I thought there was something about the story of Cain and Able where God marked Cain. The belief was that the skin color of blacks was a sign of that mark as decendants- ergo, the different treatment.
God marked Cain to protect him from vengeance for Cain killing Able. (Gen. 4:15) Therefore the mark wasn't skin-motivated -- nor was it in response to having committed murder...but was actually a sign of mercy that protected Cain...
God later established cities of refuge for manslaughterers to go live to protect them from vengeance by victims' relatives.
Jesus Christ then became the Ultimate Refuge who would save even manslaughterers and murderers from their sin.
Only some 19th century (and for Mormon, 20th century as well) people linked the "mark of Cain" as being skin-linked and a curse.
Gen. 4:11-12 shows the curse upon Cain was to be exiled...a vagabond...and unable to grow his own crops...not any mark put on him.
Cain's descendents came down thru Noah...so who is claiming that Noah was black?
The origins of this belief go back much further than Joseph Smith and Mormons, and was a widespread interpretation of Biblical history in 19th century America.
“I thought there was something about the story of Cain and Able where God marked Cain. The belief was that the skin color of blacks was a sign of that mark as decendants- ergo, the different treatment.”
Which would be impossible, since the great flood would have killed all of Cain’s descendants as well as all those not in the immediate family circle around Noah.
Maybe you should consider actually reading the Bible.
13And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14Behold, 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. 15And 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.
1) No mention of what the mark was--none what-so-ever. Assuming it was skin color is reading your own ideas into the text, instead of accepting what the text has to say.
2) No mention of Cain's descendants--none what-so-ever. Assuming this mark was passed down to Cain's descendants is, again, reading things into the text that are not there.
3) The mark was put there to protect Cain, not as a form of punishment. Nowhere does it say the mark was a punishment for Cain. Those that say it was a punishment are (once again) reading things into the text that just aren't there.