The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ The Book of Mormon discussion


379 views
What is the "Mark of Cain" in the Book of Mormon?

Comments (showing 1-50 of 62) (62 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

Monkey Man As you may know, the Latter-Day Saints refused to give black men the priesthood until 1978. Was this just general racism, or is it part of their core beliefs?

Moses 5:40
"And I the Lord set a a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

But what was this mark?

"For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a BLACKNESS came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were DESPISED AMONG ALL PEOPLE." LDS Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:8

Alma 3:6-9
6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a acurse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a amark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not amix and believe in incorrect btraditions which would prove their destruction.
9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

So, according to the Book of Mormon, not only is dark skin a curse, but interracial relationships are too!

Even more interesting is the changes made. Compare the Book of Mormon (1830 edition), 2 Nephi, Chapter XII, p. 117
"And the Gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; wherefore, ...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people."

With the current "translation" of 2 Nephi 30:6
"they shall be a pure and a delightsome people."

Why change "white" to "pure?"

What, according to the Book of Mormon, was the "Mark of Cain?"


Noel Stutz We dont believe that anymore. They can hold the priesthood.


Debbie The change is based upon the reality that language changes. What means something at one point in time does not mean that later. As a non-religious example, in my generation, "hustle" meant "hurry". For my Dad, "hustle" is what prostitutes did to get clients. Major difference in just one generation. Thus, in this case, "white" was changed to "pure", on revelation to do it, because the sense had become interpreted that their skin would change color. But it was not meant that way.
The Book of Mormon does not define the Mark of Cain specifically, to my knowledge.


Kaleigh~A Doctor Who InkWizard They might have the mark now, but we can forgive them and their ancestry.


Monkey Man Kaleigh,

How nice of you to forgive dark-skinned people. I'm sure they feel much better now.

Noel,

You don't believe it anymore, but you did. Or, rather Brigham Young did.


message 6: by Kaleigh~A Doctor Who InkWizard (last edited May 26, 2011 03:49PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kaleigh~A Doctor Who InkWizard Thank you. But this could be a VERY serious debate soon, so I will try not to be harsh....


Ammon Monkey,

I really don't understand why you bother posting these threads. You won't learn anything about our church if you only ask about the things that people have told you make us "bad" or "evil."

Yes there are black members of the church. They DO hold the priesthood now, it was withheld from them until our gracious heavenly father allowed them to have it. Why it was withheld from them in the first place doesn't really matter anymore. God chose to hold it from them. I have never once heard a black member of the church complain about this, so I figure that they accept what God decided to do, and see no reason to be angry or bitter about it.

I don't mind you having your own opinion, if fact I say more power to you for expressing it. Our eleventh article of face clearly states:
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." You are entitled to your opinion, though I, and I'm sure the many other Latter-Day Saints (or "Mormons" as most of the world has nick named us) on here would appreciate it if you would back off and stop trying to make our church seem like it's something terrible.

Stop trying to disprove that which you will not allow yourself to understand.


Monkey Man Ammon wrote: "God chose to hold it from them. I have never once heard a black member of the church complain about this, so I figure that they accept what God decided to do, and see no reason to be angry or bitter about it. "

Ammon,

Interesting that you put this off on god. Nothing to do with human racism, eh? All Eloheim's fault. Gets Brigham Young and all the racists up until 1978 off the hook.

And you've "never heard a black member of the church complain", eh? Surprise. Have you ever talked to a non-LDS black person about this? Or an Ex-LDS?

Love,
Monkey


Alexa Monkey wrote: "As you may know, the Latter-Day Saints refused to give black men the priesthood until 1978. Was this just general racism, or is it part of their core beliefs?

Moses 5:40
"And I the Lord set a..."


It is not racism or part of our beliefs. The prophets have never said why the preisthood was withheld from the blacks. It's believed that the curse of dark skin is because of Cain's evilness in murdering his brother. If dark skin was believed to mean evil, withholding the sacred power of the priesthood is a natural reaction in the Church. We have been corrected and they are now able to hold the priesthood.


message 10: by Bigcuppa (new)

Bigcuppa I heard about this and didn't believe it, but I checked, and it's true. Mormons totally believed that black skin meant you were cursed, until public opinion made them change.

When do you think they will "be corrected" and women will be allowed the priesthood?

And what's with all this changing stuff? It's like the pope in Rome making stuff up.


Hippasus It is a bit depressing to see Mormons defend racism like this. I grew up in the lds church but I am now an atheist, and this obscene doctrine is part of the reason I left.


message 12: by Noel (new) - rated it 5 stars

Noel Stutz Honestly? The LDS church is not racist. We are not defending racism.and this "obscene doctrine" is what makes some people happy. Im sure you didnt like the church because youyr actions didnt correlate with the church standards. That is usually why people leave the church and complain about the church. I am sorry that blacks didnt have the priesthood but there is nothing we can do about it. The past is the past. And women dont have the priesthood because we have a different role in the grand scheme of things. Motherhood is our form of priesthood. Men cant have kids and woman cant have the priesthood.


message 13: by Gayerexmo (new)

Gayerexmo Noel wrote: "Men cant have kids and woman cant have the priesthood. "

Does this semantic hocus-pocus work with any argument? "Men cant have breasts, so women have to live their lives as second-class citizens"

Makes sense to ME!


message 14: by Hippasus (last edited Mar 04, 2012 07:49PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Hippasus Noel wrote: "Honestly? The LDS church is not racist. We are not defending racism.and this "obscene doctrine" is what makes some people happy..."

The fact that blacks did not receive the priesthood until 1978 makes some people happy? Or is it the knowledge that blacks are cursed that makes some people happy? Perhaps you meant to say that if we ignore these bits then church doctrine in general makes some people happy. I would venture to say that islam makes even more people happy, but I doubt you're ready to convert.

Noel wrote: "Im sure you didnt like the church because youyr actions didnt correlate with the church standards. That is usually why people leave the church and complain about the church"

You seem to be accusing me of being some sort of miscreant that was forced to leave the church so that I might carry on in my miscreant ways. I left because I was challenged to answer a question about the church, which led me to discover the atrocious history of the church.

Noel wrote: "I am sorry that blacks didnt have the priesthood but there is nothing we can do about it."

You could stop worshiping a racist god. You could also stop telling african american children that overtly racist men such as Brigham Young were prophets hand chosen by god. What are these children (or adults for that matter) supposed to think if they ever read some of the vehement comments that Young directed towards blacks.

Noel wrote: "Men cant have kids and woman cant have the priesthood. ...."

You might as well say that men can't have kids and women can't drive or go to school or vote.


message 15: by [deleted user] (new)

Right.

Men cannot naturally have kids. It's even SCIENTIFICALLY a function that only goes with female mammals.


message 16: by Drgoodall (new)

Drgoodall So Taylor: our physical characteristics determine our rights? If you are physically different you have different civil rights?


message 17: by [deleted user] (new)

I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about the PHYSICAL ABILITY to bear children. I have yet to see a baby come out of a male.

Can two gays adopt a child and raise it? Sure. I don't really care. I think it's wrong, but people can do whatever they want. Even if I were attracted to my own gender, I wouldn't oppose my God and go indulge in my sexual desires.


Joleen Genesis 4:15 reads: And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be take on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
So Cain was marked by the LORD; changing the color of the skin seems to be logical. I'm sure that the LORD could have branded him or tattooed him in some sort of fashion, however, those who study the scriptures know that his whole linage was marked. So, skin color seems reasonable and or acceptable for a "mark" which the LORD put upon him.
Ham's children were marked or cursed as well. He married a woman who was not of his faith or tribe. His descendents were therefore "marked" or "cursed".
Genesis 9:18 "And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan."
verse 25, same chapter, "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants she he be unto his brethren."
Chapter 10 explains the generations of Noah and his sons. Verse 6: And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizriam, and Phut, and Canaan.
Land of Cush=http://www.isaiah18.com/Cush.html
Land of Mizriam=http://agards-bible-timeline.com/blog...
Land of Phut=http://www.blacksinthebible.net/phoen...
Land of Canaan=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/j...
Interracial marriages were NOT condoned in the Bible. They were NOT to marry someone outside of their tribe or faith. God was very specific on these things.
By the way, the book of Moses, as cited above is NOT in the Book of Mormon. It is in the Pearl of Great Price. The book of Moses is NOT found in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price are usually printed in what is called a Triple Combination, and the three books are also found in what is termed a Quad, which includes the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
There have been many, many "black" members of the church since the 1830's. Anyone who has studied The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knows this. On June 8, 1978, a revelation came from God. ALL of the members rejoiced for this good news. I remember when it happened.
I'm not sure what Kaleigh wrote is what she meant. I do know that GOD is the one who changed things. I don't know that our forgiveness is a part of it. GOD made the change. The Church carried out God's will. Yes, what "Ammon" said, "Yes there are black members of the church. They DO hold the priesthood now, it was withheld from them until our gracious heavenly father allowed them to have it. Why it was withheld from them in the first place doesn't really matter anymore. God chose to hold it from them. I have never once heard a black member of the church complain about this, so I figure that they accept what God decided to do, and see no reason to be angry or bitter about it." is very true. Those members who were denied the priesthood before June 8, 1978 knew that what they believed was true. They knew/know the blessings of the Gospel. No one tricked them. They chose to be members because of what they believed. All have been blessed by this.
Yes! God is who we believe in. God makes the rules. This is NOT something the members of the Church take lightly. Members of the Church believe in revelation. God reveals his will and it is adopted into the Church doctrine. This is what the Church members believe.
With over 14 million members all over the world, more than half outside of the United States, I hardly believe you can call the Church racist! GEEZE!!!
Women do NOT hold the priesthood, nor will they, nor do they need to. I can tell who "knows" what they are talking about on here and who does NOT know. It is obvious who reads what and where their information comes from. I can tell who will go to a plumber to get their plumbing fixed, and who will go to an electrician.
God is NOT racist. As far as I believe and know, He loves ALL of His children. I will say I believe He is a strict parent. He has rules, laws and commandments. More homes should have them.


message 19: by Lora (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lora I was always taught that the Church did not have priesthood for the blacks probably because so much of the rest of the country had such a racist streak that it would have simply been one more thing to persecute the members about. I mean, dang, those wild Mormons had their women voting long before women in NY or D.C. could! They're so weird! Almost as weird as Wyoming, lol.
Besides, I imagine some members then and now have been racist. That's their personal mistake. But honestly, the Mormon religion has only been around for a couple hundred years. Racism had thousands of years head start. Heck, my very own germanic ancestors might well have been slaves to Romans. I don't hold that against Italy, or the Vatican, or Michealangelo...or Latin... or olive oil.


Joleen Bravo! There are so many misconceptions about the Church. One is that they "tell" people what to do, how to do it, etc. We make our own choices, in everything. My 93 year old mother is racist...and I hate it. She wasn't brought up in any religion. But she doesn't discriminate...she's not mean or anything. But she is suspicious of anyone who isn't white. It's insane.
On the other hand, I have friends of all nationalities. There are many doctrines in the Church. Most members follow most of them, Yet others choose not to. It's all about choice.
Great post!


message 21: by Hippasus (last edited Jul 09, 2012 06:21PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Hippasus Joleen wrote: "Why it was withheld from them in the first place doesn't really matter anymore."

To suggest that it does not matter why god deprived an entire race from the priesthood is astounding.

"God makes the rules. This is NOT something the members of the Church take lightly. Members of the Church believe in revelation. God reveals his will and it is adopted into the Church doctrine."

Your excuse for believing that at one time black people should be deprived of the priesthood (un unambiguously racist belief) is that you were simply following orders? Is there any order that god could issue that you would disobey? If not then you have surrendered all of your moral accountability to the principle of "following orders", which is the same as having no moral acceptability whatsoever. You decided to support the doctrine of depriving blacks the priesthood. You cannot escape your moral accountability.

"God is NOT racist"

He universally prejudiced an entire race of people. That is the definition of a racist.


message 22: by [deleted user] (new)

But they are no longer "deprived." And if you talk to a black person who currently holds the priesthood, they will have nothing but gratitude that they now hold the priesthood. Isn't it interesting that you, a white male who does not hold the priesthood, tries to speak for people who are so different from you? How childish.


Joleen I don't know that they ever were "deprived". All are welcome to be baptized and receive the blessings of the gospel. There have been black members since the 1830's. If this was an issue for them, they wouldn't have joined the church.
I believe you are making an issue where one doesn't exist or ever did.
By the way...
"prej·u·dice (prj-ds)
n.
1.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

God had knowledge of the "facts". Who are we to determine if this was "unreasonable preconceived judgement"? There was no "suspicion or hatred"; God loves all of his children. When a child misbehaves, some people put them in "time out". Some parents agree with this, some don't. As a parent, we do what we feel is best in a given situation. God knows the beginning to the end. He had his reasons. Since I believe in God and trust Him fully, as to what He does, I accept whatever happens. Those who do not fully accept Him, His commandments; His decisions, etc. really does not accept Him. My children thought I was mean when they were growing up. But, now that they are older with children of their own, they recognize the wisdom and reasons in regards to parenting.
The Church is true. God is all-knowing.


Hippasus Joleen wrote: "I don't know that they ever were "deprived". All are welcome to be baptized and receive the blessings of the gospel. There have been black members since the 1830's. "

You do not know much about your church. They were indeed deprived of possessing the priesthood from the time Brigham Young lead the church until 1978.

"When a child misbehaves, some people put them in "time out"."

Is this meant to be an analogy? In what way have blacks misbehaved? Judging someone for an alleged crime committed by a distant ancestor is certainly prejudice.


Joleen Check again...we did not judge. This was not was we did. This was God's judgement. We are told not to judge. They were "deprived" a LOT longer than that! They were deprived from the time Cain slew Able...
I know a LOT of male members of the Church who do not hold the priesthood. They still receive countless blessings. Sometimes when something is withheld, when that which was withheld is given, it is more fully appreciated. When something is taken away, then given back, it becomes more precious.


message 26: by Hippasus (last edited Sep 23, 2012 10:45AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Hippasus Joleen wrote: "Check again...we did not judge. This was not was we did. This was God's judgement. "

You are choosing to obey a racist god. You cannot escape your moral accountability.

"They were "deprived" a LOT longer than that! They were deprived from the time Cain slew Able..."

Not true. Joseph Smith ordained african americans to the priesthood. The policy to deny blacks the priesthood came from Brigham Young.


Joleen And so we disagree...and probably will always disagree. We all choose a side. I know what the policies of the Church were in the past. I know what the policies of the Church are at present. As far as the priesthood is concerned at the present time, ALL worthy males hold it.


message 28: by Miles (new) - added it

Miles Gentry The "mark of Cain" is most certainly not a racial distinction, for we are all one singular race (the human race). We are obviously reading about heredity and bloodlines in this regard. Generational curses are a euphemism for genetic inheritance and predisposition.


Joleen Thank you Miles...that is true. Genesis 4:15.


Denise Two cents from a non-religious sort. My personal slant is that Cain never existed in the first place and so any Mark of Cain is a story element not worth taking notice of. Also, I'm not big on holding churches responsible for past actions. There are plenty of present wrongs without having to dive into the past.

If I were to be worried about what the Book of Mormon says, it would be future fundamentalist reading. Most Christian sects are fairly benign, but if they get power and/or military backing, all those "we don't believe that anymore," scriptures have a bad habit of popping up again.


Joleen Interesting.


message 32: by Miles (new) - added it

Miles Gentry Right on, that phrase "we don't believe that anymore" is curios and quite telling.

So whatever corrections made to a flawed doctrine are newly embraced with blind obedience. Furthermore, said flawed doctrine is rationalized and explained away as a quaint product of the times within which it was written! Even though it was supposed to be "divinely inspired." How convenient indeed.


Joleen I don't make the rules. I merely believe in the God who does. I trust that He knows what is best. Everything happens for a reason...everything has a time to happen. I believe the Bible...Old and New Testament, it says it in there, so...I'm going with it. If some want to call it "blind obedience" so be it...Some of us call it faith.


message 34: by Miles (new) - added it

Miles Gentry No offense intended Joleen. I do not disparage your beliefs. I came to believe in the Christian Mysteries for several reasons. One of which is the fact that the Words of Christ will never have to be corrected. It is the Word as written.

I'm simply adding to the discussion by asking such a question. How is it that the teachings and beliefs of a "Christian Church" can be so easily edited? If a prophet is a prophet of God, and if an apostle is an apostle of Jesus Christ, why do they need correction/revision? Shall we discard or revise a few politically incorrect verses from the writings of Paul while we are at it?


Joleen I guess I will put one of my own weird little theories here...Just because it might put my way of thinking in this thread.
Because the scriptures (Bible, Old and New Testament), ave been translated so many times, and MUCH has been left out for one reason or another, who is to say that it wasn't there to begin with and has been omitted? Many times in the scriptures, God has changed His mind about something and done something different. I certainly do NOT believe any more of the Bible should be changed or omitted; there is too much missing as it is, and we should never discard the word of God. I do NOT believe in the "politically correct" versions of the Bible.
I believe the LDS Church is probably one of the only religions which believe that when, in the book of Genesis it reads..."In the beginning"...that it the beginning was before the earth was created.
So...on to my weird little theory. I've thought about this for many reasons. For the most part, because my daughter-in-law has questions there aren't answers for...and I was trying to get across to her that we can theorize all kinds of things to find answers, but in the end, some questions just don't matter to get to the next step.
SO...when the Gods were creating the earth, I am sure that MANY things were created, which are no longer on the earth. For instance, I can picture the creators...men, I'm sure, creating various dinosaurs. One the T-Rex, to fight the others' Stegosaurus...OH and someone created the Pterodactyl, etc. I'm sure they had great fun with this...Men do have fun with these things. Work with me here...and along come Heavenly Mother...She sees what these guys are doing and, as mothers always do, wrecks the fun..."WHAT ARE YOU BOYS DOING?!?!?!? You are NOT going to be able to have everything else you want if you keep these!!! Now, get rid of them and get back to work." Moms...take all the fun out of it. There is MUCH more to this than I'm going to take the time to write...my point being, I believe in Gods power to do what ever He needs to do, to bring about His plan. It's His plan, and IF He feels the need to change something, I believe He will. I also believe that science will prove all things...because God will guide them to do it.
I do NOT think the scriptures are easily edited. In fact, I think some of the versions are so off base, they take all the original meaning out of it. I don't even want to say they are "edited" per se. The 8th Article of Faith reads: We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. The next one, the 9th reads: We believe all that God has revealed,all that He does now reveal,and we believe He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Anyway, I don't blindly obey anything. That's why I have been divorced for 25 years and raised four children by myself. It wasn't easy, but it's done. I would rather walk in blind faith, than the darkness of light. I don't know if you comprehend what I'm saying, but essentially this. Whether you see it or not, there is darkness everywhere...even when the sun is shining. There are those who think they see, when in fact, they don't. You don't ALWAYS see with your eyes...Faith comes from seeing with the heart. From experimenting with trust. If this is blind obedience...so be it.
Sorry to take up so much space. I enjoy the discussion.


message 36: by Miles (new) - added it

Miles Gentry So what is the "Mark of Cain" in the Book of Mormon?


Hippasus Miles wrote: "The "mark of Cain" is most certainly not a racial distinction, for we are all one singular race (the human race). We are obviously reading about heredity and bloodlines in this regard. Generational..."

We are all one singular species. The term "race" is often used to indicate subsets of this species.


message 38: by Hippasus (last edited Sep 28, 2012 03:53PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Hippasus Joleen: I believe the LDS Church is probably one of the only religions which believe that when, in the book of Genesis it reads..."In the beginning"...that it the beginning was before the earth was created.

What do you mean by this? The lds stance on the creation of the earth is the same as any christian sect (other than who was doing the creating).

"SO...when the Gods were creating the earth, I am sure that MANY things were created, which are no longer on the earth. For instance, I can picture the creators...men, I'm sure, creating various dinosaurs. One the T-Rex, to fight the others' Stegosaurus...OH and someone created the Pterodactyl, etc. I'm sure they had great fun with this...Men do have fun with these things. Work with me here...and along come Heavenly Mother...She sees what these guys are doing and, as mothers always do, wrecks the fun..."WHAT ARE YOU BOYS DOING?!?!?!?"

This is absolutely charming. So Heavenly Mother was the one who got them back on track creating cancer, the appendix, wisdom teeth, and so on. She should not take credit for this.

"I also believe that science will prove all things...because God will guide them to do it."

Science has already proven the book of mormon false by DNA evidence.


message 39: by Miles (new) - added it

Miles Gentry @Joleen - I will disregard most everything you wrote in post #35 out of common courtesy to you. I cannot agree with your perspective, but you have every right to that perspective, and without receiving hostility or discouragement from me of course.

You did write two sentences which I totally agree with, and moreover, I believe and accept as truth.

"Whether you see it or not, there is darkness everywhere...even when the sun is shining. There are those who think they see, when in fact, they don't."

These two statements strike to the core of the human condition as described (both literally and symbolically) in the Bible. Mankind is in the Dark! We are asleep as the ancients would say. And though we may think we are awake, we are not.


Joleen Yes, basically the LDS Church stance on the creation of the earth is the same as other Christian sects. The term "day" is up for interpretation, of course. God's days are not the same as what we have...24 hours. Some say that a "day" could have been a thousand years...a "season" if you will.
We lived spiritually, before coming to earth. God is the Father of our spirits. (Psalms 82:6) So, "in the beginning" pertains to this earthly life, not our spiritual life.(Proverbs 8:22-36) When we die, the scriptures tell us we will return to God. How can you return to a place if you were never there. In order to return, it only goes to reason we were once there. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)
Every things was created for a reason. Everything has a purpose. Just because we don't know a reason for something to happen, doesn't mean the reason doesn't exist.


message 41: by Miles (new) - added it

Miles Gentry Joleen wrote: " Just because we don't know a reason for something to happen, doesn't mean the reason doesn't exist."

Precisely, just as...that we have not discovered something yet, does not disprove its reality.


Allrightsreserved Is it possible that the majority of everyone mentioned in the bible were always darker skinned (since it was Africa and the middle east anyway) and the mark of Cain was that he had to bear the burden of lighter skin (since caucasians seem to have a habit of going to other lands, raping/killing/stealing, and claiming everything for themselves- a Cain trait). The early Greeks were barbarians and didn't even have a written language until they forced peaceful Africans to teach them.


Joleen The land on the earth was all one land mass until Genesis 10:25...who's to say it was Africa and the middle east? The languages divided the people. Do we know where they all went? Not any more than where all of the twelve tribes are. Hmmmm...gives one reason to ponder...


Allrightsreserved It's true that in early biblical history the continents hadn't separated yet, but the mention of the skin color of characters in the bible is repeated often. The color of Jesus, the Shulamite woman, and many others...none of them were described as "white" or "pale skinned". As a matter of fact, the only time a person was described as "pale skinned" was when they were diseased or "cursed". There's even a verse in Leviticus that mentions the "curse" going deeper than just skin and turning the "cursed" person's hair yellow. This leads me to believe that the leprosy they speak of in the bible is not the leprosy we know of today which is caused by an infectious bacteria (myobacterium leprae) which destroys the skin, nervous system, etc., but could possibly be the mark of Cain...but I digress- I wasn't there.


Joleen Me either. It all comes down to faith...and trust. There are as many interpretations as there are religions. I was watching several shows on the History channel a week ago. One of the shows was about "lost" scriptures. They aren't really "lost", merely not included for one reason or another...didn't make the grade to be included in the Bible. Fascinating show and I would LOVE to read all of these writings. Most sounded like they would shed some light and answer many questions.


Allrightsreserved There is a book entitled "The Other Bible" that holds all of the known Judeo-Christian texts that weren't included in the original Bible. The book of Enoch seems to be a very popular one. But you have to have a strong spiritual faith before reading.


Joleen I would LOVE to get my hands on it and read it!


message 48: by Miles (new) - added it

Miles Gentry Yeah, I actually have that book...a big ol' hardcover. Found it at a used bookstore called the Bibliobarn for $15. The dustcover reads:

"For the first time in one volume Ancient esoteric texts including:
Jewish Pseudepigrapha, Christian Apocrypha, Gnostic Scriptures, Kaballah, Dead Sea Scrolls."

Definitely grab it if you get a chance.


message 50: by Miles (new) - added it

Miles Gentry We are a bit off topic, but I strongly recommend reading The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed. Chapter 10 is titled "Importance of Enoch and Other Pseudepigraphs."


« previous 1
back to top

all discussions on this book | post a new topic


Books mentioned in this topic

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (other topics)
The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed (other topics)