Episode 58

Skin of Blackness and Mormon Apologetics

Original Air Date: 2024-09-20

Skin of BlacknessApologeticsRace

Here is a detailed summary of the video "Skin of Blackness and Mormon Apologetics," based on the provided transcript.

Overview and Purpose

This video is Part 3 of a series on the Mormon Stories Podcast titled "LDS Discussions." Host John Dehlin, alongside co-hosts Julia, Gerardo, and Nemo the Mormon, critiques the arguments of modern Latter-day Saint apologists regarding the "skin of blackness" curse in the Book of Mormon 1, 2.

The discussion focuses specifically on the work of Jasmin and Neal Rappleye from Scripture Central (formerly Book of Mormon Central). The panel argues that these apologists, funded by wealthy donors aligned with the LDS Church, attempt to redefine the Book of Mormon's racist language—specifically the "skin of blackness"—to mean something other than literal skin color (e.g., garments, paint, or tattoos) 3-5. The hosts contend that these theories contradict the text itself, the footnotes in official LDS scriptures, and the teachings of past Church prophets 6, 7.

Critique of Apologetic Theories

The panel systematically debunks four specific theories proposed by Jasmin Rappleye to explain away the literal interpretation of dark skin in the Book of Mormon.

  • 1. The "Garments/Animal Skins" Theory
  • Apologetic Claim: Rappleye suggests that when the Book of Mormon mentions a "skin of blackness," it refers to animal skins worn as clothing or "coats of skins" rather than biological skin 8.
  • Panel Rebuttal: The hosts point to Alma 3:5-6, which distinguishes between the skins worn as clothing ("naked save it were skin which was girded about their loins") and the biological skin of the people ("the skins of the Lamanites were dark") 9. They argue the text clearly differentiates the two. Furthermore, the text warns against "mingling seed" (intermarriage) to avoid the curse, which implies a genetic trait rather than a choice of clothing 10, 11.
  • 2. The "Body Paint" Theory
  • Apologetic Claim: Citing Maya traditions, apologists suggest the Lamanites painted themselves black for warfare or rituals 12.
  • Panel Rebuttal: The panel argues that paint is temporary and would not constitute a permanent "curse" intended to separate peoples for generations 13. They cite the story of the Amlicites in Alma 3, who explicitly marked themselves with red paint to distinguish themselves from the Nephites. The hosts argue that if the Lamanites were merely painted black, the Amlicites wouldn't need to paint themselves red to look different; the distinction implies the Lamanites had a permanent, biological difference 14, 15. Additionally, scriptures describing Lamanites "becoming white" upon repentance would imply the paint was simply washed off, which contradicts the miraculous nature described in the text 16.
  • 3. The "Tattoo" Theory
  • Apologetic Claim: Rappleye argues the "mark" was a tattoo, citing Leviticus and ancient practices 17.
  • Panel Rebuttal: The hosts point out that tattoos are permanent and do not vanish upon conversion, yet the Book of Mormon describes the Lamanites' skin becoming "white" and "exceedingly fair" when they united with the Nephites 18. The panel accuses Rappleye of being "deceitful" by omitting parts of verses that mention parents becoming fair, not just their children (implying that stopping the practice of tattooing for children doesn't explain how the parents' marks disappeared) 19.
  • 4. The "Symbolic/Metaphorical" Theory

  • Apologetic Claim: Terms like "black" and "white" are spiritual metaphors for a state of being cut off from God or being pure 20. Rappleye notes Joseph Smith changed "white" to "pure" in the 1840 edition for one verse 21.
  • Panel Rebuttal: The hosts note that Joseph Smith only changed "white" to "pure" in one instance, leaving many other references to "white" skin intact, such as 3 Nephi 19:30, where Jesus and his disciples are described as physically white 22, 23. They argue that Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets consistently understood these terms literally. To claim it is symbolic requires believing that all prophets from Joseph Smith to Spencer W. Kimball were wrong 24, 25.
  • The "Surprise" Slide: Official Church Messaging

    Gerardo introduces a clip from the LDS Church's official YouTube channel featuring a black convert. In the video, the convert is initially troubled by the racism in the Book of Mormon but finds peace reading 2 Nephi 26:33 ("black and white, bond and free") 26, 27.

    The panel criticizes the Church's double standard:

  • When the text describes a curse, apologists claim "black" doesn't mean skin color.
  • However, when the text says God invites all to come unto him ("black and white"), the Church interprets "black" literally to claim inclusivity 28.The hosts argue this approach is manipulative and ignores the history of the priesthood and temple ban, which explicitly excluded people based on African lineage 29, 30.
  • Conclusion

    The episode concludes with the assertion that the LDS Church is "muddying the waters" by funding apologists to create confusion. This allows members to choose their preferred truth: either the "prophetic" literal interpretation or the "apologetic" symbolic interpretation 31, 32. The hosts argue that the most honest reading of the text is that it reflects the racist worldview of its 19th-century author, Joseph Smith, and that the Church relies on apologists to distract from this reality because the actual prophets remain silent or contradictory on the issue 25, 33.

    Episode Info

    Guests: Mike (LDS Discussions), Nemo the Mormon

    Related Article: LDS Discussions