If you listen to our critics you’ll find the repeated accusation that the Book of Mormon is racist, specifically that it incorporates the anti-Black racism and White supremacy that was common in Joseph Smith’s day and is therefore proof that he made it all up. They argue that the Book of Mormon teaches that the Lamanites were Black, that being Black is a sign of evil and God’s curse upon them, and that this also supports racist Latter-day Saints today in their attempts to justify their own anti-Black (here African-Americans) beliefs.
Are they correct? Well, as with most things, not so much.
It is absolutely true that some Latter-day Saints have been (and are) racist, including some church leaders. And it is true that many Latter-day Saints have read racist ideas into the Book of Mormon. But it is a huge leap in logic to say that because people are racist then the text itself must be racist. Most of our critics only think that way because they assume from the start that the Book of Mormon isn’t true therefore it can’t be taken seriously as an ancient text reflecting an ancient culture alien to our own. Because they’re unwilling to take the Book of Mormon seriously on its own merits and claims they are forced into the conclusion that it simply reflects the racist ideals of Joseph Smith’s time period.
Of course, this argument is quite silly when considered at any depth. After all, if Joseph Smith were making it up, he certainly wouldn’t have referred to the Lamanites (believed to be the ancestors of the modern Native Americans) as Black because Native peoples were not then nor have ever been considered Black in American culture. If Joseph had been making it up he would have talked about the Lamanites being cursed with a “skin of redness” (as opposed to a “skin of blackness”) because that is how Americans in his era talked about Native Americans – as being the “Red man” in contrast to the European “White man” or the African “Black man.” Joseph Smith would have never equated Natives with Africans, especially since the entire premise of the Book of Mormon is that the Lamanites were at least partially descended from Israelites who had come to the Americas from the Middle East. What the critics try and use as proof that Joseph Smith just made it all up only comes across as utter nonsense because if he had made it up he would have written something completely different.
I wish that it was only our critics who assumed that the Book of Mormon is talking about a literally racial skin color change, but many of the Saints do the exact same thing, as shown in the example above. Instead of treating the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient text we engage in historical presentism, meaning we project our present day cultural and social problems onto the peoples and writings of the past. We assume that when the Book of Mormon says something like “skin of blackness” that it must mean what we mean when we talk about being Black today. We take America’s baggage of anti-Black racism and throw it on top of the Book of Mormon and then try and either condemn it or excuse it. As a consequence, we are led down a twisted maze of numerous errors and poor conclusions that then get presented as our theology or doctrine and which then damage the faith of believers or those investigating.
Alright then, I understand I’m begging the question here. Is the Book of Mormon racist? The answer is no. And here is an in depth look at why.
“A Skin of Blackness”
Before we go farther, we need to make sure we understand exactly what Book of Mormon verses we are talking about. The one quoted most often is 2 Nephi 5:19-23, which reads:
19 And behold, the words of the Lord had been fulfilled unto my brethren [The Lamanites], which he spake concerning them, that I should be their ruler and their teacher. Wherefore, I had been their ruler and their teacher, according to the commandments of the Lord, until the time they sought to take away my life.
20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
21 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.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
But this is not the only reference to the Lamanite curse and God marking them in the Book of Mormon. The next reference comes from Alma 3: 3-10, 13-19. In the previous chapter (Alma 2) a group of Nephites breaks away and starts calling themselves the Amlicites. In Alma 3 these Amlicites join the Lamanites to team up in a war against the Nephites. Regarding them and the mark upon them and the Lamanites the text reads:
3 And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.
Alma 3: 3-10
4 And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.
5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.
6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.
9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.
10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.
13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.
Alma 3: 13-19
14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
15 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.
16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.
17 And again, I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to his seed.
18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.
19 Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.
Skin of Blackness As A Racial Characteristic
Before going forward to discuss what these verses say about whether we should interpret the “skin of blackness” literally, metaphorically, or both, there is one thing we can quickly dismiss. Read together these verses make it clear that the Book of Mormon is not talking about racial characteristics. The Lamanites did not racially become black, red, or darker. Their actual skin did not change color.
How can we determine this? Well, admittedly the 2 Nephi reference could lead one to think the curse was a literal change in skin color. Nephi doesn’t actually explain what is happening in any detail and therefore it is easier to assume a panoply of possibilities, including a literal racial change in skin color. But the detailed explanation of the curse given in Alma makes this assumption literally impossible.
Why?
Because the Amlicite mark is equated with the Lamanite mark! The Amlicites mark themselves in their forehead with a red mark after the manner of the Lamanites. Because the Amlicites mingled their seed with the seed of the Lamanites the Amlicites become marked with the same mark the Lamanites are marked with. (Alma 3:9-13) But with the Amlicites we know this couldn’t be a racial identifier or caused by racial intermarriage because the Amlicites had literally just allied with the Lamanites the chapter before. They haven’t had time to intermarry and racially intermix and therefore have mixed race, darker skinned children. But they do have the Lamanite marking! Therefore, it cannot be racial.
In fact, the text curiously says that the Amlicites mark themselves in Alma 3:13 and then immediately turns around in Alma 3:14-15 to have God claim He marked them! This seems to be a clear case of the Lord showing the wicked will fulfill His word even as they try and rebel against Him. Alma 3:18-19 even says that the Amlicites marking themselves fulfilled the prophecy that those who joined the Lamanites would be marked like them, which implicitly equates it to the Lamanite curse and “skin of blackness” from 2 Nephi 5:20-21. Notice here that it gets very specific in saying the curse and the mark have fallen upon the Amlicites, not just a curse or a mark. This is to make clear that the Amlicites have the Lamanite curse and the Lamanite mark because they have joined the Lamanites even though they have not yet intermarried with the Lamanites.
Some might counter this by arguing that God can make your skin color be whatever He wants it to be so the Amlicites could become black without needing to intermarry. But Alma 3 also tells exactly what the dark mark upon Amlicites was. Consequently, since we know that the Amlicites had the same mark as the Lamanites, it also tells us the nature of the Lamanite mark. Alma 3:4 tells us that the Amlicites had “marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites.” That was the sign of the Lamanite curse that God marked the Lamanites with, a red mark on their foreheads.
In this context, it is also worth remembering that the Gadianton Robbers, when going to battle, dyed themselves in blood. (3 Nephi 4:7) Here again we see another Nephite breakaway group going to war against the Nephites and physically marking themselves on their skins to show their apostate and antagonistic status. And how are they marked? They’re covered and dyed in blood, which is red. The connection with the Amlicites here is simply too strong to ignore. Again, we see a people apostatizing from the ways of the Lord. Again we see people marking themselves in fulfillment of prophecy and God’s word to distinguish between themselves and the Nephites. Again they mark themselves in red, explicitly with blood here. And, not inconsequentially, when blood dries it becomes darker and turns black. It may even be that when the Amlicites marked themselves with a red mark on their forehead that what they were doing was marking themselves with blood. Once more we see the connection between a physical mark on the skin that is red, but could be also called black eventually, that isn’t racial in nature.
So, why do we keep insisting that the Lamanite one must have been when none of the other examples of God’s prophecy being fulfilled were?
To those who say but in 2 Nephi we see God claim that He was marking the Lamanites not that the Lamanites were marking themselves, remember that Alma 3:13-16 says that even though the Amlicites were marking themselves it was actually God marking them and setting them apart. The same is obviously true of the Lamanites. They may have marked themselves with a red mark (and perhaps other markings, more on that momentarily), but by doing so they were only fulfilling God’s word, so it was really God marking the Lamanites. God marked the Amlicites just as He had marked the Lamanites, by allowing them to openly proclaim their apostasy by marking themselves with a red mark that distinguished them from the covenant keeping Nephites. It was not an actual change of skin tone or skin color. It is not racist.
Color Symbolism
That still leaves us with the question of what the skin of blackness actually was and what it meant for the Lamanites, and those who joined them, to have it. In trying to answer that question we could argue over whether it is literal or metaphorical, but the strongest argument is that it was both. It has symbolic and metaphorical dimensions that describe the spiritual condition the Lamanites in as a result of their culture and traditions. It is literal as the “skin of blackness” was an actual marking that the Lamanites marked themselves with that had powerful symbolic meaning and made them stand out as people who were not followers of God and therefore people who could not partake of his covenant. Being cut off from the Abrahamic covenant was a curse that denied them many of the greatest blessings of God, including salvation and eternal life.
Dr. Armand L. Mauss, Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies at Washington State University and author of All Abraham’s Children, a magisterial work examining the role of minorities in LDS theology and history, shared this insight about the symbolic usage of color:
In modern colloquial English (or American) we sometimes speak of people as having “thick” or “thin” skins, without intending any literal dermatological meaning. Attributions of “white” versus “black” or “dark” skins could be read in a similarly figurative manner, as they might have been by Joseph Smith himself (or by his Nephite authors). The reader therefore need not attribute racist intentions when the Book of Mormon uses such terms as dark or filthy versus white or pure, especially when “racial traits,” such as skin color, are not even explicitly mentioned—which is the case most of the time.
All Abraham’s Children, pg. 128
When looked at symbolically, and without the baggage of American race relations thrust upon it by the well-meaning but ignorant, the symbolism of a “skin of blackness” has a deep and metaphorical richness to it that need be no more literal than the rebellious and proud having literally stiff necks or literally hard hearts.
In his book about scriptural symbolism, titled The Lost Language of Symbolism, Dr. Alonzo L. Gaskill, a Professor of Church History with specialties in scriptural and temple symbolism, goes into detail about the symbolic meanings of the color black. He explains that black is symbolically associated with “negativity, sin, evil, and death… judgment, primordial darkness, corruption, destruction, and sadness,” as well as “death by famine, plague, and pestilence.” Further, it is specifically associated with “the darkness of death, ignorance, despair, sorrow, and evil[.]” (Gaskill, 85) Black is also the symbol of God’s judgment upon the wicked, sinful, and evil. (Gaskill, 86-87)
Do these meanings not relate to the Lamanites, especially as they appear in 2 Nephi and Alma? Laman and Lemuel, the founders of Lamanite society, had rejected God and the prophetic counsel of not just their younger brother Nephi but also their father Lehi. Repeatedly the Book of Mormon laments the wicked traditions of the Lamanite fathers that kept Lamanite society in spiritual bondage by teaching them all Nephites were liars, murderers and thieves who needed to be killed on sight lest they corrupt and destroy Lamanite society with their lies. See Mosiah 10:11-18 and Alma 20:8–16, for just two examples. They were a people who were lost in sin and darkness and spiritual destruction, a people whom the color symbolism of blackness described perfectly.
Further, when we look at the writings of Jeremiah, who would have been a contemporary of Lehi and his son Nephi, we see the symbolic usage of a “skin of blackness” in just this way. In Lamentations 5:7-10 we see the children of Israel describe their condition after having been destroyed for the wickedness of their ancestors:
7 Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.
8 Servants rule over us: there is none to deliver us out of their hand.
9 We get our bread with the peril of our lives because of the sword of the wilderness.
10 Our skin is black like an oven because of the burning heat of famine.
Emphasis my own.
Here we see a “skin of blackness” used metaphorically to describe the wretched conditions the Israelites find themselves in being ruled by foreigners. The next quotation, from Lamentations 4: 6-8 is an even more powerful parallel to the Book of Mormon:
6 For the chastisement of the daughter of my people has been greater than the punishment of Sodom, which was overthrown in a moment, and no hands were wrung for her.
7 Her princes were purer than snow, whiter than milk; their bodies were more ruddy than coral, the beauty of their form was like sapphire.
8 Now their face is blacker than soot; they are not recognized in the streets; their skin has shriveled on their bones; it has become as dry as wood.
Emphasis my own.
In the Lamentations of Jeremiah we find a contemporaneous writer to Lehi and Nephi from their culture and the city they lived in using the exact same kind of symbolism Nephi later used to describe the Lamanites in 2 Nephi 5:19-23 when he says the Lamanites went from being a white and delightsome people to being cursed and having a “skin of blackness.” The princes of Israel are described by Jeremiah as being purer than snow and whiter than milk, in other words as white as white can possibly be. Yet after they are cursed because of their evils with the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of a foreign power these same princes are now blacker than soot, in other words as black as black can possibly be. Jeremiah even uses this symbolism to describe himself when, in the depths of sorrow, he declares, “For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black.” (Jeremiah 8:21)
Do we think Jeremiah is teaching that the skin of the princes of Israel literally changed color after Jerusalem was conquered? Did Jeremiah suddenly go from being an Israelite, a Jewish man, to being a Black man? Of course not. We understand that he is using black symbolically to describe either his depression and pain stemming from the consequences of sin and the punishments of God or he is describing the pain and suffering of others for the same reasons. We recognize that he is not literally describing his own race nor suggesting that his skin color or the skin color of the princes of Israel changed color.
Then why do we insist that Nephi must be?
We understand that Jeremiah is using the symbolic meaning of the colors white and black to describe the spiritual condition of the people of Israel. Nephi is doing the same. We see this same symbolism in Jacob 3:8, where Nephi’s brother Jacob explains that unless the Nephites repent the skins of the Lamanites will be whiter than the Nephites, and 3 Ne. 2:14-15, where we read of the Lamanites joining the Nephites, converting to the Gospel, and their skins becoming white. None of this is a literal description of race or skin lightning. These are symbolic descriptions of the spiritual conditions the Lamanites are in because they have rejected the commandments of God and what will happen to the Nephites if they do the same.
The description of the mark in Alma 3 as being red also affords some deep symbolism. The fact that the Lamanites and Amlicites marked themselves with red is a powerful marker of their brutality, violence, and murderous intent. Red, depending on its context, is either the color of sacrifice and atonement or “war, bloodshed, and violent death” as well as Satan. (Gaskill, 99,102) The context here seems pretty clear that the association is supposed to be with the negative symbolism of red since the people marking themselves with red are described as a cursed, traitorous, and apostate people.
That they marked their foreheads in red tells us a great deal about who they are and what they truly want. In scripture the forehead is the body part most associated with a person’s thoughts, beliefs, and desires. (Gaskill, 39) The most famous version of this symbolism comes from Revelation 13:16-18 where the wicked who serve the Devil bear his mark in their foreheads and Revelation 14:1 where the righteous who serve Christ bear His mark in their foreheads. In both cases the mark tells us who the marked follow and serve. The Lamanites and Amlicites marking their foreheads with red tells us that all their thoughts and desires were towards war, bloodshed, violence, and evil. As Dr. Gaskill explains, by marking their foreheads in red they “showed where their hearts were and that they truly loved the things of Satan rather than those of God.” (Gaskill, 40)
Literal But Not Racial
At this point you may not be convinced that the skin of blackness was symbolic and not literal. Perhaps you didn’t find the commentary on Alma 3 earlier completely convincing and still think that this still has something to do with literal skin. I can understand that. After all, this has been the major assumption of most Latter-day Saints for most of our history and the weight of such a tradition can be heavy and hard to shake off. Here I want to present to you some options about how the “skin of blackness” the Lamanites had could be literal and still not be racial in character. As we consider these examples, recall in Alma 3:14-16, the Lord claims that the Amlicite marking of themselves is the same as His marking them, meaning the mark can be both something they choose to do to themselves and a mark placed upon them by God.
First I want to refer you back to Alma 3: 5-6:
5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.
6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
Emphasis mine.
Historically, it seems like most readers treat these two back to back references to the Lamanite skins as separate, with verse 5 describing how they dress in animal skins and verse 6 describing how the Lamanite skin color was black.
But what if this is wrong?
What if the back-to-back references to the skins of the Lamanites reference the same thing – the animal skin clothing which the Lamanites wear is dark, not their actual skin? Read straightforward and in context this makes a great deal of sense. There is exactly no reason to read these references as separate from one another and every reason to read them together. Done so we learn that the dark mark, the skin of blackness which was set upon the Lamanite fathers, is not a change in their human skin tone but has to do with how they are dressed in black animal skins.
Now, this may seem nonsensical to most Latter-day Saints at first. But I would urge them to pause and consider that it is not so silly when they realize that every temple endowed Latter-day Saints wears a pure white garment at all times that represents the animal skins placed upon Adam and Eve by Jehovah. In a symbolic way we wear white animal skins everywhere, all the time. Is it so strange then to believe that the Lamanites did the same with black animal skins?
Lamanite culture was formed by men who rejected their brother as a false prophet and asserted their own authority to rule in his stead and who, devoid of the actual scriptures found upon the plates of brass, certainly passed down to their descendants a false and corrupt religion as well as false and corrupt traditions. Thus, while the Nephites had white skins, the true temple garment and true temple practices, the Lamanites had black skins, false temple garments and false temple practices. In this context it is well worth noting that 2 Nephi 5:19-23 does not say that the God changed the Lamanite skin color to be black. Rather it says He caused a skin of blackness to come upon them, perhaps in the same way that He has a white garment come upon the Latter-day Saints in the temple.
The Lamanite attempts to falsify the truths they lost in rejecting Nephi’s prophetic guidance and the introduction of different practices at odds with the Law of Moses, corrupted their religion, sent them into apostasy, and cut them off from God. The text makes this clear by talking about how the Lamanites had black skins, black garments, as opposed to the Nephite white skins, white garments. In this context, it is also interesting to note that in both 2 Nephi 9:44 and Jacob 1:19, Jacob ends his sermon by saying that through his preaching he has rid his garment of the blood and sins of those to whom he had preached. As with the Amlicites and Gadianton Robbers, we again see the color red emerge as the color of sin that stains the garments of a person and note that red, if left to sit, say in a stained garment, will eventually turn black. The Nephite (skin) garments are white because they, like Jacob, have the blood and sins of this generation cleansed from them through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Lamanite (skin) garments are black because they have abandoned the covenant, forgotten the Atonement, and do not repent of their sins. This brings upon them the curse of damnation and separation from God and the holy ordinances of exaltation as found in the temple.
At this point, I want to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Ethan Sproat and his excellent essay about the Lamanite “skin of blackness” and the way the language surrounding it is related to temple worship, not a literal change in skin color. HIs article is very much worth your time to read.
Next, in terms of literal possibilities, there is the prospect that we could be talking about a literal change in skin color brought about by human action and which is not racial in nature. Here are but a few examples:
Tattooing, the practice of adding permanent dyes to your skin in various designs in order to change its skin color, is forbidden in the Law of Moses (which the Nephites lived faithfully) because it was a pagan custom and was a sign that the tattooed person was not a covenant member of the House of Israel or a follower of God. If done extensive enough could certainly be seen as making the skin “dark” or even “black,” especially in the context of it being a sinful practice. And we know that heavy tattooing was practiced in both North America and Central America, including . Below are examples that illustrate how this could darken the skin and, perhaps, from the perspective of the Nephites make it “black” both symbolically and literally.
The first image in the slideshow is a historical depiction of Native American leader Chief Satouriona. Notice how absolutely covered in tattoos Chief Satouriona is from head to toe. To get a feeling for what this would look like in real life, I also have a picture of a Māori man who, though from a different culture, illustrates well what a person covered in similar tattoos would look like today. Is it that difficult to think the Nephites wouldn’t see this, a pagan practice specifically forbidden by God, as one that, if adopted by the Lamanites, made their skin literally darker and signaled their cursed state for having abandoned the Laws of Moses?
It could also mean something like heavy or extensive scarification. Scarification is cutting, burning, and carving designs into the skin in order to create permanent marks, words, and pictures in the skin. Present in tribal cultures all over the world throughout history, scarification serves a great deal of social purposes, many of which surround religious practices:
The significance of scarification extends to many other aspects of the tribesmen’s lives, spiritually, politically and sexually. The pain and personal sacrifice associated with scarring has been perceived by many tribes as a mark of one’s spiritual character and “a vehicle for purging emotional and physical issues [in] preparation for a spiritual life.” The pain and discipline needed to tolerate it was regarded by many as a sign of mental fortitude and spiritual maturation. It has also been seen in many tribes as a cathartic purging of bad spirits from the body and a medium for connecting to higher beings and transcending to a higher state of thought through the disciplined control of the pain: “Pain and suffering, whether voluntary or forced, are used in many traditions as a form of purging in order to prepare for a spiritual life whereby one lives with one foot in the tangible universe and the other resting firmly in that spiritual realm.”
Scarification: harmful cultural practice or vehicle to higher being?
While we have some evidence of scarification (pgs. 2-3, PDF) among North American Native peoples, at least to some degree, we have extensive examples of scarification being used among the Mayans, the Aztecs, and the Olmecs of Central America. We even have some evidence that suggests the Olmecs scarified not only adults, but may have even practiced the scarification of babies. Tattooing and scarification were prevalent among the Mayans as important markers of social distinction. And the use of both was very extensive:
The ancient Maya scarified the body to beautify. Experts, after painting the desired figures on the skin, cut it and introduced into the wounds a black earth or powdered charcoal, which made the devices indelible forever. When healed, different figures appeared, as of animals, serpents, and eagles and other birds, ornamented with various fine work.
…Cogulludo tells us that the ancient Mexicans engraved on their bodies all kinds of drawings and figures of animals, as eagles, tigers, and serpents, according to the order. The young warrior began with one or two symbolic figures. With each new victim he received a new device, so that the bodies of old heroes were entirely covered with hieroglyphics. The women did not tattoo the face, but did the body to the waist.
Tattooing of the North Ameircan Indians, by A.T. Sinclair, pg. 5 PDF edition
As with tattooing, I find it a distinct possibility that, faced with people engaged in extensive scarification and body modification that left them completely covered in images of various animals, the Nephites may have seen the practice as making the Lamanite skin darker or blacker, especially when you consider the typical religious aspects of scarification that would have been seen as apostate to the Nephites. The scarification did not merely signal a social difference, it signaled an abandonment of the Abrahamic covenant and therefore a cursed status for doing so.
My final example of how one could make their skin literally blacker or darker without it being a literal change in skin tone is ritualistic skin painting. This is something else we know the ancient Native Americans practiced. We have at least one early account of how women among the Maya “painted themselves black until married. …Elaborate body painting was general everywhere in New Spain, and staining the teeth a permanent black certainly was very common.” (Sinclair, pgs. 4&5 PDF) New Spain was the region that today makes up everything from what is today the northern border of Utah all the way down to what is today Panama in Central America. Mayan men often painted themselves, “red, white, and black paint, although there are also examples of brown and blue. Black body paint on men seems to denote roles that involve violence or penance—black paint marks the bodies of hunters, ballplayers, ritual bloodletters, those involved with sacrifice, and those undertaking ritual fasting.” Notice how men with violent roles, such as soldiers, painted themselves black. If the Lamanites followed a similar practice, then it is no surprise that the Nephites though the Lamanite skin had become black as it seems the most interaction the Nephites and Lamanites had for most of their history was through war. The only Lamanites the Nephites saw then would have been men with their bodies painted black!
The picture below is of different kinds of Native American body painting, but it is nevertheless a good visual aid to help the reader understand how the extensive body painting we are talking may have looked conceptually, though obviously different peoples had different paint forms and meanings:
It isn’t difficult to understand how the Nephites would see this as causing the Lamanite skin to become darker, perhaps even literally black, especially if they followed the practice of ritualistic body painting before they went to war. It would certainly be a sign of their cursed status as those who had abandoned, apostatized, or lost the Abrahamic Covenant and the Law of Moses. It could also be washed away or abandoned as a practice when the Lamanites converted to follow Christ and obey the Law of Moses, resulting in their bodies literally becoming lighter or “whiter” in appearance. It would also fit in exactly with the explanation of the mark in Alma 3 where the Amlicites mark themselves with a red marking on their heads which was the same as the marking God placed on the Lamanites.
Or it could be combinations of all these and more. All of them would probably be seen as a sign of a pagan and therefore cursed people, a curse with markings that, like the Amlicites, could even be said to be placed on them by God even when they marked themselves. All of which literally darken the skin, some literally blacken it. Imagine someone who does cover themselves in body painting, tattoos, and engraved designs from scarification. It would not only horrify the Nephites but also literally fulfill the idea of the Lamanites having a literal “skin of blackness” without it being racial in any way, shape, or form.
Final Thoughts
After looking at all these alternatives, I find it impossible to take the notion that the Book of Mormon means that the skin color of the Lamanites literally changed color in a racial sense. Yes this idea has been popular in the past, but we know that church leaders have been wrong before and they readily admit this today. Just look at how the church has disavowed the racist explanations proposed by church leaders in the past when talking about the former priesthood ban. With all the evidence – symbolic, historical, and from the scripture itself – the idea that the Book of Mormon teaches that the Lamanite skin literally became racially Black or that the Nephite skin literally racially became White seems completely nonsensical, a product of Western racists reading their racism into the scriptures and not evidence for what the scriptures themselves actually claim.
When we try and read the Book of Mormon while discarding our modern eyes and modern conceptions in order to read it as an ancient text from an ancient people with their own different beliefs, symbols, concerns, and ideas, the idea that it is racist simply has no evidence or proof whatsoever. The book is not racist, modern-day people are racist. And the more we abandon that, the more we strive to read the book on its terms instead of ours, the more its message becomes clearer to us today: Those who follow Christ and join His church will be blessed, those who abandon it will be cursed.