Potential Mistranslations in the Book of Moses

Book of Moses | Potential Mistranslations

Potential Mistranslations in the Book of Moses

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. 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. 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).

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

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.

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 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

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.

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

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. The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. 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 essay further states, "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."

Jackson believes that eliminating the erroneous translation could help those with disavowed beliefs to discard them.

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.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top