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?

A significant 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.

Ancient Garment Imagery, the Phrase “Skin of Blackness,” and the Meaning of “Cause”

One of the most compelling reasons to interpret “skin of blackness” as covenantal garment imagery rather than biological pigmentation is the way ancient scripture consistently uses skins, coats, coverings, and garments to describe spiritual condition and covenant status. In the ancient Near East, the term “skin” (Hebrew: ʾôr) frequently meant an outer covering—most often animal hides used as clothing or ritual garments representing identity, loyalty, or divine protection. This meaning is deeply embedded in biblical tradition. Adam and Eve are given “coats of skins” as a divine covering after the Fall (Genesis 3:21). Isaiah speaks of God clothing His people with “garments of salvation” and a “robe of righteousness” (Isaiah 61:10). Ezekiel depicts covenant-breaking Israel being symbolically stripped of her garments and exposed (Ezekiel 16:39). In each case, garments signify covenant standing, not ethnicity.

The Book of Mormon mirrors this same Near Eastern symbolic vocabulary. Nephi describes the righteous at judgment being “clothed with purity” and the wicked in “filthy garments” (2 Nephi 9:14). Alma uses the metaphor of a “stolen garment” to describe hypocrites who try to claim a righteousness they have not lived (Alma 5:23). Mormon speaks of those who are “cleansed through the blood of Christ” receiving white garments (Alma 13:12), and Jesus Himself promises that the faithful will be “presented…in white garments” (3 Nephi 27:19). This repeated garment symbolism—appearing over fifty times in the Book of Mormon—forms a theological backdrop for understanding how Nephite prophets used words like garments, skins, and marks.

With this context in mind, the language in 2 Nephi 5 becomes far clearer. When Nephi writes that the Lord “caused” a “skin of blackness” to come upon the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:21), the verb cause should be read the same way it functions throughout the King James Bible—not as “genetically alter,” but as “to appoint,” “to place upon,” “to set,” or “to impose.” This is precisely how the KJV translators used cause to render several common Hebrew verbs. For example, śîm (שִׂים), meaning “to set, appoint, put upon,” and nātan (נָתַן), meaning “to give, apply, or place,” are regularly translated with the same construction. The KJV uses cause this way in passages such as Leviticus 24:12, where Moses is told to “cause him to be kept” (i.e., appoint or place him under guard), or Ezekiel 37:6, where God promises to “cause breath to enter into you” (i.e., place or set breath upon/within). In other words, the phrase reflects a Hebrew idiom meaning that something was put upon or placed upon a people—whether a curse, a name, a mark, or a condition—not that their biology was altered.

Consider several more biblical parallels:

• Zechariah 3:4 — “I will cause thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will cause thee to be clothed with change of raiment.”
  -Here cause explicitly means to clothe someone with a garment.
• Isaiah 58:14 — God will “cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth.”
  -The verb indicates appointment, not physical modification.
• Ezekiel 34:25 — “I will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land.”
  -Again, cause = impose a condition.

This same idiom saturates the Book of Mormon:

• God “caused” serpents to hedge up Israel’s path (1 Nephi 17:41).
• Angels “caused” Laman and Lemuel to shake (1 Nephi 3:29).
• God “caused” the earth to quake, cities to burn, and tempests to arise (3 Nephi 8:6–17).

In every case, cause means to bring about an imposed outward condition, never a biological transformation.

This linguistic pattern becomes decisive when the text later says the Lamanites’ mark “was taken from them” after they repented (3 Nephi 2:15). If the mark were literal melanin, the Lord would have had to miraculously rewrite their genetics twice—once to impose darker pigmentation, then again to reverse it. But if the phrase refers to a symbolic skin or garment, the wording becomes perfectly consistent with Near Eastern use: covenants, blessings, and curses are symbolized by skins, marks, and garments that can be given, worn, or removed. Even the Amlicites deliberately mark themselves with red upon their foreheads (Alma 3:4, 13), showing that in Nephite thought, marks were visible signs of identity and allegiance, not changes in biology.

The strongest internal argument, therefore, is this: the Book of Mormon contains no racial hierarchy, no biological categories, no discussion of DNA, and no doctrine tying righteousness to genetics—but it contains a rich and extensive garment theology that saturates its covenant language. Reading “skin of blackness” through the lens of ancient garment imagery aligns the phrase with biblical idiom, Near Eastern cultural usage, and the Book of Mormon’s own vocabulary. It is covenant symbolism—not melanin, not race.

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.

Relevant Book of Mormon references:

1. 1 Nephi 12:23 – Darkened appearance = spiritual decline; repentance restores potential.
2. 1 Nephi 13:7 – Apparel symbolizes pride; can be changed through righteousness.
3. 1 Nephi 17:41 – Pride and rebellion distinguish groups; all can repent.
4. 1 Nephi 18:23 – Faithful followers protected; covenant obedience “cloaks” them spiritually.
5. 2 Nephi 5:21 – Lamanites receive mark for rebellion; repentance restores potential.
6. 2 Nephi 5:22 – Loathsome appearance shows spiritual estrangement; all may change.
7. 2 Nephi 30:6 – Cleansing represents covenant renewal; all may participate.
8. Jacob 3:5 – “Wrong garments” don’t limit worth; children still have promise.
9. Jacob 3:9 – Condemns reviling others; God sees heart.
10. Alma 3:4 – Cultural identifier marks group; individuals can change.
11. Alma 3:5 – Marker passed through tradition, not biology; change possible.
12. Alma 3:6 – Mark distinguishes covenant breakers; anyone may repent.
13. Alma 3:7 – Visible identifier maintains distinction; God can heal hearts.
14. Alma 3:13 – Symbolic mark defines Lamanites; anyone may repent.
15. Alma 3:14 – Divine sign warns; repentance restores identity.
16. Alma 3:15 – Symbolic marks of rebellion; change is possible.
17. Alma 23:18 – Converts abandon former markers; all can join covenant.
18. Alma 5:21 – Garments washed clean through Christ for all who turn to Him.
19. Alma 5:24 – Purity is spiritual, never physical; applies to all.
20. Alma 5:27 – Call to cleanse garments applies to everyone.
21. Alma 5:33 – Christ invites all to change garments and come to Him.
22. Alma 7:21 – God’s holiness isn’t about appearance but obedience.
23. Alma 7:25 – Spotless clothing symbolizes salvation; open to everyone.
24. Alma 13:11 – Holy garments symbolize a changed life open to all.
25. Alma 34:36 – Darkness describes moral state; anyone may turn to God.
26. Alma 41:6 – Cleansed garments signify holiness; anyone may achieve.
27. Helaman 5:12 – Strength comes from Christ; identity restored through faith.
28. Helaman 5:50 – Christ purifies hearts completely; no one excluded.
29. Helaman 7:24 – Pride and rebellion show spiritual corruption; all may repent.
30. Helaman 13:8 – Curses function as spiritual warnings; anyone can repent.
31. 3 Nephi 2:15 – Marks removed through repentance; identity renewed.
32. 3 Nephi 19:25 – Divine presence transforms appearance; purification possible.
33. 3 Nephi 27:19 – Spotless garments show spiritual readiness; available to all.
34. Mosiah 2:41 – Obedience provides protection; spiritual garments symbolize covenant.
35. Mosiah 5:8 – Clothed with purity; covenant followers sanctified.
36. Mosiah 18:9 – Baptismal covenant; symbolic washing/garments of faith.
37. Mosiah 18:10 – Covenant washing shows willingness to follow God.
38. Mormon 1:14 – Wickedness brings spiritual consequences; everyone can change.
39. Mormon 5:15 – Darkness ends through spiritual renewal; opportunity open to all.
40. Mormon 5:17 – “Loathsome” shows conduct, not bodies; all can change.
41. Mormon 5:20 – Darkness means distance from God; path back exists.
42. Mormon 9:35 – Judgment linked to clean garments; any soul can prepare.
43. Ether 12:37 – Faith purifies symbolic clothing/marks; any soul may be approved.
44. Ether 12:38 – Approved state shown by faith/purity; universally accessible.
45. Moroni 7:10–14 – Light/dark contrasts moral choices; everyone may choose rightly.
46. Moroni 7:48 – Christ perfects symbolic garments; full potential for all.
47. Moroni 10:32–33 – Christ makes anyone holy who comes unto Him.

 

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)