© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
There is an interesting chapter in this book that proves that the “black skin” mentioned in the Book of Mormon has absolutely nothing to do with race. It has to do with the culture among the early Mayans. Mayans routinely painted their skin black when going to war. The Amlicites took the same curse upon themselves by painting their skin red. (Alma 3:4, 13) The Mayans (or Lamanites) also practiced tattooing in contradiction to the Mosaic law. The “curse” that was placed upon them was due to their open rebellion against God and his people. The “curse” is being separated from a loving God.
In 3 Nephi 2:14-16, it is related that a group of Lamanites united with the Nephites. Their curse was taken from them and their skin became like the Nephites (no more black war paint). And then their young men and daughters became exceeding fair (no more tattoos).
There is a tendency in Hebrew literature to suggest that God caused something that people did to themselves. For example, who was responsible for the destruction of the Jaredite culture. The Book of Ether reads as though it was a matter of two sides in which each was bent on destroying the other. They destroyed themselves. However, in Ether 1:1, we read: “And now I, Moroni, proceed to give an account of those ancient inhabitants which were destroyed by the hand of the Lord upon the face of this north country.” God is given credit for what they did to themselves.
The book is worth checking out. The book is titled: Book of Mormon: A History of Real People in Real Places.
https://store.bookbaby.com/bookshop/book/index.aspx?bookURL=Book-of-Mormon-A-History-of-Real-People-in-Real-Places
P.S. Along with many other things, this book also illustrates a strong correlation between the life of the man we call Mormon with an individual described in Mayan history.
Terrence,
I wish I had seen your book sooner. I ordered it several weeks ago ago and it arrived yesterday. Before responding to you, I wanted to read your short chapter on Tattoos and Painted Skins. I am pleased that we are on the same page with respect to the mark and the skin of blackness, the difference between the curse and the mark, and the meaning of the words “the Lord did cause.”
I appreciate your insight about tattoos in Egypt. As you point out, the Egyptians tattooed their skins, so Lehi was probably familiar with that practice. However, the Egyptian evidence that your book mentions refers to tattooing that was a true art form involving geometric designs and pictographs—skills that were part of Egypt’s sophisticated artistic milieu. That kind of body decor may not have been available for the common Egyptian man, or for example, its warriors. Among the Maya too, tattooing seems to have been reserved for the elite. But I appreciate the fact that your book, like my article, cites Michael Coe’s conclusion that “Until marriage, young [Mayan] men painted themselves black (and so did warriors at all times) …”
Some Lamanites, like the Maya, may have tattooed themselves. But for me, it seems unlikely that Laman, Lemuel, and their small group of rebels, living at the time in rather primitive circumstances, used decorative tattoos in the beginning, just after being left behind by Nephi and his followers. Soot and body paint seem like the more reasonable explanation for their skin of blackness. Also, if Laman and Lemuel were devout Deuteronomists who followed the Levitical codes but rejected Lehi’s belief in the Messiah and personal revelation, they might have avoided tattoos.
Your book is excellent, concise, and clear. The drawings and diagrams are enlightening. My congratulations! I also appreciate your witness to the veracity of the Book of Mormon. I eagerly look forward to a dialogue with you.
Finally, let me express my sincere condolences on the passing of Wallace B. Smith, president emeritus of Community of Christ. He was a visionary leader. I am particularly impressed with his decision to establish a temple and to make it a place of peace, one that is available to all. His approach resonates with Joseph Smith’s vision of the purpose of the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples and with President Russell M. Nelson’s recent call for us to become peacemakers.
Gerrit
One thing that I do find amusing at times is the fact that it gives offense to modern LDS people that the Nephites may have been ethnocentric (the correct term as opposed to racist pointed out by Brant Gardner). According to the Nephites the Lamanites were indicated over and over again to be “filthy” (which also may imply their skin was darker just because they didn’t bathe). They did not like them. For most of their history, the majority of Nephites were not righteous, so not unexpected. One of the main messages in the BOM countering this Nephite prejudice included by Mormon is the righteous Lamanite theme (sons of Helaman, Samuel the Lamanite, etc). I would frankly be surprised if an ancient people were not ethnocentric and tribal, so if the BOM lacked these elements, it would actually create some doubt in my mind as to its veracity. At least the Nephites didn’t circumcise the Lamanites and then kill them all like occurred in the Bible.
Jerry,
I agree with you that it would be anachronistic for there to be no evidence whatsoever of ethnic prejudice in the Book of Mormon. Nephites sometimes used words that are ethnocentric and derogatory—terms like wild, ferocious, stiff-necked, and blood-thirsty. To his credit, Mormon settled the score on at least one occasion by labeling Nephite dissenters as worse (Alma 47:36). Also, Jacob and Ammon both had high praise for Lamanites (Jacob 3:5 & Mormon 26:32). My primary intent was to distinguish the curse of separation from the Lord from the mark or skin of blackness, to offer archaeological proof for body paint, and to demonstrate that it also is anachronistic to label any anti-Lamanite sentiment in the text as skin-color-based racism, as most critics and some disciple scholars do. Racism emerged only later in world history.
Gerrit
Something looks like you missed is the discussion of the Maya utilization of the black skin coloring and then removal representing purification as part of their ritual, as well as the application of a red ointment as a right of passage of their priests. See page 6 of Evidence of the Nehor Religion in Mesoamerica. http://bmslr.org/books/Evidence%20of%20the%20Nehor%20Religion%20in%20Mesoamerica.pdf
Jerry,
My compliments for discovering proof that Mesoamericans used a soot-based skin of blackness, which they removed in a purification ritual. It took me a while to find it for myself, buried in the dense text of Bishop de Landa’s journal, which has no topical index. If I ever get around to writing Demythicizing 2.0, your findings will be on my list of proofs. For me, the Maya religious ceremony for removing soot is reminiscent of the Lamanite king who, after being converted, caused his people to abandon warfare and bury their weapons, and who then said, “God hath taken away our stains” (Alma 24:12).
Gerrit
Last night I read 2 Nephi 5 with my eighteen year-old son who is preparing for a full-time mission. It was so nice to be able to reference your article and provide a reasoned explanation of why 2 Nephi 5:21 does not condone racial bias. The illustrations of Mayan art from your article were particularly useful in our discussion. Thank you.
Josh,
Thank you for preparing your son to serve a mission with an enlightened view on race and an appreciation for the Book of Mormon. I wish I had understood these issues better before being called to serve in Cote d’Ivoire. When our Ivoirian missionary asked what color his skin would be in the resurrection, I wish I could have taught them this and more: for example, that despite common artist renderings, including those often found in our churches and its publications, Jesus had an olive or Middle Eastern complexion, and that in all of Joseph Smith’s visions, he never once commented on the skin color of a heavenly being. The Lord no more expects the “the Ethiopian to change his skin” than the “leopard his spots” (Jeremiah 13:23).
Since you enjoyed the Maya artifacts, I think you will be intrigued by my discussion of the Chichen Itza frescoes in my comments to Brant Gardner. Those murals deserve a fresh look. I had not focused on them previously.
Gerrit
A thoughtful article. Thank you! I wonder if there isn’t a place both for painting and metaphysical descriptions regarding this issue? Perhaps Nephi’s usage is more metaphysical, following in the patterns of Jeremiah and others near eastern prophets, while Mormon and others connect more with painting, there now having been time to be influenced by Mesoamerican practices?
I think that using body paint as the exclusive solution to the language in the Book of Mormon cannot explain the way the text uses both black and white. However, I do think that it provides a nice explanation for the beginnings of the vocabulary. Metaphors can develop out of physical conditions.
I agree. Here is my preliminary abbreviated take:
I would categorize all of the potential racist statements in the Book of Mormon as falling under:
A. White = level of righteousness, not skin color
B. Actual potential difference in skin color, and the group they joined was the “bad” one because they were the enemy.
C. Skin color change by cultural practices of skin coloration
I would then categorize all the BOM potential “racist” verses as follows:
1 Nephi 11: 13-15; 2 Nephi 30:6-7; 3 Nephi 19:25-30; 4 Nephi 1:10; Mormon 5:14-15; Mormon 9:6 — A
1 Nephi 12:23; 1 Nephi 13:14-15 —- A and B
2 Nephi 5:21-23, Jacob 3:5-9 — A, B, and C
Alma 3:5-10, 14-17 — B and C
3 Nephi 2:14-16 C
Jerry,
Thank you for this synopsis, which is a useful starting point for critiquing each of these potentially vexing passages.
Gerrit
I agree with both your and Jerry’s comment. Not that I have much to add to this well hashed out topic, but I think considering the Biblical passages using the phrase “skin of blackness” are relevant to at least consider and compare. The Hebrew renders more like a charring from Job and Lamentations due to overexposure of the sun. My comment here isn’t meant to detract from the Mesoamerican traditions mentioned.
Brant,
As you know, to find an “exclusive solution” is a big task. That has not yet occurred. We are still searching for truth. Certainly, ancient customs and metaphors influenced the authors of the Book of Mormon and their references to physical appearance. But I want to thank you for being one the first to mention body paint in connection with the Book of Mormon. After returning from Cote d’Ivoire I began reading your Second Witness series, and discovered in volume two your statement that “paint appears to be sufficient to create an identifying ‘mark’ short of altering body pigmentation.” That energized my research and led me to search for visual proof.
Since then I have learned that evidence of temporary blackening in Mesoamerican had been observed for a long time. In 1944 Donald Wray interpreted fresco 27 at Chichen Itza in a letter that was published in American Antiquity. He said that it depicts warriors attacking a village and capturing its light-skinned inhabitants (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Wall-fresco-on-the-Temple-of-the-Warriors-Chichen-Itza-Mexico-showing-a-major-raid-on-a_fig5_288187016). Wray specifically noted that some of the attackers “have solid black body paint, except for their hands and in some cases their faces.”
I recently took a closer look at the more well-known Chichen Itza fresco that shows dugout canoes and a Yucatan coastal village dominated by dark-skinned warriors. Its lighter-skinned subjugated people include women engaged in domestic tasks and men performing heavy labor for armed dark-skinned captors (carrying firewood and other burdens and paddling dugout canoes). What I had never previously noticed is that the two captors in the trailing canoe also appear to be wearing body paint. Their heads, arms, and torsos are darkened, but their exposed hands are the same lighter color of the captured villagers. In other words, whatever else these murals may show, both of them depict the use of body paint.
I value your insights.
Gerrit
Brett,
Like you, I am curious whether ancient customs and metaphors influenced Nephi to use the cryptic phrase “skin of blackness” when he composed his small plates. As I say in the text, the phrase “seems to come out of nowhere.” It might be what Sorenson calls a “Mesoamericanism” that is fully understandable only within that culture. It might have been meant to distinguish between a naturally dark skin and one that was artificial and reversible. So far as I know, Nephi’s word choice was unique, and yet it fit perfectly with other references in the text to the darkened skins of the Lamanites (Jacob 3:9, Alma 3:6).
I also want to give Nephi credit for consistency. On his small plates, he chose “skin of blackness” to describe what his eldest brethren did to their skins (2 Nephi 5:21). Later, writing for the benefit of his children and those same “beloved brethren,” he invited them all to come unto Christ, including both “black and white” (2 Nephi 26). In each case Nephi’s word choice aptly described both his own people and his blackened brethren.
Gerrit
I completely agree with Gregory Smith that Gerrit Steenblik’s work is a very important contribution to Book of Mormon scholarship. His paper is detailed and well researched. He puts forth another important hypothesis for how the “skin of blackness” may have occurred.
I think his work is also important to dispel the idea that the ancient Mayan paintings represented different races–a justification used by some to state that God created dark-skinned Lamanites. How interesting that a part of the painted person is lighter in color, e.g. the hands in Fig. 1, indicating that the darker “skin” does not represent the person’s actual complexion. Is this true for all paintings of painted Mayans?
I think Steenblik’s argument is similar to the one made by Ethan Sproat (referenced by Steenblik). If the Lamanites painted their skin black, that is similar to Sproat’s argument that the Lamanites did something to themselves that gave them a revolting appearance to the Nephites. No actual change to skin pigmentation occurred.
However, one cannot totally dismiss the metaphorical interpretation of white and black in the Book of Mormon. I find three points in Steenblik’s paper that need more explanation if we are to discount the metaphorical interpretation:
1) Marvin Perkins argues for a metaphorical interpretation based on the Bible’s usage of black and the known usage of black skin in Middle Eastern cultures to represent gloom and spiritual darkness (see p. 199 and note 156 in Steenblik’s article and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLi8PBIb8us or https://blacksinthescriptures.com/skin-color-and-curses). If Lamanites’ black skin is only from actually painting themselves, what do we do with the following seven Bible verses?
“My skin is black upon me” (Job 30:30)
“Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine” (Lamentations 5:10)
“The people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness” (Joel 2:1–6)
“The faces of them all gather blackness” (Nahum 2:10)
“I am black” (Jeremiah 8:21)
“I am black, but comely” (Song of Solomon 1:5)
“Look not upon me, because I am black” (Song of Solomon 1:6)
2) 3 Nephi 2:10–15 easily could be interpreted differently from what Steenblik argues (p. 204). He states that Lamanites “became white like unto the Nephites” with the Nephites still being wicked. The wickedness could refer to the wickedness of Nephites who became Gadianton Robbers, not the Nephites who were joining with converted Lamanites (the ones who became “white”) to defend themselves against the robber band. Having righteous Lamanites join at least mostly righteous Nephites seems more plausible than that the converted Lamanites would join Nephites who were wicked enough to be causing a war. In other places the Book of Mormon mentions war caused by Nephite iniquity, but the righteous remnant still had to fight wicked defectors who were the ultimate cause. The great, six-year war is one example (Alma 51–62).
3) Marvin Perkins argues that “black and white” in 2 Nephi 26:33 refer to spiritual status, not skin color (see notes in #1 above). Steenblik argues the opposite (p. 205). Preceding “black and white” is the statement that the Lord invites all to come to him “and he denieth none that come unto him”. So, if Perkins’ idea is correct, the Lord says he welcomes the sinner and the saint who come unto him. Coming unto him is the key. “All are alike unto God” specifically refers to “Jew and Gentile”, which Perkins argues covers all races and people.
Perhaps the Book of Mormon is metaphorical in places and perhaps refers to skin painting in other places. Certainly body painting fits well with statements that Lamanites and Amlicites marked themselves. The important thing is that Gerrit Steenblik and those of us who have previously argued for a metaphorical interpretation can agree on one thing: God did not use anti-black racism to ensure purity of the Nephites. That is what research has taught us.
David,
First, let me personally thank you for your outstanding journal article on the anti-discrimination messages of the Book of Mormon. Thank you also for your thoughtful comments about my article.
The jury is still out on the variety of natural complexions for Mesoamerica’s ancient inhabitants during Book of Mormon times. John Sorenson believes that there were differences in skin pigmentation among the inhabitants. However, some of the presumed evidence of pigment variations on which disciple scholars have previously relied now is explained as body paint, including the Chichen Itza coastal village frescoes.
Thank you also for collecting the various references to blackened skin in the Hebrew scriptures. As noted in my other responses, I agree that ancient customs and metaphors likely influenced Nephi’s choice of the cryptic phrase “skin of blackness,” which was both novel and enigmatic.
You make a good point about 3 Nephi 2:10-16 by asking why Lamanites who were “converted unto the Lord” would unite with wicked Nephites. Mormon’s account is short on details, and I don’t have an answer. I suspect that even though Nephi had left behind the wicked Zarahemla Nephites, there remained at least some righteous Nephites. Converted Lamanites would have considered the righteous remnant to be their “brethren.” So, in retrospect, perhaps I was wrong to make a broad generalization about Nephite wickedness. It also occurs to me that these converted Lamanites may have abandoned the skin blackening tradition entirely in order to promote common military operations. And yet, that there have been ”unholy alliances” in modern military history, including World War II, when it was essential to unite in order to defeat a ruthless enemy that had vast territorial ambitions. It would have been interesting to be in the room when the negotiations took place that ensured converted Lamanites that they could maintain their rights, privileges and liberty. Perhaps they had a lot of leverage.
As for your third comment, its possible that both “skin of blackness” and “black” had metaphorical antecedents and implications. However, I am impressed by the fact that on his small plates Nephi first chose “skin of blackness” to describe what his eldest brethren did to their skins (2 Nephi 5:21) and that later, on the same plates and for the benefit of his children and those same “beloved brethren,” he used the word black in verse 33. Thus, darkened skin is not an awkward meaning. It qualifies as a very plausible meaning for Nephi’s color choice. His invitation to all aptly describes both his children and his blackened brethren. It correlates with other explicit references to dark skins (Jacob 3:9, Alma 3:6). And it accords with the teachings of Restoration prophets, including Joseph Smith and Russell M. Nelson who have used Nephi’s words “black and white” to mean skin color.
Gerrit
Though I’m sure this small irony is not intended, but the expression ‘who loves people of color as I do’ may be read as perpetuating the practice of defining people in terms of colour; and potentially in terms of ‘them and us’.
This should not, however, detract from the contributions this paper makes to a critical subject.
Spencer,
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt when I expressed my love for “people of color.” I concede that the phrase has become an overused generalization that ignores many relevant circumstances. I think we all want people to be judged by the “content of their character.” But as the Garner Institute’s 2021 study of diversity in Utah makes clear, claiming that we are “color blind” has not moved our society very far forward on the path to racial justice. Even in the center stakes of Zion, hardships of all sorts fall disproportionately upon racial minorities. Derwin Gray, a former BYU football star who played six years in the NFL before co-founding the multi-ethnic Transformation Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, wants us to be color-conscious, color-sensitive, and proactive—he refers to this as being “color-blessed.” Until we can develop more meaningful measures of disparities and more targeted solutions, we need to heed Paul Reeve’s admonition to be willing “to see color” AND “understand what life looks like” from the perspective of people of color.
Gerrit
Well done–this is a marvellous contribution to Book of Mormon studies.
Neither option has in past managed to explain all the data:
a) literal pigment change; or
b) metaphorical treatment.
The Nephites do not seem to be racist in our sense of the term, but they were certainly ethnocentric–as almost all ancient (and most modern!) cultures were.
But, if there is a widespread tradition of a literal applied pigment, chosen to be applied and taken off, heavily freighted with religious, military, and cultural symbolism and practice, then it all fits.
As you point out, having stains “cleansed” by the blood of the Lamb plays into the symbolism as well.
A good example of a “high context” text where the author does not explain something that is patently obvious to him, but quite opaque to us.
Bravo!
Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to read and provide a thoughtful comment. I appreciate the encouragement. I think you will find my comments to Brant Garner about the Chichen Itza frescoes interesting.
Gerrit
Once again, the assumption, against the linguistic evidence, is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, in today’s default sense of the verb translate. He was the translator in the sense of bringing a revealed text into our world. He didn’t choose the words of the text. And most of the time, the original words can be interpreted with varying degrees of early modern meaning.
I do not believe this. I will rigidly stay with Pres. Nelson on this issue of whether Joseph translated the Book of Mormon:
In what was then called “the preface” to the Book of Mormon, Joseph explained, “I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God.” He later noted that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c.”
Though the precise mechanics are unknown to us, we know that it was a spiritual process. For us here and now, individual faith and receiving a testimony of the Book of Mormon far outweigh any details of stories or descriptions of how the text was revealed to Joseph Smith.
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/priesthood-restoration-site-dedication-transcript
I search in vain to find a prophet that has ever taught and testified other than that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. On the contrary, they are all united in this uncompromising testimony. None of them have ever intimated that someone else did the translating and then that translation was revealed to Joseph. This is a theory not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ.
Dennis- You didn’t know about President Brigham Young’s statement, “if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation”. Journal of Discourses 9:311. You say “I search in vain to find a prophet that has ever taught and testified other than that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. On the contrary, they are all united in this uncompromising testimony. None of them have ever intimated that someone else did the translating and then that translation was revealed to Joseph. This is a theory not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ.” Except you’re wrong and no one here is saying this at all so this is all totally irrelevant.
Translate has various meanings, and the meaning I mentioned as applicable, based on manuscript evidence, as well as lexical and syntactic evidence, is one of them.
Gospel Topic “Scriptures”:
“By the gift and power of God, the Prophet Joseph translated the record into English. Since then, the Book of Mormon has been translated into many other languages.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/scriptures?lang=eng
Although I disagree with Brother Carmack’s interpretation of “the gift and power of God,” I completely agree that it is a question open for investigation. There is no doctrinal statement that delineates the method of translation. I know that Brother Carmack firmly believes that Joseph was involved in the translation, if only as a reader. How the text appeared so that it could be read is the question being investigated, and that is the question that cannot be resolved by resorted to quoting General Authorities or the Gospel Topic essays.
I don’t remember ever addressing the meaning of “the gift and power of God”. A semantic interpretation of this phrase cannot tell us whether Joseph Smith worded the Book of Mormon, just as a semantic interpretation of translate cannot. And the kind of translation can’t either, which is complex and dynamic. What tells us that he didn’t word the Book of Mormon is scribal, lexical, and syntactic evidence.
If Joseph Smith himself was responsible for coming up with the English wording of the Book of Mormon, the eyewitnesses to the “translation” process would have described the process much differently. Joseph would have been constantly editing and rewording things all the time, and the original manuscript would have been just a first draft. And Joseph would have been working with the printer to update text where questions on wording or grammar may have been seen. It makes sense that Joseph would be so adamant that the wording not be changed by the printer if the final text had been given to him.
But considering the idea that Joseph was NOT given the words themselves, what would Joseph have been given? What was Joseph given that he was then responsible for rendering in English? Is he shown a video of Nephi encountering Laban? Troop movements in battles that Joseph then narrates in his own words? Where does he get the text of Alma’s letters to his sons? The Isaiah quotes and Nephi’s commentary? The interjections of Moroni into the Jaredite text?
The text on the gold plates themselves was meticulously inscribed by Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, and others. Its translation certainly needed to be very carefully rendered in English. To me this provides evidence that the English was developed beforehand and given to Joseph by way of the interpreters or seer stone. If so, it would be very straightforward.
I make no claim of being a credentialed scholar. I have no authority to define doctrine. I am simply a woman, mother, grand-mother and great-grandmother who has loved and studied the scriptures since I was very young. I also had the wonderful privilege of serving as an assistant to the Matron of the Accra, Ghana Temple. One day, when things at the temple were quite slow, one of the wonderful African brothers that served in the temple was sitting by a small table in a hallway next to a copy of the Book of Mormon left there for workers to read when not otherwise engaged. His face was troubled, and he asked if I had time to talk to him for a moment. I did, and sat down as he read me the words about the “skin of blackness” in the Book of Mormon. He was concerned about how he was to overcome this, and what it meant to his opportunity for exaltation. I silently prayed for an answer to give him. I knew he was a pure-hearted, kind man, and so dedicated to the work. As I struggled to know what I should say, I suddenly saw a great light emanating from his face. It was very real and very powerful. Stuggling with tears, I told him the thought that clearly came into my mind, that the “blackness” actually referred to what dwealt within one’s heart and mind, and that he was a man of light, and would remain so as he stayed on the path he presently traveled. I then said that now, knowing this, I personally assumed that the description of a “blackness of the skin” must have been referring to those countenances which reflect that blackness of the mind and heart of some. We cried together. I speak for no one in authority in any way. I can only share that experience, which will always stay with me.
Leslie,
Thank you for sharing your inspired response to your friend in the Accra Temple. During Joseph Smith’s First Vision, when he beheld the Father and Son, he said that their “brightness and glory defied all description.” Judy and I saw that “brightness and glory” in the countenances of all of our worthy missionaries. Since you have served in Africa too, I’m sure you can bear that same witness. In the resurrection, the only meaningful question about our appearance will be whether through our faithfulness we are bright and glorious, whatever our skin color.
Gerrit
Elder Quentin L. Cook:
As I served in the British Mission, in 1962, our mission president, Marion D. Hanks, had us read and study the Book of Mormon. . . . President Hanks had been a General Authority for nine years before serving as our mission president. He would teach us the doctrine after we had marked the Book of Mormon. In reading 2 Nephi 5:21, describing a skin of blackness associated with being cut off from the Lord’s presence approximately 600 years before Christ’s birth, President Hanks was adamant that this phrase related solely to that people and during that period of time. Those people who were Lamanites were literal blood brothers and sisters to Nephi and his siblings.
President Hanks had us immediately turn to 2 Nephi 26:33, which reads, in part: And he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
That was our doctrine then and that is our doctrine now. President Hanks made it clear that if anyone had feelings of racial superiority, they needed to repent. (““Be Not Weary in Well-Doing,” University Conference, BYU Speeches, August 24, 2020.)
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/quentin-l-cook/be-not-weary-in-well-doing/