Modern readers carry modern assumptions. That’s usually fine—until we bring modern racial categories into ancient scripture. Nothing illustrates this more than the Book of Mormon’s references to “skin of blackness” and the long-running debate about whether God literally changed the race of the Lamanites.

Critics point to these verses as “proof” the Book of Mormon is racist. Some members throughout history interpreted them in overly literal ways. And some leaders, influenced by their times, echoed those assumptions.

But what if those interpretations weren’t what the text itself is saying?

What if the Book of Mormon never taught a permanent biological race change at all?

And what if modern scholarship, modern Church teachings, and the structure of the text all point toward a very different reading—one that’s more faithful to the gospel, more faithful to the ancient world, and far more faithful to the Book of Mormon itself?

Let’s walk through the evidence.

When We Say “Skin,” Are We Even Talking About Skin?

The biggest breakthrough came from BYU scholar Ethan Sproat, whose research in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies turned the entire conversation on its head.

His argument is simple:

In the ancient Near Eastern world, “skins” often mean clothing, garments, coverings—not pigmentation.

When the Book of Mormon describes a “skin of blackness,” the language aligns more with garment imagery than melanin biology. In other words:

• “Skin” = covenant covering
• “Blackness” = rejection of covenant, not a physical race
• “Whiteness” = purity, not European pigmentation
• “Darkening” = being outside the sacred garment tradition
• “Lightening” = restoration to covenant status

This fits ancient scripture beautifully. In the Bible, white garments represent righteousness. Dark, soiled, or rent clothing symbolizes spiritual corruption or apostasy.

It also explains something else critics never consider:

If “skin of blackness” is genetic, how could it change immediately upon repentance?

If it’s clothing imagery—covenant imagery—it makes perfect sense.

The Book of Mormon’s Own Structure Rejects a Racial Reading

The text constantly says things like:

• Lamanites became “white” when they repented
• Nephites became “darkened” when they fell into apostasy
• Groups switched sides and identities rapidly
• The Nephite/Lamanite division absorbed entire non-Israelite populations

Modern readers miss this because they assume “Lamanite” = a fixed race.

The Book of Mormon assumes exactly the opposite.

“Lamanite” and “Nephite” are political, covenant, cultural, and religious identities—not biological races.

This doesn’t just come from one scholar. This is:

• Mainstream LDS scholarship
• Multiple Interpreter Foundation essays
• Brant Gardner’s commentary
• Royal Skousen’s textual analysis
• The Church’s modern Gospel Topics explanations

The text’s usage simply doesn’t behave like race categories. It behaves like tribal, covenant-based identity labels.

Much closer to:

• “Israelite vs. Gentile”
• “Jew vs. Samaritan”
• “Circumcised vs. uncircumcised”

Not modern concepts of skin color.

What About Past LDS Leaders Who Interpreted It Racially?

Let’s be completely honest:

Some leaders did interpret it literally.

Some members did too.

The Church has openly acknowledged this.

But those interpretations weren’t:

• Canonized
• Repeated uniformly
• Taught consistently across generations
• Foundational to official doctrine

They were folk interpretations, shaped by the wider American racial culture of the 1800s–1900s.

By contrast, Book of Mormon scholarship over the last 50 years has consistently moved away from racial interpretations—not because of “pressure” or “PR,” but because the text itself pushes you there.

And today, the Church is explicit:

“The Church disavows the theories that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse… or that people of any race are inferior in any way.” — Race and the Priesthood, Gospel Topics Essay

That statement alone shuts the door on race-based readings of the Book of Mormon.

The Real Question: Would God Change Someone’s Race?

Here’s where critics get caught in their own assumptions.

The Book of Mormon never actually says:

“God changed the race of the Lamanites.”

The text describes a “mark,” but:

• It never defines that mark as melanin
• It uses language consistent with garments
• It applies the same symbolism to Nephites who fall
• It toggles “whiteness” with repentance, sometimes instantly
• It applies the terms to groups not descended biologically from Laman

If the “mark” isn’t racial…

Then no racial transformation is being claimed.

And the question “Would God change someone’s race?” evaporates because the Book of Mormon never claims He did.

The Modern Church Has Quietly Shifted the Frame

This is where things get interesting.

Notice these changes in modern Church editions and commentary:

• Chapter headings no longer tie skin color to curses
• The Church’s manuals avoid racial interpretations
• The Gospel Topics Essays reject skin-race theology
• The Saints series avoids racial readings entirely
• BYU’s Religious Education programs teach identity rather than pigmentation

These shifts weren’t attempts to “rewrite” the past—they’re corrections to bring modern members in line with what the text actually texts.

In other words:

We’re not moving away from the original meaning.

We’re moving away from 19th-century American misreadings.

So What Does This Mean for Latter-day Saints Today?

It means we should stop pretending:

• the Book of Mormon teaches racial transformation
• God sorted people by pigmentation
• Lamanites were a “race”
• Spiritual righteousness corresponds to skin tone

None of that holds up under the text—or under modern revelation.

Instead, the Book of Mormon teaches something far more universal and redemptive:

• God’s covenant can clothe anyone
• Identity in Christ is chosen, not inherited
• Righteousness is symbolized by garments, not genetics
• All people are alike unto God
• We are all “of one blood” (Acts 17:26)

The book is not about race.

It is about redemption.

Final Take: The Real Miracle Isn’t Skin — It’s the Covenant

So, can God change one “race” into another?

According to the Book of Mormon and the Restored Gospel:

-That was never the point.

-He changes hearts.

-He changes identity.

-He changes covenant belonging.

-He clothes His children in light.

-And whatever “skin of blackness” meant to ancient editors, it wasn’t about melanin—it was about symbolism.

-About leaving the covenant garment behind.

-About stepping into darkness by choice.

-And more importantly, about stepping back into light through Christ.

Because the Book of Mormon’s central message isn’t racial.

It’s universal:

“All are alike unto God.”

And that doctrine—not 19th-century American assumptions—is the heart of the Restoration.

 

References:

Race and Priesthood, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (accessed June 6, 2020: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng)

Ethan Sproat. Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis. BYU Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, Article 7. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. January 1, 2015 (accessed June 4, 2020: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572&context=jbms)