What is the difference between a curse and a mark?
Question
Dear Gramps.
Can you please clarify the difference between a curse and a mark? We had an interesting discussion in Sunday school but never came to any conclusion. So many think that all Africans are cursed because of their dark skin. I am inclined to disagree. Hope to hear from you soon so that the whole class will be clear on this subject. Thank you for always helping me in my questions.
June
Answer
Dear June,
Thank you for your question, what is “the difference between a curse and mark.” Though both words are often found in similar lines of thought, they are in fact two distinct and separate things.
A CURSE is a separation from God brought upon a person or people because of disobedience and an unwillingness to follow God’s commands. A curse is the opposite of a “blessing”. We all strive for blessings, and in contrast we do not want to be separated from God. In the scriptures we read:
2 Nephi 5:20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
A MARK is something that simply identifies and distinguishes one person or group from another. Marks are displayed in various forms. This could be a sign, symbol, badge, or some identifying factor that helps others differentiate the person with a mark as being someone unique or different from the rest. A positive example of a “mark” could be a merit badge on the uniform of a Boy Scout. A silver badge with an eagle worn on the front of the uniform allows others to easily identify the boy as an Eagle Scout. As a negative example, during World War II, those of the Jewish faith were forced to wear the identifying mark of the Yellow Patch or Star of David on their clothing.
Some marks may not be so easily put on or taken off, but rather some marks are self imposed and can become part of our being. A drug user, especially those addicted to Meth, may become “marked” by the effects of years of drug abuse. The once bright lively individual becomes a shell of their former self and the light that once radiated in them is drowned out and they become marked by a hollow blackness and hopelessness.
In the Book of Mormon we see the two words, curse and mark, sometimes next to each other. As stated above, they are different and separate from each other. Alma 3:14 reads:
“Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed,…
Here we see that God places a “curse” on the Lamanites or rather separates Himself from them. If He wanted, he could have simply stopped there and only cursed them. However, in an attempt to help others know that this group of Lamanites was cursed He also identified them OR set a “mark” on them. The verse continues:
…and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.”
How the mark was actually “set,” we are not told. It has been suggested that the mark may have been self imposed by either a lack of clothing, shaving of the hair, tattoos, war paint, particular jewelry or some other form of a mark(s) that they applied in their wickedness and that would have been easily identifiable to those living in righteousness.
IMPORTANT: I particularly enjoy this verse since it says the curse/separation did not have to be “forever,” but rather it could be removed upon their willingness to simply repent.
Throughout much of the history of the Church, speculation, rumors, opinion, misunderstandings and misinterpretations have been perpetuated among members of the Church and even personally among some of the Church leadership regarding the connection between: race (actual skin color), curses and marks. Some have suggested that as a result of the Lamanite curse, the “mark” placed upon them was an actual physical change in their skin color/ pigmentation. While this idea of “skin color” is expressed in the scriptures, there are those who do not believe it to be an actual physical change but rather believe such ideas to be metaphoric examples only. A metaphor expressing the inner light (whiteness) of the gospel that normally shines forth, but for some this light is regrettably snuffed out because of wickedness, bringing a darkness/void/gloom (blackness) to one’s life. Today, this very blackness/gloom can be seen in the lives of those who reject the commandments of God and continuously live in wickedness. In Jeremiah 8:20-22 we read:
20 The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.
21 For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.
22 Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?
Also in Lamentations Chapter 5 Heading: Jeremiah recites in prayer the sorrowful condition of Zion:
10 Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.
It is possible that the Lamanites were not promised that their actual skin would literally change color like that of the chameleon based on their wickedness or righteousness from white to black or black to white again. Whatever the nature of the mark was, it seems that in the Lamanites’ case once the curse was removed, the penitent could have also removed the mark themselves; perhaps by putting away their identifying apparel or laying down their weapons of war.
Regarding the other part of your question, “Africans are cursed because of their dark skin.” In addition to what I have already shared, dealing specifically with Blacks, the Church has issued several statements and articles to help clarify the Church’s official position and to help dispel or correct previous understandings, opinions or ideas:
According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.
The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.
Church Statement Regarding ‘Washington Post’ Article on Race and the Church
For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.
We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.
It is true that flashy headlines and racist narratives against the Church can be popular to many, but once someone takes the time to actually learn the real facts we all better understand that:
In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally.
Thank you for your question June,
Gramps
The curse of Cain doctrine connection to African blacks was taught by Brigham Young and other prophets after him. Even Joseph Smith in his clarification of the bible, stated clearly that the mark of Cain was black skin. The Book of Mormon is very clear about “white and delightsome”. And for generations members were taught that today’s native Americans were the direct descendants of the Lamanites and that the reason for their dark skin was a curse from God. And it was also taught by the Prophets that people with dark skin were less valiant in the pre-existence. These are the facts and to say otherwise is a lie. It is in LDS scripture and was taught to the members by the prophets. The priesthood was denied to black men of African descent based on the Curse of Cain connection – which was actually a false doctrine made up by the evangelical protestants in the Southern United States before the time of Joseph Smith. Somehow that false doctrine found its way into Mormon doctrine.
The best way to answer the question is to state clearly that the Church and its leadership made a serious and grave err in the past regarding race and skin color. The church apologizes for this mistake. Today, the Church disavows any form of racism…………………………………..
The reason the Saints still believe this nonsense, is because the Church has not really told the membership of its error. It should be done in general conference so all can hear. That is the only way we can put this behind us. It is no different than any sin. You have to confess it; acknowledge openly that it was wrong; ask for forgiveness; apologize to those impacted; and promise to move forward without sinning further.
This dancing around the subject is not working and it is not right in my opinion.
“The reason the Saints still believe this nonsense, is because the Church has not really told the membership of its error…You have to confess it; acknowledge openly that it was wrong; ask for forgiveness; apologize to those impacted; and promise to move forward without sinning further.
This dancing around the subject is not working and it is not right in my opinion.”
I can agree with your above sentiments and would welcome this in GC if it happened. I appreciate what the Church has done thus far especially in posting the Gospel Topic Essay: Race and the Priesthood on lds.org.
Alma chapter 3 has a great discussion on the Amlicites, and the spiritual reasons why tattooing occurs. It amazes me how Heavenly Father knew over 2000 years ago that we would be dealing with this issue today.
It is in LDS scripture.
“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse,” I don’t know how to reconcile this with the following language in the Book of Mormon: “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” (2 Ne. 5: 21. There’s also mention in 2 Ne. 26: 33 and 3 Ne. 2: 15) This was designed by God to prevent intermarriage (“that they might not be enticing unto my people”). In the LDS scriptures the word “enticing” is footnoted to the Topical Guide subject “Marriage, Temporal.”
It is very hard to reconcile the racial history of the Church. I believe that today’s position of the Church is the correct one and that past positions have been wrong. But because the racial items are canonized in scripture, it is hard to just ignore them. There are three areas that really concern me. First, of course the Book of Mormon and the white and delightsome dialogue as discussed. And the teachings of the prophets regarding the Lamanites as the forefathers of the Native Americans living on the American continent. Second, in the book of Moses, Joseph Smith clearing identified the mark of Cain as being a black skin. Where the actual word translated in the original bible, the term “mark” has nothing to do with skin color or race. And third, Brigham Young’s belief in the false doctrine of the curse of Cain application to people of African descent. Somehow this false theory was introduced to the Church through Brigham Young. All three of these issues are very concerning to me and should be concerning to all the study the scriptures. It is my view that the current positon of the Church is the correct position. It would sure go along way to resolving these issues and really embracing this better philosophy by acknowledging the mistakes of the past and apologize for them. And clearly lay out to the membership to stop believing in these old past false doctrines.
I always supposed that at that particular time and place and instance (after the Nephites and Lamanites separated), the Lord did make a shade of skin as a “mark” to segregate to some extent the Nephites and the Lamanites. What we see hundreds of years later in the Book of Mormon is that there was a great deal of intermingling between the two (doesn’t specify much about intermarriage except when King Lamoni offers that Ammon marry one of his daughters), especially as Nephite groups (people of Amulon, Amlicites, Amalekites, Zoramites, etc) dissented and joined forces with the Lamanites, and some of the Lamanites (Anti-Nephi-Lehis) joined together with the Nephites. It doesn’t make much if any mention about the skin ton being a discriminating factor in terms of blessings. In fact, during the time of Samuel, the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites. The way I have always understood the Book of Mormon is that after the Savior visited, the groups united (there were no more -ites), and later when there was a division again, it was based on personal choice and righteousness rather than on ancestry. In other words, I don’t think the mark of the dark skin perpetuated into the current day as such, and even if so, there’s no reason to think it’s a “curse” since clearly the Lamanites were righteous previously, and the prophesy is that they would be restored to the covenant. I have never understood those Book of Mormon passages to be connected in any way to the prohibition on black Africans from holding the priesthood.
It is easy for us to simply associate the words “white” & “black” in solely terms of race. The words “white” and “black” are idioms (words that have a different meaning). You mentioned footnotes. That is a great start to better understanding you question:
The word “skin” is used in various parts of the scriptures. Some examples in the Book of Mormon referring to the Lamanites are:
2 Nephi 5:21 – “did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them”
3 Nephi 2:15 – “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;”
Looking at the 2 Nephi 5:21 footnotes:
21 And he had caused the (a)cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and (b)delightsome, that they might not be (c)enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a (d)skin of (e)blackness to come upon them.
Footnote (d) for “skin” links to 2 Nephi 30:6 and reads:
6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall (a)know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their (b)scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a (c)delightsome people.
Footnote for (b) for “scales of darkness” then takes you to:
TG (Topical Guide) Darkness, Spiritual
TG (Topical Guide) Spiritual Blindness
As you personally follow these footnotes you see: Skin of blackness——> Scales of darkness——–> Spiritual Darkness
White is an idiom for “pure, clean, with God, spiritual light”. Black is the opposite idiom.
White and Black in the context you addressed are NOT related to actual race/skin pigmentation as most modern readers erroneously assume and suggest.
Here is a wonderful talk given by Brother Marvin Perkins : Black Mormon Speaks Candidly About LDS, Race, Past Priesthood Restriction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfzFS2mIcNk
Tacitus Roman historian (c.55-c.120) Many assure us that the Jews are descended from those Ethiopians (burnt face in Greek) who were driven by fear and hatred to emigrate from their home country when Cepheus was king. There are some who say that a motley collection of landless Assyrians occupied a part of Egypt, and then built cities of their own, inhabiting the lands of the Hebrews and the nearer parts of Syria. Others again find a famous ancestry for the Jews in the Solymi who are mentioned with respect in the epics of Homer: this tribe is supposed to have founded Jerusalem and named it after themselves.
.
When I stand under the burning sun, my skin doesn’t get burnt or scarred. In fact, as the plants created by God, my skin utilizes the sun’s rays to create vitamins and minerals to heal my body. Science even proves that white people are genetic variants of black folks; hence, why the lack melanin and eye color. So, how were black people ever cursed, when we are by nature preserved by the sun, which gives life to all vegetation and living things?
.
Songs of Solomon 1:5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. 6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.
.
Let’s put this nonsense to rest about black people being cursed. It was all created in the white man’s imagination to justify enslaving the original people made in God’s image…
This gathering of dear sisters in front of the Temple don’t appear “cursed” to me.