🎩 "Skin of Blackness"¶
Estimated time to read: 16 minutes
2 Nephi 5¶
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 Nephi 5:21
If you believe that context surrounding this verse of scripture will make it more palatable, go on and read the entire chapter if you like. I'll wait.
Believe it or not, this passage has stirred disagreements among those who've practiced Mormonism. Seems out of character for God to do something like this, which raises many questions—among them, "what the hell, God?" I suppose that becoming "like unto a flint" must be referring to the hardness of their hearts, as "flint is usually dark grey or black, green, white, or brown in colour, and has a glassy or waxy appearance" by Wikipedia's short description. Verse 14 sounds like "they" were called Lamanites who received this curse.
The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites. About 588–559 B.C.
Skipping ahead a few hundred years in the scriptural record, we get another mention of a "curse" that seems to revolve around skin color...
14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.
Huh. Must be some other kind of curse.
And so, in an effort to drive critics away from the conclusion that this could be a 19th-century creation by one Joseph Smith, apologists will come up with numerous reasons for why "skin of blackness" does not mean "skin of blackness," because that would sound racist if we were to interpret the text at face value. After all, the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, and it contains plain and precious things that are meant to clear up any ambiguity in the Bible, so this ought to be pretty clear, a real cut & dry case to get sorted out.
Scripture Central¶
Scripture Central is, by my estimation, the de facto standard for apologetic explanations for issues in LDS theology. They've got an essay on this very topic: What Is the “Skin of Blackness” in the Book of Mormon? I'll offer a few excerpts and comments on it. Find the rest of their article on their site.
[T]he “skin of blackness” Nephi describes falling upon the Lamanites was not necessarily physical but was given in the context of some people violating the Lord’s covenant and thereby being “cut off from the presence of the Lord,” bringing upon themselves the sore cursing that Lehi had warned of previously. In other words, the Lamanites had simply experienced what Alma later calls “spiritual death” and thus their souls were in spiritual darkness (Alma 42:9).
😐 Right, okay
Re-read the offending passage that describes "skin of blackness," if it isn't fresh in your memory. Nephi's people—whose hearts were not hardened—"were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome." Evidently, the Lord did not want white, fair, and delightsome Lamanites who had hardened their hearts against him to be enticing to the Nephites, so “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” I'd have a hard time finding a way around this—the Lamanites had hardened their hearts against the Lord, but were still white, fair, and delightsome, so the Lord cursed them with “a skin of blackness” to make them unappealing enough to differentiate them. What the hell, God?
The words "white," "fair," and "delightsome" don't seem to refer to spiritual purity, since the Lamanites were hard-hearted at the same time they were "white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome." Or, thinking of it from another angle, the phrase “skin of blackness” is contingent on hardheadedness, meaning it cannot refer to hard-heartedness or spiritual darkness. This "curse" is the result, not the condition.
It sounds to me like Nephi's description of a “skin of blackness” must refer to something other than "spiritual death." If it wasn't physically visible, there would be no noticeable difference between pre- and post-curse Lamanites. Hardheartedness doesn't seem to be genetically inherited, since later in the Book of Mormon, those dirty non-white barbarians became the righteous ones to earn God's favor. Race is genetically inherited, though.
Dark Skins as Garments¶
One theory, first proposed by Ethan Sproat and summarized by John W. Welch, suggests that “when [Alma] chapter 3 is read in its entirety, it becomes apparent that … the dark ‘skins’ were possibly animal skins worn as symbolic clothing, not their normal flesh.” In both the Book of Mormon and the Bible, skin can refer to animal skin garments, and in fact this appears to be the context in which the Lamanites’ skins are described as dark in Alma 3:5–6: “The Lamanites … were naked, save it were a skin which was girded about their loins. … And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers” (emphasis added). If this theory is correct, Welch noted, “the Lamanites and Amlicites were distinguishing themselves by the things they chose to wear or put upon themselves.”
Clothing. We'll defend the idea that God cursed people who were white and delightsome "that they might not be enticing unto my people" by... giving them ugly clothes.
For what it's worth, a poor fashion taste could be off-putting. I don't think the scriptural record describes much about the dating scene in ancient America. How did God cause, or force, the Lamanites to wear clothing that was dark? An affiliate deal with Hot Topic? How did God keep the Nephites' clothing white to distinguish from the Lamanites? What would prevent the Lamanites from wearing white clothing? How did this curse of clothing extend to their descendants? Scripture Central, do you hear yourselves as you make this statement?
Right, okay, yes, the word "skin" appears in other contexts. I guess we could extend this logic to say that Nephi, when he had made a bellows from the skins of beasts is part of God's divine disfavor. Those boars had hard hearts!
I suppose that by being critical of the LDS church's theology, I've also become hard-hearted, and... maybe someone could tell that just based on my choice of attire. I've still got the suits I wore on the mission, though! They don't fit quite as well as they did ten years ago, but they are a dark, navy blue color. Bam, got 'em. Folks with business attire have been cursed for their iniquity. Also it is hereditary, so don't bang anyone whose parents wore a suit.
Dark Skins as Body Paint¶
Another proposal, recently put forward by Gerrit M. Steenblik, is that the Lamanites marked themselves by painting their skin dark. Art from the Classic Maya period illustrates that many elites “darkened their skins with paints, stains, and pigments for ceremonial purposes and as camouflage for warfare, hunting, and plunder.” This fits with Nephi’s reference to a “skin of blackness” in close association to describing the Lamanites as hunters “in the wilderness for beasts of prey.” Furthermore, the first occasion in which Nephi and his people encountered the Lamanites after being separated from them was likely during their “wars and contentions” (2 Nephi 5:24, 34). The Amlicites also mark themselves in a military context (Alma 3:4).
Slow down, now, Mr. Steenblik... This is a manifestation of a curse we're talking about. Keep your eye on the ball— we're trying to defend the idea that being cursed with dark skin doesn't have racial implications. Sure, war paint exists. Can we connect the use of body paint to the idea of God cursing people who don't agree with him for the explicitly stated purpose "that they might not be enticing"? Presumably, with or without body paint? I can concede that I've never felt hot & bothered by seeing a woman donning war paint. Does that body paint persist across generations? You aren't suggesting that the curse really means tattoos, are you?
Dark Skins as Tattoos¶
god dammit
Others have suggested that the mark could have been an ancient tattoo. Tattooing was known in the ancient Near East and in the Americas among various Indigenous tribes in both North and South America. In Mesoamerica, it can be documented from as early as 1400 BC among the Olmec and, later, the Maya, as the practice was continued up through the Spanish Conquest. Most tattooing in ancient America was black, but some evidence exists for red tattoos at Chichen Itza, thus accounting for both the black or dark skin of the Lamanites and the red mark of the Amlicites (Alma 3:4).
Look, I don't even know what to say at this point. Yeah, tattooing is also a practice among humans, irrespective of God's sore cursings. Are we implying that God tattooed the Lamanites in order to make them loathsome? Don't forget that "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." They aren't cursed because they got tattoos, the curse is tattoos... According to this, one of three possible theories. Also isn't this curse is contingent that "they shall repent of their iniquities?" And also is hereditary?
Scripture Central presents those three possible interpretations as alternatives to what the text states in a way I would describe as pretty explicit. We don't need to do these mental gymnastics, tying ourselves in knots to get around the idea that skin might not literally mean skin, since it would make the church look bad. Occam's Razor would have us incline toward the simpler of these explanations: a) it's spiritual, symbolic, maybe clothing, war paint, or tattoos; or b) it's racism.
I'll emphasize the point that three possible interpretations are presented. Why not one interpretation? Is this testament of Christ symbolic, up to individual interpretation? Are other factors open to discussion to settle on what it means? Was Jesus' visit to Zerahemla symbolic, open to interpretation? This passage right here sure sounds troubling when taken at face value, and there seems to be three or more ways to interpret it outside of vitriolic racism, so... does that mean that the Book of Mormon is also "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly"?
Can't we just acknowledge bad ideas, learn from mistakes, and commit to do better? In a parallel universe, Scripture Central would instead be writing an essay commenting on the Church's ability to admit fault, grow and develop, moving past prejudiced ideologies, and perhaps even frame it in a faith-promoting angle. God is patient and understanding.
Maybe, even with a prophet, we don't get the ongoing restoration nailed down perfectly the first time around. Maybe in the grand, eternal scheme of things, a poor choice of words is something God could still work with. Instead, we have leaders insisting that the Book of Mormon is perfect, directly from God, take it or leave it. I would think that a church which claims to be led by a living spokesman for God would verify with the big guy upstairs that this scripture passage really reflects His will? Because if it didn't, we could use that as an illustration of Joseph Smith's shortcomings that don't involve him getting thrown in prison. Instead, we've got to write an essay to argue that cursed skin means ugly clothes, not racism.
Salt Lake Tribune¶
I normally steer clear of any news publications' opinion section. I can't think of a time when I've knowingly read from one, and subsequently felt glad that I did. This time is no exception to this pattern.
Holly Richardson: What if ‘skin’ doesn’t mean human skin?
What if our interpretation was a cultural artifact of the mid-1800s, when slavery was still legal in the United States? What if we have misunderstood words like “skin” and “black” and “dark”? Could there be another interpretation?
I believe there is.
In 2015, Ethan Sprout, a professor of English at Utah Valley University, published an article in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies that explored the idea of “skin” or “skins” referring to clothing and not to human skin.
Pointing to verses in Alma 3:5-6, he shows us why we can interpret “skin” as clothing: First, the Lamanites were naked, “save it were the skin which was girded about their loins,” and then, “the skins of the Lamanites were dark.” He asks — as we should ask — do they not refer to the same thing? Clothing, or garments? Surely that is a possibility.
"See, the scriptures aren't racist if we completely ignore English language homographs!"
There are also multiple references to garments — (skin or skins) — being made white in the blood of the Lamb. Clearly, that is symbolic of Christ’s Atonement. It is not a literal interpretation of what happens if we dip clothing into blood. Could there be a symbolic meaning to “skin”? What about “black,” “blackness, “dark” or “darkness”?
Black and blackness can mean a color and dark or darkness can refer to hue. But they can also mean emotions, countenance or state of one’s soul. Words like “gloomy,” “despondent” or “dejected” are dark. Despair — and the pit of grief — are black. I would argue that Hitler had the blackest of souls while the white light that emanates from Reverend Desmond Tutu is inspiring in all the best ways.
What can the symbolic cleansing from Christ's atonement mean, when scriptures explicitly describe Lamanites being cursed with a skin of blackness? The implications are clear: Lamanites had emotional, sad clothing, just like Hitler did.
Church Leadership¶
This whole disagreement might be one we could write off as being a 19th century choice of phrasing. That is, unless the idea persisted well into 1960...
Spencer Kimball¶
The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6) In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents— on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.
— The Day of the Lamanites, Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference October 1960
Oh? What's this? Was this 16-year-old's clothing several shades lighter? Her war paint had less saturation, or perhaps she didn't have cursed tattoos like her parents? No? What did our church's prophet, seer, and revelator mean, then?
This is not a fucking idiom. These are human beings that the LDS church's leadership is describing as if they're dog breeds. You'll donate blood to make these people look more like Anglos? What the fuck is wrong with you, Kimball?
If any of you readers happened to be alive to hear Kimball say this over the pulpit, and you had raised your hand during the sustaining vote... raise your hand to the square again once more, please... but this time use it to smack yourself in the face, because I can't reach through my computer monitor to do it myself.
Mark E. Petersen¶
Elder Petersen was an apostle under Kimball.
The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the case of the Lamanites and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse – as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under the threat of extension of the curse. (2 Nephi 5:21) And He certainly segregated the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there. The Negro was cursed as to the Priesthood, and therefore, was cursed as to the blessings of the Priesthood. Certainly God made a segregation there.
Citation for this quote, along with numerous quotes from Elder Petersen, can be found with other hot takes on race from church leadership. This particular one bears repeating here, as it explicitly cites 2 Nephi 5:21 as the reason why Native Americans are not "white and delightsome" by the Book of Mormon's own words.