What Does the Book of Mormon Actually Say About the “Skin of Blackness”?

One of the more controversial subjects in the Book of Mormon is its description of a “skin of blackness” being placed upon the Lamanites. This subject is sometimes explained very differently by modern Mormons, so it is important to go back to the actual text and look at what it says rather than simply accepting a modern explanation.

In 2 Nephi 5, the Book of Mormon describes a separation between Nephi and his followers and the Lamanites. The text says the Lamanites had become hardened because of their rebellion, and then states that the Lord caused a “skin of blackness” to come upon them so they would not be enticing to the Nephites.

The passage then calls this a “curse” and describes the physical difference as a way of distinguishing the two groups.

The language is important because the text does not simply say that the Lamanites were spiritually different. It specifically describes a change involving their skin and connects that change with the curse placed upon them.

Alma 3 contains another passage that discusses this same idea. It describes the Lamanites as having a “mark” placed upon them and says that this mark was given so they could be distinguished from the Nephites. The passage connects this distinction with the rebellion and disobedience of the people involved.

That raises an obvious question: If the Book of Mormon is being presented as an ancient record inspired by God, why does it describe skin color as part of a divine curse and distinguishing mark?

That is not a question that should simply be dismissed by accusing someone of racism for bringing it up. It is a question about what the text actually says.

It is also important to be fair about the historical issue. Modern Mormon leaders no longer teach that Black people are cursed by God because of their skin color. The Mormon Church has rejected the old racial teachings that were once associated with these passages.

But rejecting an old interpretation does not change what the Book of Mormon itself says.

There is a difference between saying, “We don't believe that interpretation anymore,” and saying, “The Book of Mormon never said anything like that.” Those are two completely different claims.

The actual wording of 2 Nephi 5 and Alma 3 needs to be dealt with honestly.

There is also another important question for Christians. If someone claims that the Book of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ and another revelation from God, then its teachings should be examined just as any other religious claim would be examined. Christians are not required to accept a religious book simply because it claims to be Scripture. The Bible tells believers to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and to “try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1).

So the issue is not whether modern Mormons personally believe that Black people are cursed. The issue is what the Book of Mormon actually teaches, how its language should be understood, and whether those teachings are consistent with the character of God revealed in the Bible.

A difficult passage should not be hidden, softened, or explained away simply because it creates problems for a modern belief system. If a book claims to be revelation from God, then it should be able to withstand honest examination.

The question isn't whether we can find a way to make the passage acceptable.

The question is whether the passage actually teaches what it appears to teach, and whether that teaching can legitimately be attributed to God.