Racial equality is an example of an undeniable truth that God should understand and anyone claiming to be God’s mouthpiece should teach. I consider it a bare minimum litmus test for anyone claiming a divine connection. Many people consider the Book of Mormon to contain racist elements attributed to God and see this as proof that it is the product of 19th century man, rather than true Prophets of God. Is this the case? Mormons hearing this accusation for the first time might respond with “what you talkin’ about heathen?”

The question of racism in the Book of Mormon is very close to me. I come from “Lamanite” heritage – that is my Mother was born and raised in Mexico. She converted to the church as a young woman after being raised as a Catholic. I asked her, in the past year, why her brothers did not join the church when she did. “They thought that it was racist” was the response. It appears that my uncles rejected the message of the missionaries because they felt that the Book of Mormon had racist elements. My mother did not see the same things that her siblings did in the Book of Mormon. To her, like many others, the messages of Christian love, salvation and promised redemption of the Lamanites were much more meaningful aspects of the Book of Mormon which overshadowed any perceived racism.

While critics see the Mormon scripture as racist I do not consider modern Mormons to be racist. Active believing Mormons revere the Book of Mormon and do not find it racist. It would seem that there is a disconnect between these two perspectives which is worth exploring. If my uncles, who are totally Lamanites, believed that the Book of Mormon was racist, perhaps it is worth finding out why – if only to gain understanding and empathy.

I am hopeful that this post will lay out my case in a clear and concise way, that may help those who have been unable to see what many former Mormons and investigators like my uncles cannot ignore.

Racism Defined

In exploring this question, it is helpful to define our terms so that we all understand what is meant by “Racist” or “Racism”.

The Oxford dictionary provides 2 useful definitions:

1. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

2. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

These definitions will be a useful standard by which to evaluate parts of the Book of Mormon to see if they meet the modern definition of racism. We will compare different texts against this definition and see if they match.

Lamanites Identified

Next, it will be useful to demonstrate that the “Lamanites” constituted a race of people – specifically the Native Americans. Modern LDS scriptures confirm that God himself decreed this to be so. The Lord, speaking through the prophet Joseph Smith commanded Oliver Cowdery to preach to the Native Americans in 1830. The Lord called them “Lamanites” This is recorded in D&C 28:8

“8 And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.”
(Doctrine and Covenants, Section 28:8 lds.org)

Assuming that the Lord knows which people are who – it should be safe to proceed with the knowledge that the Lamanites referred to in the Book of Mormon are the ancestors of the Native Americans.

Test 1 – True Positive?

We are setting out to test if elements of the Book of Mormon are racist by comparing it with the aforementioned definition of racism. The first thing to do when you are testing something is to try your assessment tool on something that you know it should identify correctly. Since we are looking at the question of racism – lets compare some written material from an unquestionable racist source and see if it matches our helpful definitions of racism. Here is an excerpt from the Ku Klux Klan pamphlet entitled “The Ideals of the KKK”:

“Purity of the white blood must be maintained. One of the crying evils of the times is the mixture of white blood with that of Negro. This evil has gone on since Colonial days until perhaps more than half of the Negroes in the United States have some degree of white blood flowing in their veins. This condition is not only biologically disastrous but is giving rise to grave social problems. Mulatto leaders who, under present social conditions, are forced to remain members of the negro group and who aspire to white association because of their white blood are boldly preaching racial equality in all of its phases. The guilt for this state of affairs rests upon those members of the White Race who for a moment of sexual pleasure have betrayed their own kind and bartered their own blood. It has become necessary to devise some means for the preservation of the white blood in its purity, because despite prohibitive laws, interracial mixture is continuing and the problem of mixed blood is becoming more and more acute.”
(“Ideals of the KKK” archive.org)

So the test we can now apply is “does this statement match our definitions of racism?” Well, there is a strong message that the white race, and the purity of it’s blood are more desirable than that of the “negro.” Blood is a stand in for the genetic makeup of the respective races. This good/bad dichotomy is reinforced with every negative description of mixed blood and the social results of it as well as every idealized and elevated allusion to the purity and desirability of white blood. This paragraph is saturated with the notion that the White Race is superior and rife with antagonism towards other races and appeals to discrimination against interracial marriage and segregation.

It is worth noting that the theme of mixing blood as an undesirable evil is one of the hallmarks of KKK ideology. The term for such racial inter-breeding is “miscegenation” and KKK doctrine and propaganda is saturated with anti-miscegenation rhetoric. The very nature of that position in the idea that one race is less than another and so by mixing the genetics of them, future progeny are somehow less desirable. The whole concept is the same that has driven forced sterilization, ethnic cleansing and genocide made famous by the Nazi regime. The idea is utterly deplorable by modern standards of racial equality.

The paragraph from the “Ideals of the KKK” absolutely meets our definitions of racism and the KKK are to be congratulated for being true to what they are known for.

Before moving on to the next example, another question is worth asking:  Is there any additional teaching or instruction which could negate the racist aspect of this, without first disavowing this paragraph? I cannot imaging anything which may reasonably exonerate the KKK of this reprehensible “ideal” without utter disavowal. This may seem like a weird question to ask, but the next example will demonstrate why it is important.

Test 2 – True Negative?

Next, we want to apply our test to something that we believe it should come up as negative for, indicating that the statement is not racist. Let’s examine the introduction to the Declaration of Independence:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
(Declaration of Independence, archives.gov)

Now we will apply our test. Is there anything in the language of this text which would meet our criteria for racism? Well, since there are no references to race or any stand-in term such as “blood” or “seed” then it would be difficult to say that this part of the Declaration of Independence, by itself, is conveying any antagonism, discrimination or prejudice based on placing one race in a superior position to another. It actually states something that is the antithesis of racism – that “all men are created equal”.

As such, the portion of the Declaration of Independence we asses here is not racist. If we examine the whole of the document and can find no other racist elements, then we may justifiably defend the position that the Declaration is not a racist document.

Now, lets ask that followup question, but adapted to an example that tests negative for racism: Is there any additional teaching or instruction which could negate the racial equality aspect of this, without first disavowing this paragraph?

The answer to that is “yes” as our nations history embarrassingly shows. Despite this document’s theme of undeniable racial equality early Americans owned slaves – even some of the authors and signers of the Declaration. There must have been an additional concept, outside of the text of the Declaration, which somehow allowed them to skirt it’s theme of equality. Such a concept was described in a 1975 Editorial from Ebony magazine which reviewed the paradox of the language of the founding documents and the nations history of racial inequality:

“What happened from the beginning, was that the most colonial Christians could not justify keeping a man in slavery. But they felt that they needed slaves, especially in the South, to cultivate their huge tobacco and cotton crops. The solution for them was basically simple – as Christians, the could not keep a man in slavery. They had slaves working for them; ergo those slaves must not be men like them. With the exception of ardent abolitionists located mainly in the New England area where slaves were not too practical, colonial whites accepted slavery. Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, including Pres. George Washington. The hypocrisy of this stand did not seem to trouble many of them and most bequeathed their slaves along with their cattle, barns, houses and other chattel to their heirs”
(“Time to Release All Shackles” Ebony, August 1975 books.google.com)

So by narrowing the definition of “men” to exclude those of a particular race, subscribers to the Declaration of Independence could hold to both the notions of the Declaration and the concept of slavery without feeling they contradicted each other. Note that no where in the Declaration does it draw this distinction between men and slaves. That concept was completely external to it. Thankfully, this obvious and undeniable paradox eventually found its way our of our nations mindset and laws.

As we can see in looking at this question between our examples, just as it is easier to stain a pure white cloth than it is to remove the stain from a soiled one,  it is much easier to pervert a noble creed than it is to sublimate a despicable one.

Test 3 – The Book of Mormon

Now that we have our standard of racism and have seen it successfully applied to known racist and non-racist texts, lets examine a few verses in the Book of Mormon. Here are some verses from 2 Nephi, where Nephi is describing the schism that form in his family where he and his goodly siblings separated from his less than goodly brothers Laman and Lemuel and their families and two emerging nations formed, the Nephites and the Lamanites. Nephi describes how the different lineages of the two groups were changed by God based on their varying degrees of righteousness:

“20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.”
(Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 5:20-25 lds.org)

Now let’s see if these verses fit our definition of racism – remember that what we are reading here is not just the opinion of Nephi, stated in his own voice. We are reading what the Prophet Nephi is telling us God himself said.

The concepts, regarding race, that we can distill from these verses are as follows:

• Lamanites (Native Americans) were cursed with a dark skin, by God, because they were sinful.
• This curse is passed genetically from parent to child, and is dominant so that it will be expressed in a mixed racial offspring.
• God instructs the Nephites not to procreate with the Lamanites in order to avoid the curse.
• The cursed Lamanites (Native Americans) were idle, mischievous and sneaky.

Most significantly, it is clear that Nephi is telling us that God is marking sinful people with a dark skin. This raises the first question which deserves to be addressed – is the skin darkness described here a genetic trait, such as skin pigmentation that is an inherent  characteristic of race?

Skin color is genetic

It should not be controversial to say that skin color, of the type referred to in this scripture is genetic. It is true that skin can grow darker through exposure to the sun. Such changes are mediated by the body’s response to the sun’s UV rays and a resulting increase in the production of the pigment melanin. This form of skin darkening through melanogenesis is not affected by whether or not someone is righteous (if it was, then Uchtdorf has some ‘splaining to do). If the sun’s rays shine on the just and the unjust – then both of these groups may tan accordingly.

Remember that the dark skin color which signifies the curse that God placed on the Lamanites is passed down through their “seed” or children – and this skin trait is so dominant that if a fair skinned Nephites had children with a dark skinned Lamanite, then their children would be marked with the curse of dark skin as well.  The only type of skin color that is passed through a persons “seed” is that determined by own’s overall genetic makeup or race. The dramatic differences between certain aboriginal tribes of Australia and the inhabitants of Norway may illustrate the various extremes of skin color that are known to the human races, but there is another way to see this within ones same race by examining an albino.

When there is a genetic disruption in the process that produces the pigment melanin, then the skin and hair do not get the coloration that is responsible for the darker shades of the various races of humans. This condition has been termed albinism. In this way the child of a black or native american dark skinned couple may appear as white or whiter than a european caucasian.

This process is the result of genetics. You cannot look at the young girls pictured here with her dark skinned mother and assume that the mother must be cursed because of iniquity while the daughter is not.

Did God really curse with dark skin?

One might try to make the case that Nephi just assumed that the curse was the dark skin and his own personal racism was injected into the text of the Book of Mormon and perpetuated from there. The problem with this excuse is that the concept is reiterated through the Book of Mormon.

“6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”
(Book of Mormon, Alma 3:6-9 lds.org)

You might say that this was simply Mormon, abridging the words of Nephi as part of his narrative of the account of Alma. As these excuses pile up – more difficulties arise – here we have 2 different Prophets of God who are so unable to distinguish truth from error that they don’t make what would be a vital correction. This problem is compounded when you consider that the Book of Mormon is supposed to have been translated by the Power of God where the Holy Ghost made manifest the correct translation of the Book of Mormon through peepstones which Joseph Smith put in his hat, held tight against his face. ((see the Gospel Topic essay “Book of Mormon Translation” at lds.org)) The Holy Ghost, a member of the Godhead, would have also perpetuated this false notion.

Furthermore you have examples where people are righteous and then the curse is lifted and this is demonstrated by their skin becoming white:

” 17 And it came to pass that they called their names Anti-Nephi-Lehies; and they were called by this name and were no more called Lamanites.

18 And they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them.”
(Book of Mormon, Alma 23:17-18 lds.org – look at the footnotes for “Curse”)

Also:

“14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.”
(Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 2:14-16 lds.org)

No, you must take Nephi at his word and accept that in the Book of Mormon God himself darkened the skin of the Lamanites with a curse to indicate their iniquity and that curse would be passed down genetically as with the persons race.

Anti-Miscegenation – it’s in there

As relatively enlightened people who understand racial equality we know that skin color is not tied to righteousness or iniquity. You cannot make conclusions about the civility, intelligence, or inherent worth of an individual by simply noting their skin color – yet this is exactly what God is requiring of the Nephites in 2 Nephi 5. Remember that the purpose of the skin color was so that the Nephites would not find the Lamanites attractive for mating. It was a visible marker of the curse that those people brought upon themselves through their iniquity. This means that God told the Nephites to use skin color as an indicator of the righteousness of the people they encounter and if that color is dark, then they were not to marry or have children with those people because they were cursed.

Since we have demonstrated that skin color is genetic and associated with an individuals race, then we see that God instructed the Nephites to behave in a way that is undeniably racist. God is actually articulating an anti-miscegenation policy. Remember that anti-miscegenation is what the KKK advocated and has served as the root of Nazi genocide and forced sterilization.

Mormons defending the Book of Mormon will argue that the reason for prohibiting the “mixing of seed” was not for notions of racial superiority, but so that the false traditions of the Lamanites would not dilute or corrupt the true history and doctrines that the Nephites were trying to preserve. The term Codswallop was developed just for application in situations such as this. The KKK and the Third Reich both gave reasons for advocating their policies which were not simply racial superiority but dealt with the preservation of the culture and traditions of their people.

“The records show that recently at least, the aliens who have been flooding our land have come into this country, not because of any love for America, but because of intolerable or unfavorable conditions in the land they left behind. They come to this country, not that they may contribute in any way to its growth and development, but that they may find opportunity to advance themselves and to serve their own interests. They are here to serve the interests of the land from which they came, regardless of the interests of this land in which they make their homes and seek their fortunes. They come to obey the mandates of governments of which they are still the subjects, even to the extent of endeavoring to break down the government under which they find protection while seeking their nefarious ends. In their hearts there is the tie that still binds them to the home-land; to them it is still the Fatherland. Their sympathies are still there; their thoughts have been shaped by the currents in the old country. ”
(“Ideals of the KKK” archive.org)

Hitler warned about the effects of integrating with Jewish people:

“With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large scale. It was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master.”
(“Mein Kampf” Adolph Hitler, archive.org)

It is clear that even the KKK and Hitler used defense of culture, government and tradition as justification for their policies – not just genetic racial purity. The anti-miscegenation advocated in the Book of Mormon is inherently racist, regardless of what the justification is.  When something uses race or a stand-in term like blood or seed as a distinguishing factor for elevating, repressing or segregating one group from another, then it is racist regardless of what additional justification they may add.

Followup question

Now we need to ask that follow-up question.  The reason this question is important is because Mormons who want to defend the Book of Mormon from the stain of racism will attempt to say that this verse was taken out of context or has a deeper non-racist meaning or served some higher purpose – if you will only listen to their long convoluted explanation. My response is simply to pose the follow-up question – what possible additional teaching or instruction could negate the racist aspect of these verses, without first disavowing them?

There is none. The only way to escape the inherently racist nature of what is being taught in these verses of the Book of Mormon is to completely disavow them. The reason that this is difficult to do is because there are the Prophets in the Book of Mormon as well as modern day prophets such as Spencer W Kimball who have repeated and reiterated the concepts in these very verses. If you disavow them, then you have to acknowledge that those Prophets were unable to discern truth from error in an essential aspect of God’s children. It impeaches them as men of God and it destroys the Book of Mormon’s claim of legitimate prophetic origin.

Disavowal

In fact, the Gospel Topic Essay on “Race and the Priesthood” published in December 2013 did just that.

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”
(“Race and the Priesthood” Gospel Topic Essay LDS.org)

The essay absolutely disavows the racist teachings we are discussing – only it plays with words to try to minimize the full impact of that disavowal. It calls the teachings “theories” coming from leaders and members rather than acknowledging the facts – they were teachings and commandments attributed to God in the canonized scripture of the Book of Mormon repeated and expounded upon by modern prophets with the full authority of their station. The leaders are hoping that members don’t think too much about this.

TL;DR

This 2 minute video will perhaps be more effective the 4,000 preceding words in demonstrating why people may view the Book of Mormon as racist. To illustrate everything we have been talking about and really make the point as relatable as possible – imagine if the current LDS Prophet Thomas S Monson were to give a sermon in General Conference that conveyed the exact same message as that contained in the Book of Mormon.

Conclusion

I hope that it has been made explicitly clear that people who see racist elements in the Book of Mormon are justified in their position. One does not have to be looking to find fault or to be deceived by Satan in order to come to this conclusion. It can be reached by looking at the definition of racism, which correctly discerns other racist and non-racist texts, and testing that definition against the contents of the Book of Mormon. The fact that these racist elements are in there is not the worst part. The most reprehensible part is that those racist elements are attributed to God. My uncles saw it when they were being taught by the missionaries and they rejected the Church as a result. I lived almost 40 years as a Mormon and never stopped to look objectively at the question of racism in the scriptures. When I finally did, I was appalled. One of the most liberating aspects of rejecting the Book of Mormon is that I no longer have to try to invent excuses to cover up or minimize these disgraceful things and I do not have to submit to the notion that God approves of or condones them either.