Potential Mistranslations in the Book of Moses - Revision history

SpencerMarsh at 23:39, 30 March 2026

2026-03-30T23:39:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:39, 30 March 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:

	This is a noble goal, but it may be worth considering how we can simultaneously discard inappropriate and inaccurate theological views while also preserving the authenticity of the Joseph Smith Translation. One approach may be to affirm that the translation of "mark" is inaccurate while also offering new, informed speculation about how the sign could have functioned as a mark that does not involve someone's skin color.		This is a noble goal, but it may be worth considering how we can simultaneously discard inappropriate and inaccurate theological views while also preserving the authenticity of the Joseph Smith Translation. One approach may be to affirm that the translation of "mark" is inaccurate while also offering new, informed speculation about how the sign could have functioned as a mark that does not involve someone's skin color.

			Some wonder if certain passages in the Book of Moses justify this "curse of Cain" theology. For more information, see [[The Book of Moses and Race\|our Wiki page on this topic]].
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}

SpencerMarsh: /* Disavowing Racialized Theology */

2026-03-30T23:25:13Z

Disavowing Racialized Theology

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, 30 March 2026
Line 36:		Line 36:
	Historically, Protestants and Latter-day Saints used this verse in Genesis and others to justify their belief that Blacks were inferior to other races and, thus, that their subjection under the systems of slavery around the world was morally justified.		Historically, Protestants and Latter-day Saints used this verse in Genesis and others to justify their belief that Blacks were inferior to other races and, thus, that their subjection under the systems of slavery around the world was morally justified.

	According to the Church's essay on ~~Race~~ and the ~~Priesthood~~:		According to the Church's essay on race and the priesthood:

	<blockquote>In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.		<blockquote>In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.

SpencerMarsh: /* Disavowing Racialized Theology */

2026-03-30T23:24:27Z

Disavowing Racialized Theology

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:24, 30 March 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:
	One of the benefits that Jackson sees with his translation is that it allows for racialized theology to be disavowed and left to the dustbin of history.		One of the benefits that Jackson sees with his translation is that it allows for racialized theology to be disavowed and left to the dustbin of history.

	Historically, Protestants and Latter-day Saints used this verse in Genesis and others to justify their belief that ~~blacks~~ were inferior to other races and, thus, that their subjection under the systems of slavery around the world was morally justified.		Historically, Protestants and Latter-day Saints used this verse in Genesis and others to justify their belief that Blacks were inferior to other races and, thus, that their subjection under the systems of slavery around the world was morally justified.

	According to the Church's essay on Race and the Priesthood:		According to the Church's essay on Race and the Priesthood:

SpencerMarsh: /* "Sign" and "Mark" may have been roughly equivalent in Joseph Smith's Linguistic Environment */

2026-03-30T23:23:49Z

"Sign" and "Mark" may have been roughly equivalent in Joseph Smith's Linguistic Environment

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 30 March 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:
	This is further supported by how contemporary English viewed the words "sign" and "mark." The 1828 edition of ''Webster's Dictionary'' lists the following two definitions for "sign":		This is further supported by how contemporary English viewed the words "sign" and "mark." The 1828 edition of ''Webster's Dictionary'' lists the following two definitions for "sign":

	::7. Visible mark or representation; as an outward sign of and inward and spiritual grace.		::7. Visible '''mark''' or representation; as an outward sign of and inward and spiritual grace.
	::8. A mark of distinction		::8. A '''mark''' of distinction

	It also lists the following definition for the word "mark":		It also lists the following definition for the word "mark":

	::3. Any note or sign of distinction.		::3. Any note or '''sign''' of distinction.
	::The Lord set a mark upon Cain. Genesis 4:15.		::The Lord set a mark upon Cain. Genesis 4:15.

SpencerMarsh: /* "Sign" and "Mark" may have been roughly equivalent in Joseph Smith's Linguistic Environment */

2026-03-30T23:23:17Z

"Sign" and "Mark" may have been roughly equivalent in Joseph Smith's Linguistic Environment

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 30 March 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:
	It also lists the following definition for the word "mark":		It also lists the following definition for the word "mark":

	:3. Any note or sign of distinction.		::3. Any note or sign of distinction.
	:The Lord set a mark upon Cain. Genesis 4:15.		::The Lord set a mark upon Cain. Genesis 4:15.

	To a degree, "sign" and "mark" likely overlapped conceptually in Joseph Smith's mind, and we know that the Lord speaks "after the manner of [His servants'] language, that they might come to understanding" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24).		To a degree, "sign" and "mark" likely overlapped conceptually in Joseph Smith's mind, and we know that the Lord speaks "after the manner of [His servants'] language, that they might come to understanding" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24).

SpencerMarsh at 23:23, 30 March 2026

2026-03-30T23:23:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 30 March 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Within Latter-day Saint thought, when there’s tension between prophetic revelation (JST/Book of Moses) and scholarly reconstruction (Hebrew linguistics), the usual approach is not to discard either but to ''layer'' them. So a believer might say: "The safest conclusion is that God gave Cain a divinely appointed sign, which may or may not have included something that could be described as a 'mark.'" That preserves Jackson’s linguistic argument as well as the Joseph Smith Translation's revealed framing without forcing a false binary.		Within Latter-day Saint thought, when there’s tension between prophetic revelation (JST/Book of Moses) and scholarly reconstruction (Hebrew linguistics), the usual approach is not to discard either but to ''layer'' them. So a believer might say: "The safest conclusion is that God gave Cain a divinely appointed sign, which may or may not have included something that could be described as a 'mark.'" That preserves Jackson’s linguistic argument as well as the Joseph Smith Translation's revealed framing without forcing a false binary.

			===="Sign" and "Mark" may have been roughly equivalent in Joseph Smith's Linguistic Environment====

			This is further supported by how contemporary English viewed the words "sign" and "mark." The 1828 edition of ''Webster's Dictionary'' lists the following two definitions for "sign":

			::7. Visible mark or representation; as an outward sign of and inward and spiritual grace.
			::8. A mark of distinction

			It also lists the following definition for the word "mark":

			:3. Any note or sign of distinction.
			:The Lord set a mark upon Cain. Genesis 4:15.

			To a degree, "sign" and "mark" likely overlapped conceptually in Joseph Smith's mind, and we know that the Lord speaks "after the manner of [His servants'] language, that they might come to understanding" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24).

			====The Nature of the Joseph Smith Translation====
			Latter-day Saints generally do not believe the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is a purely linguistic correction of the Hebrew text, or
			a word-for-word restoration of the original manuscript. Instead, it is understood as revelatory expansion and clarification. As the Latter-day Saint Bible Dictionary [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng puts it], the Joseph Smith Translation only restores original content of the Bible "''to some extent''" (emphasis added). That means that the Joseph Smith Translation can preserve wording (“mark”) while still conveying revealed truth that doesn’t depend on precise Hebrew philology. So, even if Jackson is right about the best lexical translation, that doesn’t invalidate the JST—it just means they’re doing different kinds of work. Jackson is academically translating ancient Hebrew into English. Joseph Smith was creating an inspired revision with doctrinal and narrative purposes.

	====Disavowing Racialized Theology====		====Disavowing Racialized Theology====

SpencerMarsh: /* "Sign" Can Be the Correct Translation, and "Mark" Can Indicate How the Sign Functioned= */

2026-03-30T23:10:30Z

"Sign" Can Be the Correct Translation, and "Mark" Can Indicate How the Sign Functioned=

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:10, 30 March 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Why would Joseph Smith's revision of Genesis contain a translation error such as this one?		Why would Joseph Smith's revision of Genesis contain a translation error such as this one?
	----		----
	===="Sign" Can Be the Correct Translation, and "Mark" Can Indicate ''How the Sign Functioned''=====		===="Sign" Can Be the Correct Translation, and "Mark" Can Indicate ''How the Sign Functioned''====
	Assuming Jackson's translation is correct (which is not entirely certain), the translation of "mark" can indicate ''how the sign functioned.'' Jackson can be correct that "sign" is the correct translation of the underlying Hebrew. However, the new translation does not answer many questions, such as ''what'' the sign was and ''how'' the sign functioned. The "sign" that the Lord could have given to Cain could have been a mark of some kind.		Assuming Jackson's translation is correct (which is not entirely certain), the translation of "mark" can indicate ''how the sign functioned.'' Jackson can be correct that "sign" is the correct translation of the underlying Hebrew. However, the new translation does not answer many questions, such as ''what'' the sign was and ''how'' the sign functioned. The "sign" that the Lord could have given to Cain could have been a mark of some kind.

SpencerMarsh at 23:06, 30 March 2026

2026-03-30T23:06:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 30 March 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
	{{Header}}		{{Header}}
	Professor Kent Jackson, a retired professor of ancient scripture, published an academic article on February 27, 2026 that argued that the use of "mark" in Genesis 4:15 is erroneous.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-lord-gave-cain-a-sign The Lord Gave Cain a Sign]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 68 (2026): 119–32.</ref> Instead, the underlying Hebrew term should be translated as "sign," such that the passage reads, "And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a ''sign'' upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (emphasis added). Professor Jackson had recently completed a new translation of the book of Genesis in 2025, entitled ''Genesis: A New English Translation'' which he published with BYU's Religious Studies Center. Thus, Jackson's opinion on this matter is well-studied and considered. [https://biblehub.com/parallel/genesis/4-15.htm A majority] of translations retained "mark" in their renderings of Genesis 4:15.		Professor Kent Jackson, a retired professor of ancient scripture, published an academic article on February 27, 2026 that argued that the use of "mark" in Genesis 4:15 is erroneous.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-lord-gave-cain-a-sign The Lord Gave Cain a Sign]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 68 (2026): 119–32.</ref> Instead, the underlying Hebrew term should be translated as "sign," such that the passage reads, "And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a ''sign'' upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (emphasis added). Professor Jackson had recently completed a new translation of the book of Genesis in 2025, entitled ''Genesis: A New English Translation'' which he published with BYU's Religious Studies Center. Thus, Jackson's opinion on this matter is well-studied and considered. [https://biblehub.com/parallel/genesis/4-15.htm A majority] of translations retained "mark" in their renderings of Genesis 4:15.

	The problem with Jackson's conclusion is that the corresponding passage in Joseph Smith's revision of Genesis retains "mark." Thus, the passage reads, "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" (Moses 5:40).		The problem with Jackson's conclusion is that the corresponding passage in Joseph Smith's revision of Genesis retains "mark." Thus, the passage reads, "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" (Moses 5:40).

SpencerMarsh at 23:05, 30 March 2026

2026-03-30T23:05:57Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 __NOTOC__
 {{Header}}
-'''Summary:''' Professor Kent Jackson, a retired professor of ancient scripture, published an academic article on February 27, 2026 that argued that the use of "mark" in Genesis 4:15 is erroneous.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-lord-gave-cain-a-sign The Lord Gave Cain a Sign]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 68 (2026): 119&ndash;32.</ref> Instead, the underlying Hebrew term should be translated as "sign," such that the passage reads, "And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a ''sign'' upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (emphasis added). Professor Jackson had recently completed a new translation of the book of Genesis in 2025, entitled ''Genesis: A New English Translation'' which he published with BYU's Religious Studies Center. Thus, Jackson's opinion on this matter is well-studied and considered. [https://biblehub.com/parallel/genesis/4-15.htm A majority] of translations retained "mark" in their renderings of Genesis 4:15.
+Professor Kent Jackson, a retired professor of ancient scripture, published an academic article on February 27, 2026 that argued that the use of "mark" in Genesis 4:15 is erroneous.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-lord-gave-cain-a-sign The Lord Gave Cain a Sign]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 68 (2026): 119&ndash;32.</ref> Instead, the underlying Hebrew term should be translated as "sign," such that the passage reads, "And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a ''sign'' upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (emphasis added). Professor Jackson had recently completed a new translation of the book of Genesis in 2025, entitled ''Genesis: A New English Translation'' which he published with BYU's Religious Studies Center. Thus, Jackson's opinion on this matter is well-studied and considered. [https://biblehub.com/parallel/genesis/4-15.htm A majority] of translations retained "mark" in their renderings of Genesis 4:15.
 The problem with Jackson's conclusion is that the corresponding passage in Joseph Smith's revision of Genesis retains "mark." Thus, the passage reads, "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" (Moses 5:40).
 ----
 {{endnotes sources}}

SpencerMarsh: Created page with "Book of Moses | Potential Mistranslations NOTOC {{Header}} '''Summary:''' Professor Kent Jackson, a retired professor of ancient scripture, published an academic article on February 27, 2026 that argued that the use of "mark" in Genesis 4:15 is erroneous.Kent P. Jackson, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-lord-gave-cain-a-sign The Lord Gave Cain a Sign]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Sa..."

2026-03-28T20:43:32Z

Created page with "Book of Moses | Potential Mistranslations __NOTOC__ {{Header}} '''Summary:''' Professor Kent Jackson, a retired professor of ancient scripture, published an academic article on February 27, 2026 that argued that the use of "mark" in Genesis 4:15 is erroneous.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-lord-gave-cain-a-sign The Lord Gave Cain a Sign]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Sa..."

New page

[[Book of Moses]] | Potential Mistranslations
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' Professor Kent Jackson, a retired professor of ancient scripture, published an academic article on February 27, 2026 that argued that the use of "mark" in Genesis 4:15 is erroneous.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-lord-gave-cain-a-sign The Lord Gave Cain a Sign]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 68 (2026): 119–32.</ref> Instead, the underlying Hebrew term should be translated as "sign," such that the passage reads, "And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a ''sign'' upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (emphasis added). Professor Jackson had recently completed a new translation of the book of Genesis in 2025, entitled ''Genesis: A New English Translation'' which he published with BYU's Religious Studies Center. Thus, Jackson's opinion on this matter is well-studied and considered. [https://biblehub.com/parallel/genesis/4-15.htm A majority] of translations retained "mark" in their renderings of Genesis 4:15.

The problem with Jackson's conclusion is that the corresponding passage in Joseph Smith's revision of Genesis retains "mark." Thus, the passage reads, "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" (Moses 5:40).
----
{{endnotes sources}}