*This <b>Curse of Cain Doctrine</b> was taught by top Mormon leaders as "a doctrine of the Church" from 1848 until 1978. Since 1978, the Mormon Church has not taught "The Curse of Cain Doctrine". Many Mormons over the age of 60 still believe it, because they were taught it as children. Few Mormons under the age of 60 or 70 believe in it today.<p>
The Curse of Cain doctrine had no explanation of the Asian (yellow-skinned) races. Which son of Noah were they descended from? The Church never answered that question.<p>
American Indians were considered "cursed with a skin of blackness" (although their skin was red not black), because the LORD cursed them with such a skin in Book of Mormon times because the Lamanites (lay-man-nights) had become idol-worshippers and "filthy" and the LORD did not want the white-skinned Nephites (nee-fights) to intermarry with them. Lamanites (American Indians) were believed to turn white if they accepted the (Mormon) Gospel and remained faithful. The Negroes were supposed to turn white (with Anglo-Saxons features) after the Curse of Cain was removed by the LORD, sometime after the Millennium (1000 year reign of Christ on Earth) was over.<p>
*American Indians were in fact <i>never</i> idol-worshippers. They did not worship idols, but believed in one Great Spirit that pervaded all things. They believed in animal spirits as guides and helpers, but never had "idols" which they worshipped.<p>
*The Canaanites are the Palestinians, and the Lebanese, and the Berbers of North Africa; all white-skinned peoples. Only the Afro-Hamitic tribes of black African have a little "Hamitic" blood in them. Most black Africans has "zero" Hamitic ancestry.<p>
*The Church had no explanation as to how it taught that Negroes were inferior in intelligence, but at the same time Mormon scripture said that Canaanites were "blessed with wisdom" as well as being "cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood" (Abraham 1:26)<p>
*Early Mormon leaders believed that the ancient Egyptians were Negroes; although the ancient Egyptians were a Hamitic Caucasian race. The Egyptian royalty often had "some" black blood in them, because they occassionally intermarried with Nubian royalty. The ancient Egyptians were not "Negroes" but genetically linked to Arabs, Jews, Lebanese, and Berbers; all white-skinned peoples. DNA studies upon King Tut, for example, show he is Iberian and Hamitic Caucasian, with no "Negro" ancestry.<p>
*Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders believed, as did many white people in their day, that the children of interracial couples were like Mules (a combination of horse and donkey); unable to breed.<p>
*The Curse of Cain in Genesis refers to the Sleb ("Qayin") of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Syria. They are not black, but are Arabs who speak Arabic and look exactly like other Arabs. They still exist to this day.<p>
*Early Mormons leaders were incorrect in many of their beliefs regarding race. Their identification of Canaanites with Negroes were wrong. Their belief that the Egyptians were Negroes was wrong. Their teaching that Negroes were less intelligent contradicted Mormon scripture (Abraham 1:26). Their belief that Mulattos could not breed was wrong. Their belief that all humans descended from the three sons of Noah was wrong. DNA study has proved that wrong. Their belief that Negroes were Cainites was wrong. The "Cainites" (Qayin) still exist today in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. They are ruddy-skinned Arabs and not Negroes.<p>
*The Church has never claimed "infallibility" for its leaders; not even the "Living Prophet" (President of the Church). However, many Mormons are taught when they are young that "the Living Prophet speaks for the LORD...what he says in General Conference is as if the LORD was speaking Himself". I was taught this as a young Mormon, as were many Mormons, but it is NOT official Mormon doctrine, but rather "folk Mormonism" (common beliefs of Mormons that are based upon hear-say and not official pronouncements). Many Mormons still today (2012) believe that the "Living Prophet" (President of the Church) is infallible at least when he speaks in General Conference; although the Church leaders have never claimed that for themselves.<p>
*The Church has never offically said "We were wrong about the Curse of Cain doctrine and priesthood-ban policy!" Instead, top Mormon leaders have decided to simply "stop discussing" the Curse of Cain Legacy; hoping it will fade away and be forgotten. For them, it is the best of both worlds. They need not apologize or repudiate. They simple don't discuss it anymore. Bit, in the "Internet Age" nothing can be forgotten. Many Mormons want an official repudiation, but it is doubtful Church leaders will ever issue one.<p>
LDS Public Affairs, a department of the Church has, since 1996 (when Mormon apostle Elder Russell Ballard took charge of that department) told journalists the following:<p>
"The Curse of Cain was only folklore, and never a doctrine of the Church"<p>
*"We don't know the reason why the Church banned blacks for 130 years"<p>
Both statements are incorrect and contrary to historical facts. Either LDS Public Affairs is "hopelessly ignorant" about Mormon Church history, or they are <i>deliberately trying to deceive</i> journalists and other non-Mormon inquirers about the Curse of Cain Legacy.
In February of 2012, a BYU Religion Professor named Randy Bott was interviewed by the <i>Washington Post</i> about the Church's Curse of Cain Doctrine. Bott answered that blacks were denied the Priesthood because, in other words, they would send themselves to Hell if they had it before 1978. The Church then issued an official Statement saying:
"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 <b>these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding</b>.
We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."
(<i>Church Statement Regarding the 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church</i> issued Feb. 26, 2012)
Basically, the "2012 Statement" does not blame Church leaders for it, calling it "speculation or opinion" given unnamed persons with "limited understanding". These people with "limited understanding" were the Prophets and Apostles of the Church from 1848 to 1978.<p>
Church leaders, who taught the Curse of Cain Doctrine for 130 years, never claimed that the Curse of Cain Doctrine was speculation nor personal opinion. It is called "a doctrine of the Church" in several official statements that The First Presidency issued in 1947 and again in 1951.<p>
A University of Colorado professor, Matthew L. Harris, who studied the Church's Curse of Cain Legacy for many years, wrote an opinion in <i>The Salt Lake Tribune</i> saying:<p>
Today's church leaders say "we do not know why God denied blacks the priesthood," but earlier leaders never made that claim. In fact, they made it very clear why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood: God cursed them with the mark of Cain because they lacked moral purity in a pre-Earth life.<p>
If such words make us wince, they didn't have that effect on early church leaders. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the church was thoroughly awash in such teachings. . . .<p>
Church officials now deny that they ever taught the divine-curse doctrine. "This folklore is not part of and never was taught as doctrine by the church," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle boldly declared in 2008 . . . The church reaffirmed this position in a recent press release, claiming that a few misguided leaders gave "some explanations" about the "origins of priesthood availability" that "do not represent church doctrine."<p>
And yet, the new official line cannot be reconciled with the hundreds, maybe thousands, of authoritative statements the church has made on the subject throughout its 182-year history. . . . LDS leaders would be well served to acknowledge this doctrine, apologize for it and move on. Until they have the courage to do that, more people like [BYU religion professor Randy] Bott will get their knuckles rapped, and <b>more people will ask why the church sweeps its racial history under a rug.</b>" (Salt Lake Tribune, March 11, 2008, P.04)<p>
The professor is, unfortunately, 100% correct. Hopefully, the First Presidency will one day acknowledge the truth about the Curse of Cain Legacy, apology for it, and move on. The current <b>Curse of Cain Cover-up</b> will only lead to further problems for the Church in the future; including increased resignations and thousands of young Mormons losing faith in Church leaders and then leaving the Church.<p>
The question to raise here is a rather simple one.
Has the lds church demonstrated honesty in dealing with its church history in the past?
The next question follows, even when the lds church was practicing polygamy, polyandry, and men being sealed to men, were they open and honest with the general membership about it? Or did they make those involved in its practice swear an oath to tell no one?
And finally the last question.
Even if the lds church apologized about its racist doctrines, would you trust it to teach "god" inspired things today as doctrine, place your faith in those teachings, all with the understanding that one day your church most likely will deny that that tenet was ever "doctrine"?
I rest my case.
There is an irony here that I find quite amusing. You see the "Church" was established during the pre civil war days. Africans had already been living here in The New World for hundreds of years. They were sold to the inhabitants of The New World, by other Africans, and when they came here they also brought their priestly superstitions, voodoo traditions and magic spells. After having lived among the people of this continent for several generations they had first hand knowldege pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of their so called masters.
Has it ever occurred to you that this voodoo religion, like all priestcrafted enterprises is merely the Master Mind of the Africans who knew how much their owner loved to be worshipped and praised. Take some Caucasion sympathizers and there you have it...Mormonism. In fact the name Mormon means bug bear, a chimmera, a beast, false terror. That which is... yet...is not.
Take a closer look at those who were seriously hurt by this deadly idea and you have those who froze on the banks of rivers with the few possessions they managed to bring with them. Homesteads were sold for nothing and families were uprooted to be "White" slaves to the their leaders as they created various cities for trade. White females were the property of white males...who were the property of the dishonest and brutal priestcrafted enterprise. Very few blacks would have been conned by this con. They were left behind as whites constanly moved and labored many of them in vain as they lost numerous loved ones along the way.
The black people were not the victims of Mormonism, whites and native americans to a degree were its victims. Up until recently when the Head Priestcrafters and Investors decided that the Blacks of today are not as wise to the ancient customs as their African Ancestors, and have now been businly engaged in taking fuller advantage of the naive and confused minds of all people. Now they are just as ripe for the con as any white person. Strange how different things look when you throw things into their proper time frame and history.
If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying their is some doubt about the truthfulness of the LDS church. Well, that isn't exactly shocking news around these parts, but I guess their is something to be said for preaching to the choir.
From my point of view, I always find it interesting when people who accept really odd ideas from one religion, make fun of the really odd ideas of the other religion. Okay, I get it Mormons are bad everyone else is good. We are all entitled to our opinions. I have no war with religion or the Mormon church. I do say that holding up other religions as being better because they are somehow less silly isn't winning the argument.
My only point was that the Church is trying to cover-up the Curse of Cain. True, most here already know that, but perhaps not all.
Most Christian religions have "racist" skeletons in their closets, but most, like the Southern Baptists,. have apologized and acknowleged their racist past. The LDS Church has not, but in fact now DENIES ALL. The Church is blaming "some Members" or unnamed peple for the Curse of Cain, leaving the leaders of the Church, by omission of fact, blameless.
Some religions have absolutely NO racist past, such as Buddhism, Cao Dai, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Spiritism, Spiritualism (it was a Spiritualist who convinced Lincoln to free the slaves), Wicca, Paganism. Islaam has an "unofficial" racist past; not that their religion taught it, but that greedy Muslim slavetraders ignored what their religion had to say. The Baha'is claim they have no racist past, but they do, but it was FAR less than the LDS Church. The Catholic Church never taught that blacks were "inferior". Some popes said enslaving blacks was ok, others said it was not ok. Some said they were under the Curse of Cannan, and other Popes said they weren't (and all were Infallible in what they said).
Of course, every religion thinks the others are false, or at least a little less true, than their own religion. I only believe what I have seen and heard. I've seen, and heard, ghosts. Over a dozen times. What religion teaches there are Ghosts? Buddhism, Cao Dai, Taoism, and some others. Christians say these ghosts are demons pretending. Maybe. Maybe not. I tend to think they are who they say they are, or look like, former people. So, I KNOW the Afterlife exists, because I've seen people from it, and heard them. Beyond that, I don't know.
So Mormonism is based in part on voodoo? I think your perspective about how men and women made themselves slaves to the brethren is pretty spot on however.