scriptures were created to support it. Thus, the Mormon church forms the most important aspect of the promotion of this ideology, even though they did not invent it. (although, again according to the Mormon church, they are the only one with the truth, and therefore they did invent it) I want to make it clear as day. This article is not going to be designed to serve as a P.R. platform for the Mormon church. I have read the comments in here, and I do understand the Wikipedia policies. These policies should not be excluded for the sake of Mormon, or White sensibilities. --208.254.174.148 14:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Exterminaton Order - makes no mention of it being related to Black people, this order was issued in response to the "DANITE" (Mormon militant) activity in the north of the state. If you plan to put it back in, cite it, or it will be removed... again.
Teachings of Spencer Kimball - These make no mention of the curse in the position and this book, not an autorative scriptural work is not sufficient.
Catholic parallel action in the South - cite

I've added in my citations when I added in new references and links last week. They are there. I'm not going to rehash on the talk page - feel free to look at them youself. As for the extermination order, it is there. As for Kimball's teaching, it is considered a great deal of autoritative - as he was the one who received the revelation to stop the ban. If you think Kimball's comments should be removed, so then should young's and smiths. Let's just leave this to the scriputures. The catholic "parallel" is cited in the references. It is in a section about other denominations views. Not in a Mormon view. This aricle is about more than just the mormon church, it is about the "curse of cain" which very little has been taught on this as opposed to the curse of ham in LDS theology. You are getting the two confused and frankly, you are embarrassing yourself. -Visorstuff 17:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Tzipporah is mentioned in the article.

Three times has Tzipporah been reomved. The relevance is this. The Curse of Cain article is about the belief that it was on Black people to serve as slaves and to not be intermarried with the Israelites, or other "non" (and I empathize those quotes) Black people.

For the person who asked what the relevance is. I will explain it to you one last time. TZIPPORAH IS A KUSHITE. KUSHITES are BLACK, that is what the WORD Kushite MEANS in Hebrew. IF a Hebrew speaker wanted to call a Black person Black, they would use the word KUSHITE. Kushites were identified south of Egypt where we know they are BLACK even now to this very moment. Go to Sudan, take a plane there, and see for yourself. They have always been Black. They are not tanned white people. And if they have a Caucasoid shaped skull, that does not mean that they were not "really" black. And any other excuse you can make up for trying to turn Kushites into "not black, just tanned" will also be refuted. Tzipporah STAYS in the article, forever. That statement about her is a critical element of the inconsistency of the interpretation, and if you do not understand why, then that is your problem. She stays in the article.

Great, let's add in a list of other blacks in the bible that the curse didn't affect. -Visorstuff 17:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can do that, but I decided to put them into one statement, to elimate the sarcastic effect. Actually I appreciate you adding them in, some I didn't even recognize till you put them in. Again, just imagine if this curse was on "white" people, and how you would react Visorstuff --208.254.174.148 19:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Softening the blow (or redistributing the shock)

Another thing. In this article, someone is trying to redistribute the blame/guilt whatever you want to call it, by mentioning other groups. For example. Someone mentioned that the Catholic church did similar racist things in the south. And that the church fathers spoke in a racist manner against Indians and others....

I have no problem with that being mentioned, but without citations, it's looking more like a POV manipulation than an honest insight into the Curse of Cain. As neither point relates to the curse of cain.

Guys, I can't stress it enough: The Curse of Cain on Black people is not a Biblical, or Godly principle or tenant. Joseph Smith and his followers were just flat out wrong, and were either delusional, or deceived by Smith himself. I do not care. This isn't about being Anti-Mormon, for the focus is not on the Mormon church. This is about being anti-Black, as the Mormon church supports a belief system that is perhaps the most repugnant disgusting evil I can think of. Black skin and flat noses were not created by God in some way as a response to any person's sinful activity. Get it through your heads, this will not be tolerated. Let it go. The Mormon church still teaches this, and I do not give a da** if they add "but everyone is treated equally now." at the end of every sentance. I don't understand why we are even discussing this. I want you all in here to do an experiment. Pretend that this garbage from the 19th century had said that the Curse of Cain was "white" skin and that white people were cursed to servitude. Now re-read the article replacing Black with White and tell me how "nice" the Mormon church is now.

oh and here is your signature.--208.254.174.148 14:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)--208.254.174.148 14:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)--208.254.174.148 14:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)--208.254.174.148 14:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)--208.254.174.148 14:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the signatures--I think. If I were you, and wanted to build up some credibility, I'd register as a user and become familiar with Wikipedia etiquette, and certain policies such as Neutral point of view, which is not negotiable in Wikipedia, and No original research. I don't think you quite understand the Neutral point of view policy: it means that all notable views are included, not that the article is "objectively correct" in any one person's view. COGDEN 00:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

No redistribution of guilt. I've just added in what ramifcatiosn the doctrine of the curse of cain had on other denominations - such as the catholics. I've added sources for it. I agree. The application of the curse of cain is not biblical. I don't agree with it. thank-you for not stressing enough, but we agree with you. you said "The Mormon church still teaches this" but they do not. Please find one general conference sermon (which is considered authortative on doctrinal matters for the time) of this since 1978 and provide a source. I'm not excusing what was taught, but am providing a holistic view. Thank-you for your expiriemnt. We know all to well what it is like to be discriminated against - for losing or not getting jobs because we are mormon, for nieghbors not letting their children play with ours because we are mormon. For businesses not giving us service because we are mormon. Each of these I have had happen to me in my short lifetime - but if the same were done on basis of race, the'd be sued or jailed. The lawsuit in Louisiana [5] is just a recent example of such discrimination in the past few days. I try not to walk around with a chip on my shoulder and claim that all state prison groups, but your bigotry against mormons based on a historic teaching that is no longer taught or adhered to is like bigotry against all irish because their ancestors taught pagan teachings. We've changed, and most Mormons have grown out of racist beliefs. You should do the same. You make no sense.

As far as the "smith was a racist because of the Book of Abraham teaching, I'll address that shortly with a side beside comparison with Moses' words and smith's moses and abraham translations, and let's see how Moses fares. -Visorstuff 17:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Line by line comparison of racicst teachings of Moses' Genesis and Joseph Smith's Book of Moses

Below is a side by side comparison of the Curse of Cain teachings as found in the KJV and the Book of Moses. I do not see where Mormonism's teaching is more racist than the Bible's. Can someone show me? There is nothing in the Book of Abraham about the curse of cain.

Moses 4	Genesis 4
16: And Adam and Eve, his wife, ceased not to call upon God. And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord; wherefore he may not reject his words. But behold, Cain hearkened not, saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him?	1: AND Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
17: And she again conceived and bare his brother Abel. And Abel hearkened unto the voice of the Lord. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.	2: And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
18: And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord. 19: And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.	3: And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
20: And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering;	4: And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
21: But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.	5: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
22: And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?	6: And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
23: If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him;	7: If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
24: For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his alies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world. 25: And it shall be said in time to come—That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a cursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent. 26: And Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord, neither to Abel, his brother, who walked in holiness before the Lord. 27: And Adam and his wife mourned before the Lord, because of Cain and his brethren. 28: And it came to pass that Cain took one of his brothers’ daughters to wife, and they loved Satan more than God. 29: And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands. 30: And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret. 31: And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain. Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness. 32: And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him. 33: And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands.	8: And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
34: And the Lord said unto Cain: Where is Abel, thy brother? And he said: I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?	9: And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my abrother’s keeper?
35: And the Lord said: What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood cries unto me from the ground.	10: And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.
36: And now thou shalt be cursed from the earth which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand.	11: And now art thou acursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;
37: 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.	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.
38: And Cain said unto the Lord: Satan tempted me because of my brother’s flocks. And I was wroth also; for his offering thou didst accept and not mine; my punishment is greater than I can bear.	13: And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
39: Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the Lord, and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that he that findeth me will slay me, because of mine iniquities, for these things are not hid from the Lord.	14: Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
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.	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.
41: And Cain was shut out from the presence of the Lord, and with his wife and many of his brethren dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.	16: And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Visorstuff, I hope that you don't mind that I put your side-by-side comparison in a table. I think that it makes it easier to compare this way. If you don't like it, you can revert it. Val42 04:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

What is your thought process or are you censoring or trying to control this article?

I'm having a hard time understanding your thought process. You think that any mention about blacks in the bible is relevant, but that treatement of other races is not?

You removed: "Ironicly, there are a number of racist teachings against Jews, Indians and others in early Christian documents, but none dealing specifically with blacks."

This is documented in the sources I provided last week. And is significant as it states that blacks were not a target of discrimination in the early church, but others were. Why is this not significant in your mind? -Visorstuff 20:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did post a lot, but the article was updated and it looks like my comments are dust in the wind. However, if you posted any sources, post them in here as a response. As I do not see them. --208.254.174.148 21:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if Blacks were not a target of discrimination in the early church, but others were, what does that have to do with this article "Curse of Cain"? Indians and Jews were not targets as the early church was the weakest group and were being persecuted by Romans and Jews. The leaders of the early church were all Jews. This is going to take us way off topic. --208.254.174.148 22:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good additions

Great additions to the article today COGDEN and anon. Both of you keep up the good work. -Visorstuff 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of unnecessary distraction

"There is no scholarly consensus of what the curse of cain would be." - This seems to be premeditated to guide the reader towards a preconceived notion. The Bible (from which the Curse of Cain originates) clearly indicates what the curse is. I apologize for my bluntness, but this is really annoying that I have to remove content that is in my opinion undermining the facts of what has happened in history. If Wikipedia is going to be an exercise on experimenting with "journalilstic relativism" then let me know now. (unsigned by anon

If you can demonstrate that there is a consensus among scholars as to the specific meaning, please cite. Most generally agree on only two points. This statement is not about biblical interpretations, but about scholarly consensus. -Visorstuff 22:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of unnecessary distraction

Use of the racial curse of Cain doctrine in the Catholic Church==== The Catholic Church teaches that the curse of Cain was given by the earth, not God, to Cain, as a punishment for having to "opened its mouth and drunk the blood of thy brother." The Church teaches that Cain's punishment was not having to wander, as he founded a City, but that he wouldn't have the "strengh" of the earth in his agricultural endeavors, but that the Earth would still produce for him. The Church also teaches that he was to be banished from the land of his parents as a result of his curse.

As for the mark of the curse, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "No indication as regards the nature of this sign is given us."

I took this out because guess what. No where in this section is there any indication of the Catholic Church using the curse of cain in any racial context... please highlight what you see as a racial interpretation anywhere in this section above. Otherwise it stays out. And yes, this is what I consider to be manipulation (smoke and mirrors) of the article to deflect unwanted attention away from those who DID practice Anti-black racism in the name of Christianity.--208.254.174.148 22:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article is not Racism and the Curse of Cain, but "Curse of Cain." As the Catholic Church does teach about the Curse of Cain, it should be included in this article. REmoval of an interpretation of the curse of cain to highlight another interpretation is a form of censorship to push a POV. I do agree, however, that the section heading should not include "racism" in the heading. I'm adding back in. -Visorstuff 22:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We will learn from each other

You guys can teach me how to write more professionally. I can teach you guys how to NOT use propaganda tactics when writing articles about sensitive topics.

For example, when its mentioned that Christians refute the curse this is how someone put it:

More recently, there has been a Christian backlash against use of the curse of Cain doctrine in racial politics. Today, most Christian denominations flatly reject such a doctrine. Some Christian apologetic observers also point to Biblical references which they believe refute the doctrine, including a reference in the Book of Numbers...

well, I believe that leaves the reader with a false impression of how the Christian population views the curse. Just about ALL, not "some" Christian apologists point to biblical references. And this is not a matter of belief, and not a recent phemonon. But the reader might think that until recently most Christians believed in the curse of Cain... This is a propaganda tactic in writing,I believe it's called "affirmation via ommission". It's where you relatively quantify something that happens by using "some" in order to give the reader a false impression that "most" were opposing. But in this instance, this is not an honest way to write this article. (So this is why I am handling the article so heavy handed, because these kind of tactics are rampant in this article).

so I changed the paragraph to say this: More recently, there has been a stronger Christian backlash against use of the curse of Cain doctrine in racial politics. Today, all of the mutually recognizeable Christian denominations flatly reject such a doctrine. Most Christians also point to Biblical references which refute the doctrine, including a reference in the Book of Numbers...

You guys see the difference? If not, then just pretend for a moment we were talking about White people being cursed, and not Black people. I think then you can see how dishonest it would be for some one to play down the significant Christian majority throughout the world that has never supported this point of view. Once you stop thinking that the only Christian points of view that counted in history were the "white" ones, then you will see that this is a no brainer. I think now, you all understand. I have had multiple people read my comments before posting them, and I cannot figure out how to more clearly explain this obviousness. --208.254.174.148 22:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think COGDEN was trying to be dishonest, as you suggested above. Rather, that is Wikipedia norms not to use absolute statments such as "all" or "nearly all" as it is impossible to prove unless you do one BIG poll. We appreciate your efforts in this article, and clearly all of us have a lot to learn. I still don't see the relevance of many of your edits, as it seems like biblical-based apologetic arguments that you use, rather than external scholarship, but either way we'll get ahold of how to best work together soon enough. But also, realize this is not a Mormon article - it needs to be expanded or it could get the delete or the merge with another article vote from others. Keep up the good work. -Visorstuff 23:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More

Let's just keep learning here...

Someone put "Some ultra conservative groups, such as Stormfront "

I corrected this to say

"Some racist groups, such as Stormfront "

Because we don't want the readers to miss the fact that Stormfront's main platform is one of racist exclusion and seperation. I'm sure we can debate this, but Stormfront's history and goals fall squarely into the wikipedia definition of racism.

Although it is their main platform, they are also discriminatory on a number of other levels. They are against Jews, Mormons, JWs, Blacks, Islams, and anyone who is different. They are more than just racist, and they encompass more than racism. Is there a better word you can think of? How about Hate group?

Yea, Hate Group works much better than "ultra conservative". See? How something is worded leaves just as much of an effect on the reader as what is omitted. --208.254.174.148 00:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you'd sign up with a username, rather than just being an anon user. You IP shows as you being in or near "Clinton Michigan." Perhaps that would be a good screen name? -Visorstuff 23:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yees I will put my username up. But I am having a hard time understanding how you can be omissive about these concerns I raise Visorstuff.

Incidentally, while we are "learning," the JST does not contain passages that lend to racism theology as you state:

Mormon church leaders rewrote Biblical passages and created new scriptures and doctrines to further justify racist policies against those of African descent.

Ok, lets find out if I have somehow misintrepreted these JST passages: "a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all men". (JST 9:30) (let me guess, you are going to say that this is FIGURATIVE aren't you)?

Instead it should read:

Mormon church leaders used Mormon scriptures and doctrines to further justify racist policies against those of African descent.

if the JST does, please share where... i showed you one. And by the way, the JST has been altered a few times. Which JST

Your use of the word 'all' in an absolute and in not provable or citable. You should say "most" that is wikipedia standard.

yes, instead of using "some" when I should use "most" right?

In addition, you have once again removed the information about missouri - even after I showed a half dozen sources for it. You are involved in censorship. Would you like to involve a mediator in our edit dispute. I will not revert today due to the WP:3RR, but am happy to get other Non-Mormon editors involved. You are involved in censorship and pushing your POV. -Visorstuff 23:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SHOW THE REFERENCES. NONE OF THOSE REFERENCES TO MISSOURI POINT TO ANY EXTERMINATION ORDER BEING GIVEN IN RESPONSE TO MORMONS TRYING TO FREE SLAVES OR GIVE BLACKS EQUAL RIGHTS! In fact, forget this, I'm sending this to the moderators for vandalism. I'm sick of that

Mormon Extermination Order - one post away from vandalism

I took this out

"Ironically, the Church was forcibly expelled from the state of Missouri and the state government legalized the killing of Mormons through the Extermination Order partially due to the Anti-slavery, abolistionist stance of Joseph Smith, Jr. and his followers, and their equal treatment of Blacks in the state and their liberal views in allowing blacks and women to vote unlike most of their Non-Mormon neighbors."

We need some citations. All of the references to the Missouri Extermination Order is related to the government's response to Mormon-Danite militant activity in the north.

Now, this will be the third time and if you put it back on without references, I will report this as vandalism.

http://www.jwha.info/mmff/exorder.htm http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/extermination_eom.htm

oh and look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order_(Mormonism)

You guys want to doctor up that Wiki article so it can look like it was related to Smith's commitment to freeing the slaves too? --208.254.174.148 23:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I've added in sources to back it up. (even one from Encyclopedia encarta)

One of the many reasons for the extermination order was that Missourians feared the Mormon's anti-slavery tendancies (they were northerners) Read the links below - oh wait, since you haven't and I've provided them on the main page, I've pulled out some quotes and the links for you. This may help with your reference checking issues.

You are blind, or don't read my posts or don't check the sources I've added or are clueless to American history and how it relates to Mormonism. Feel free to report me as a vandal. I've been an editor here for nearly four years, I'm an admin and you are an anon user. I've documented just about every thing I've added in - including the extermination order causes. I think the credibility would be with me. THat said, you are about killing me with your ignorance - so I am taking a wikiholiday for the rest of the day from this page. -Visorstuff 00:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== Mormon Exterminaton Order references please ==

--208.254.174.148 01:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)== Mormon Exterminaton Order references please ==[reply]

This section is devoted EXCLUSIVELY to those who have references to the Mormon Extermination Order being given by the Governor or Missouri as a response to Black slaves being freed or due to Mormon leaders causing a disruption to the slave establishement.

Enter reference here

I'll post here again, just so you aren't confused - as you have obvisouly missed that I've put them on the main page as well. And there is external to the Internet reading you can do as well. See the "reference section."

Therefore, my statement is true. One of the reasons for the extermination order was Mormons views on slavery. You can add it back in. -Visorstuff 00:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of Mormon expulsion from Missouri at http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy001211.html is written by Jeff Lindsay and mirrors his biased opinions. He is a very strong pro-mormon supporter. I also see that he ommitted any first hand references. What this link does is a self-referencing link. he gives no references.

More about the expulsion from Missouri and Anti-slavery views of Mormons in Missouri at http://www.sover.net/~barback/ot/mormons.html does not even discuss the matter. I am removing that link.

The LAST LINK More about Mormons anti-slavery beliefs at http://www.kcstar.com/millennium/stories/ldsps.htm eludes to a possible issue with Mormons and their anti slavery beliefs. However, this also totally ignores the Danite issue which was what motivated the Governor to issue the Extermination Order.

You blanked my response. Incidentally, the first URL you reference (ttp://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy001211.html) is written by Ryan Hart, not Jeff Lindsay.

Your second point that "does not even discuss the matter" states: "Smith tried to establish Mormon communities in many places, but they faced opposition to some practices and their anti-slavery stance. In 1838, the governor of Missouri ordered all Mormons to leave the state!" If that doesn't say anyting about slavery or leaving the state, feel free to remove. Ahhh!

Third, Did you ever think that the Danites were not the primary issue? An election uprising at Galatin was? Bloc voting was the issue? "Let's remove this link because it doesn't agree with my interpretation that the danites were the real cause - and because it doesn't address the danites, it must not be credible." That's what I see you saying. That is incredible logic. You need to read Missouri history or something. I'd recomemend a couple of books to you, but you won't read them. You barely check out the references we've given.

I cannot believe you missed the references to slavery - even after my spelling them out. You are the only one that is disputing this. Everyone else tends to agree with slavery being one of the issues leading to the extermination order.

I recommend getting a mediator, as you are incredulous and pushing your pov even in the face of evidence. Should I recommend one or do you want to search for one? User:Wesley comes to mind. He is Orthodox, not Mormon, and quite a historian. If not him, we can try User:Mkmcconn or User:Alai, all of whom are not LDS or Mormon. Talk to you tomorrow. -Visorstuff 00:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is one thing. I want the extermination order which IS in WIKIPEDIA to have some reference to Blacks and slavery. The extermination order was not given because of slavery, it was given because of insurrection. What you are doing is trying make the Mormon sentiments against slavery to be the cause for the extermination order. We can actually dispute this in the Mormon extermination order. IN fact, let us deal with the extermination order IN that article, and when that is resolved we can come back here. You are saying "did you ever think that it was not due to the Danites?" That's a possibility. Did you ever think that the extermination order was not due to slavery issues???? Oh and by the way, our cross posting already caused me to lose my content twice. so thats why im not responding like you would hope.

Mediation

Can a Black person with access to references be a mediator here?

Smith wrote clearly in support of slavery as indicated in his letters in Messenger and Advocate. I and one other person were reviewing this over the past two days and were watching to see how the LDS position in these articles in Wikipedia would respond to some of the comments raised by some anonymous friends. Although I do believe he was rather immature in his comments, Anon has made some very compelling points that I have yet to see a credible response to. Firstly the Mormon Extermination Order was not related to slavery or Black people, it was related to insurrection and civil disobedience in northern Missouri. The Mormon war was a three sided affair that simply attracted too much attention. Mormons were openly attacking excommunicated Mormons and vice versa after a fallout from the schism between Smith and others, and the way I undersand it, much of this was due to the Mormon's buying up land for the second coming and their belief that they and they alone were chosen to the rapture (or protection of God). It was this open air belief that sparked the religious (not racial) intolerance of the Missourians. LaSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri - ISBN 0-8262-0729-4

The other issue that is irking me actually is that there are too many omissions. I see what seems to be an attempt of neutrality in handling the article, but we go from citing resources on one hand, then going to making statements about Smith being anti-slavery in the beginning (no references), despite references being shown multiple times of Smith's Pearl of Great Price supporting a doctrine of Cain being the ancestor of Black people. (or let me rephrase, of some people having Black skin???).

The only reference I think exists is some article in the Morning Star, which I cannot find, that vaguely hints at encouraging Black people to settle in Missouri and convert to Mormonism. No where in any of the references to this article does it encourage Black people to emancipate themselves.

Obviously these issues "Curse of Cain" "Mormon Extermination Order" and "Blacks and Mormonism" are cross listing with each other. The same people are editing them on both sides.

Why don't we get the references (not secondhand repeats on other websites of the same arguements presented here) of what Smith and his companions actually said. If we cannot provide them, then predicate the statements with "some believe" or "there is specualtion that...". But when i read "Smith was anti-slavery" I failed to find that, and actually STUMBLED across the Messenger and Avocate, while LOOKING for evidence to support the LDS position! So lets clear up the antagonism on both sides. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need mediation on these articles. The "Curse of Ham" is also involved in this dispute and should be included in the mediation. I don't think that we need to put qualifications on the mediator other than they not be personally entangled in either viewpoint. I also think that these articles haven't yet reached the point of locking down the articles, but they may within a month's time. I'd like this mediated before it gets to that point. Val42 07:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

What difference does it make if the mediator is black or not? Should we also say that he must be a Mormon? How about a black mormon? How about making it very neutral and add the qualification of a non-american as well? That way we'll get the most neutrality that we can.

Perhaps we should limit discussion on the main page to references to the "Curse of Cain" itself, leaving out all other context of Mormon treatement of blacks? That way no context is given, but facts are given. We could each provide quotes about the teaching of the "curse of cain" from every general authority who has used that phrase in church history. From Brigham Young (smith never mentioned the "curse of cain") to Bruce R. McConkie. Let's just add in each quote. What do you say? (I doubt anyone will respond to this, as other suggestions above have been ignored as well) I'm taking a wikiholiday from major editing of the page. I am not a racist, nor have I do I believe I have disclosed my race. If you want to see what black mormons (who should be objective on the matter) think about it, i'd recommend BlackLDS.org (which offers a no-nonsense view that is not flattering, but much more NPOV than this page) or starting a dialogue with Genesis or reviewing their site [www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/ Genesis Group] (which is more favorable to the church). We've all admitted that Mormons historically have not treated Blacks as equals, but to single them out is discrimination in itself. The teachings of the church now is anything but racist, and I have a hard time seeing how the Pearl of Great Price is any different than the Bible in it's teachings of the curse of cain or of blacks - see side by side comparison above. Perhaps i'm just tried to look past race as an issue - as it is not in my life. I live in a predominately black and hispanic area, and have not encounted such a systematic attack against mormons as I have online or on the wiki. To target Mormons as racist is wrong and offensive.

I would agree with you except for one problem. Mormon scripture and mormon prophets and leaders still point to a Black skin-race of people. The relating of Cain to Black skin will invariably lead people to associate the black skin of those "cainites" to Black people in our world. Why? Because from those with a Biblical view, people accept almost universally that Black African people came from the line of Ham. It was taught openly and has not changed, outside of non-Christian interjections. So that assumption is not challenged. In addition, even within the context of the Bible, it's expounded, into Africa, very neatly, fitting much of the modern archaeological revelations of Black Africans migrating throughout north east Africa and S.E. Asia. --208.254.174.148 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I do notice that there is consisency to the timing of the first edit, editing style (and textual content) of and general attitutes used to support points against Mormonism by User:68.60.55.162 (IP based in Michigan), 208.254.174.148 (also based in Michigan) and User:Zaphnathpaaneah - two of which have become new editors in the past month (208... has been "lurking in Wikipedia since early 2005," which ties in well with Z's profile page). I'm not accusing you Zaphnathpaaneah of using sockpuppets - but there is a good deal of evidence to support this (and I think enough evidence to support that the two anon editors are the same person). I don't care if you use three different profiles to edit - but if you are the same, dealing with one person would offer much more consistency, and I'd encourage you to be consistent and have integrity. If you are not the same person, disregard, but know that there is an coincidental upsurge of controversial editing on black history from Michigan within the past 40 days. Interesting trend, but may mean nothing. User:Zaphnathpaaneah in particular has made some great contributions to the Wiki. So in any case, keep up the good work, and enjoy your wiki experience. I'm happy to participate in any mediation as long as we agree on the mediator(s) -Visorstuff 12:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do not deny that I have been posting under that IP, but I am not the only one. I am not using different profiles, I am posting from different locations, and either I forget to login, or someone else is contributing at the same location, or there are a few of us collaborating on the responses. You notice how the tone changes abruptly. I have some friends that are really blown away by all of this, and all of the excuses we have read have offended them. I guess they (and I have contributed to that here and there) get a little carried away. Until recently I had not personally posted on the discussion area as much as I would have liked, as I focus primarily on the Black People article, but there is nothing to hide behind. All of the articles posted from the same location, with the same IP are from the same people. It doesn't mean anything, because you can just as easily have friends all over the country collaborating on the same content. But besides all of that, the issue here has attracted much more attention than you realize. Some of us have spoken on the radio about it. So this whole thing is really getting more looks than you may realize. --208.254.174.148 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in curse of cain statements, and side by side comparison as sub-pages. See Curse_of_Cain/Genesis and Curse_of_Cain/LDS_historical_statements. Other statements about Blacks are not included, as they are irrelevant to this page, per anon's "decision" about the extermination order, etc. -Visorstuff 16:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visorstuff - I personally recall cutting and pasting passages from the LDS JST Bible. And during the height of a similar exchange with a Mormon apologist, about 2 years ago, the LDS website removed the JST translation and now I see it elsewhere and some of the text is changed. What I believe is an honest way to handle this (and you tell me why you would disagree if you do) is to look at the passages where the racist rhetoric was present, like in the Pearl of Great Price, which had content originally used for the JST verion. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you recall this, please find it. As stated above, the LDS Church has never used the full text of the JST (also discussed at Joseph Smith Translation). The text for the LDS exerpts that are included as footnotes in the KJV the church uses is here, and the full text of the CoC version is here [[6]]. You have it all, please find - I think you must be thinking of something else. Let me know what else I can do to help you find it. -Visorstuff 15:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Extermination Order I actually think should be in the article. But your conclusions just are biased. It's as if you are taking every opportunity to play down prejudice in Mormon history, and every opportunity to exaggerate the progressive meaning of Mormon statements to the level of "action". For example, that statement in the Morning Star, all it said was that they invited Black people to move to the area and join the Mormon Church. It doesn't encourage emancipation or an anti-slavery view and the evidence I presented from Smith's and Young's own comments should be enough. If THEY said they weren't supporting the views YOU say they were supporting, i think that's enough to retract the conclusion you made. And this is unusual, because the absence of evidence is enough to retract an assumption, but I found confirmation. So Anon (me Zaph) decided based on what was clear BEFORE the articles I found a few days ago, and further justified BY those articles. The only thing better would be for Joseph Smith to be pulled through time and placed in front of you and then tell you while being recorded on TV and radio "I do not support anti-slavery, I am pro slavery." --208.254.174.148 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC) User:Zaphnathpaaneah[reply]

An example

Firstly let me apologize for the confusion I created with my improper use of not logging in. I did not realize how relevant it is. I am not here to make a name for myself, and so I didn't care enough to login. But it seems like for many of you, this comes across as being evasive and tricky. That is not the case. You can blame me for all of the content from those IP addresses if you want, it doesn't matter to me.

What I want to address is this "The Mormons were against slavery and favored immigration of free blacks. Their views soon brought them into conflict with proslavery factions, and they were forced north across the Missouri River into Clay County. Violence continued, and in 1836 the legislature set aside Caldwell County for the Mormons, where they settled and founded the town of Far West. However, some also moved into Davies and Carroll counties, where opposition from their neighbors led to the Mormon War. Governor Lilburn W. Boggs called out the state militia with the order that the Mormons had to be “exterminated or driven from the state.” By April 1839 most Mormons had left Missouri and gone first to Illinois, and later founded a new Zion in Salt Lake City, Utah., mith tried to establish Mormon communities in many places, but they faced opposition to some practices and their anti-slavery stance. In 1838, the governor of Missouri ordered all Mormons to leave the state!. "

This was one of the references that Visorstuff posted, but this is not a reference in what would be considered a real honest reference. This is just a 3rd hand source, another website poster's opinion, and is no better than me or one of my friends posting a webpage and then using it as a reference. Most of the examples Visorstuff are like this. I do believe that Wikipedia does not consider that to be a credible way to support a position does it, even if the person wrote a book or two, without firsthand resources, it's not a credible way to resolve this issue. What is particularly of interest is this part "The Mormons were against slavery and favored immigration of free blacks. Their views soon brought them into conflict with proslavery factions, and they were forced north". I know from what I learned, that is not how it happened, but I out of habit take the devil's advocate and search for information spoken BY the people involved in the incident. So, well I try to find this by first hand citations, but none exist. And what ended up happening is that I found evidence to refute it. Smith spoke clearly in favor of slavery no more than 2 years before this incident. Another thing that bothered me was that someone in here posted that Smith had ran on an anti-slavery platform, but I have found no firsthand information about it. These vague things are suspicious to me, much in the same way that my posting from two IP addresses is suspicious to you. But I have provided clear information about why I did that, and I do not get the same clarity about this issue. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just pulled about a hundred references to slavery in LDS historical documents. I am not denying church policy. But there is a difference between being anti-slavery and not proselytizing to black slaves or encouraging black immigration during the time period. I freely admit that there was what we now consider racist views against blacks in Churhc history. I'm not trying to downplay this. However, what most Mormon historians find unusual about Mormon views is that their views were circular. They didn't believe in slavery, but yet they allowed for it, and had policies (as did many other churches) toward slaves. Then they had a policy against blacks. Then they didn't. It is a full circle - which is unusual when compared to other churches such as the southern baptist convention. I'll add in appropriate references (those dealing with paul's view on slaves, us as slaves of satan, us as slaves of Christ, etc. are irrelevant) as a temporary sub-page, so you can see the references. Unfortunately, anti-mormon sites don't give the good quotes as well. :^) -Visorstuff 15:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of this. What I believe was happening was that Smith and the other leaders were simply changing positions. It's like how politicans do. When they want the support, they say one thing, when they encounter difficulties, they flip flop or back track. I do not find the circutiousness relevant. Let me stress this, I believe Smith and the others were lying, they were making up these stories to make money and to have access to sex and power. I think at times, Smith had a conscience, more so than Brigham Young. Sometimes Smith reflected and felt that maybe he should be a better person, but the lying had gone so far out of control, there was no way he would confess. All this indicates to me is that the Mormon religion and these quotes from Smith and what he claims to see in visions and what not, they aren't anything worth take seriously. What I don't like is this flip flopping, they did in the "name" of God, and were abusing god's name for the sake of their own selfish motivations. Now, I don't intend on insulting you if you are LDS, but this to me is simply too much as it affects people to this very day. If you are insulted by what I say, I am insulted all the more for this man and his friends who created the madness that encouraged people to be racist and hate Black people. Why? Because they sanctified the hatred and bigotry under God, and they were wrong, and had no reason, authority, or right to do so. Black people like Gray (or whatever his name is) was saying that "God didn't command but he allowed slavery."... this nonsensical answer is to me a characteristic of Mormon apology on circular issues. These kinds of things to me are indications that you should not trust those kind of leaders, especially with your own spritual salvation! --208.254.174.148 01:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Cain

Here’s the Cain quote – interesting that it doesn’t say Cain was black, but describes him as having "dark skin" and "covered with hair." Not sure if appropriate for this article, but is interesting.

On the sad character Cain, an interesting story comes to us from Lycurgus A. Wilson's book on the life of David W. Patten… giving his recollection of David Patten's account of meeting "a very remarkable person who had represented himself as being Cain."

As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me. . . . His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark. I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men. About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight.... - Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p.127-128

COGDEN, I think I’ve been confusing this with the "destroyer" on the water incident in Smith’s life. I’ve read some speculation that the "Destroyer" was not Satan, but Cain. Speculative only, so no tie between the two should be given.

On the 9th, in company with ten Elders, I left Independence landing for Kirtland. We started down the river in canoes, and went the first day as far as Fort Osage, where we had an excellent wild turkey for supper. Nothing very important occurred till the third day, when many of the dangers so common upon the western waters, manifested themselves; and after we had encamped upon the bank of the river, at McIlwaine's Bend, Brother Phelps, in open vision by daylight, saw the destroyer in his most horrible power, ride upon the face of the waters; others heard the noise, but saw not the vision. The next morning after prayer, I received the following (D&C Section 61). (HC, Vol. 1, pp. 202-203) -Visorstuff 17:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

I renamed the article from Curse of Cain to Curse and mark of Cain and fixed the appropriate redirects. I did this because the article is really about both the mark and the curse, and I couldn't find a way to cleanly separate the two, to create a true curse of Cain article and a separate mark of Cain article. Let me know if anyone can think of a way that the "mark" can be treated separately from the "curse" without major overlap, or if there is a better suggestion on the name of this article. COGDEN 19:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Good clean up Job

I find this to be a very impressive improvement. And I definitely consider this article to no longer be in dispute. I do feel that the other contributors are overlooking one thing.

Smith DOES indicate that Black people are the descendants of Canaan. Smith DOES indicate (in the Pearl) that Canaan was the son of Ham and a wife who preserved the curse of Cain through the children of this wife.

I think the doctrine regarding the descendants of Ham and Canaan belongs in the curse of Ham article. I think there is general historical agreement that Smith did believe in the curse of Ham doctrine, which was also much more common among Protestants at the time. The Book of Abraham does not refer to the theory that Ham's wife "Egyptus" was a descendant of Cain. It just says that the curse was "preserved" in Egypt because the Pharaohs trace their ancestry through the daughter of Ham (who is also the daughter of Egyptus). But it doesn't mention Egyptus when it says that the "race which preserved the curse in the land" sprang "from Ham" (Abraham 1:24). COGDEN 02:05, September 2, 2005 (UTC)