. . .

DARK AND WHITE

Leaving aside the irrationality of value judgments associated with skin color, one of the most pervasive dichotomy metaphors in all languages is between black and white, or better, between darkness and light. I quote at Lenth HaCohen’s insightful remarks:

Black can also be used metaphorically. Politically incorrect as it may sound, this colour has always suffered from bad reputation. Humans are diurnal animals that depend predominately on their sense of sight in order to survive and thrive. Therefore, the symbolism that assigns positive values to white colour (and light) and negative ones to black colour (and darkness) is not a racist Western bias, but universal. Even in the lower Congo, white signifies “right, good order, reason, truth, health, generosity, good luck,” whereas black signifies “wrong, guilt, envy, intention to kill, grief,” and so on. . . . The fact that white garments (or skin) turn dark with dirt, while the opposite is not true has also contributed to black’s bad image. Racism has viciously strained this colour symbolism in order to impose a hierarchy on humans by means on their skin colours. Scholars, however, should be careful not to read actual (skin) colour into their sources when mere colour symbolism is meant.

The multiple valences of dark and light across cultures urge caution in assuming connotative meanings. Indeed, many parts of the Bible would be incomprehensible if strained through literalism and without a proper understanding of the color symbolism among the cultures mentioned in its pages, particularly with “dark” and its often-negative entailments. In scriptural terms, metaphorical “darkness” is not explicitly the lack of light (that is, the light of the gospel). The Bible standardly uses darkness as a metaphor for sin (see 2 Samuel 22:29; Job 3:3-; Psalm 82:5; Matthew 6:23; Luke 22:53; John 3:19-20; 12:35; Romans 1:21; 13:12; 2 Corinthians 4:6; 6:14; Ephesians 4:18; 5:8, 11; 1 John 1:5-6; 2:9-11). In Isaiah 29:15, sinful acts are done in “darkness”: Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark [Hebrew maḥšāk), and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?” The Book of Mormon also provides clear insights into the metaphorical semantics of “dark” behavior, or sin. Various prophets speak of “mists of darkness” (1 Nephi 12:4); “secret works of darkness” (2 Nephi 9:9); and “works of darkness and abominations” (Helaman 6:28). The Lord explains, “If thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” (3 Nephi 13:23). And Joseph, the son of Lehi, was told that in the last days his descendants would help remnant Israel in the New World to be brought “out of darkness unto light” (2 Nephi 3:5).

There are only three cases where authors in the Book of Mormon describe Lamanites or Nephites as “dark” (see 1 Nephi 12:23; Alma 3:6; Mormon 5:15). None of these authors are making value judgments based upon the people’s skin hue; instead, they are consistently making judgments based on the people’s evil works (compare 2 Nephi 25:2; 26:10; 27:27; Alma 5:7; 26:15; 45:12; Helaman 6:28-30; 8:4; 13:29; Mormon 8:27). Describing their skin as “dark” is merely meant to show that they had become unclean through sin. Brant Gardner has persuasively argued precisely this point: “The condition of darkness comes with dwindling in unbelief. When that occurs, darkness falls—on their hearts and metaphorically on their skins.”

There is no doubt that the dichotomy of dark = sinful and white = righteous permeates the text of the Book of Mormon, not vis-à-vis skin pigmentation but rather regarding metaphor, acting as a somatic description of the human condition. When God is described as “light,” brightness and inevitably whiteness is likewise viewed as a manifestation of righteousness. Darkness (see, for example, 1 Nephi 12:4) is associated with a lack of light—a lack of righteousness—or the presence of sin (or minimally of Satan’s influence). Alms 26 describes how the Lamanites “were in darkness, yea, even in the darkest abyss, but behold, how many of them are brought to behold the marvelous light of God” (v. 3). In these and numerous other cases in scripture, the use of the term darkness indicates not having the light of the gospel.

Alma2 recounts the time when a group of Nephites were taken captive by the Lamanites in the wilderness near the city of Nephi, but God delivered them from bondage (see Alma 5:3-5). More importantly, however, they were also saved spiritually when Alma2 baptize them in the waters of Mormon and “changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God. Behold, they were in the midst of darkness; nevertheless, their souls were illuminated by the light of the everlasting word” (v 7; emphasis added). Alma2 then connects this to the metaphor of keeping one’s garments clean: “I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins” (v. 21; emphasis added). This verse has important implications for understanding the relationship among purity, whiteness, and clothing. It also provides a new way to look at skin color in the Book of Mormon.

. . .

FILTHY

Jacob states overtly that the Nephites “hate” the Lamanites “because of their filthiness” (Jacob 3:5). Some scholars believe that when Nephites describe the Lamanites as “filthy,” it suggests racial prejudice against the Lamanites’ skin color. However, the use of the term filthy in the Book of Mormon does not imply racist attitudes towards their skin tone but rather toward their sinful behavior. In every case in the Book of Mormon filthy is used with the meaning of “stained with sin” or “unworthy” (see 1 Nephi 12:23; 15:33, 34; 2 Nephi 9:16; Jacob 3:3, 5, 9, 10; Enos 1:20; Mosiah 7:30-31; Alma 5;22; 7:21; 32:3; Mormon 9:4). That “filthiness” in Jacob’s mind was referring to sin is apparent elsewhere in the text. Jacob says that at the final judgment, “They who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still” (2 Nephi 9:16). Moroni likewise states that at the judgment “he that is filthy shall be filthy still; and he that is righteous shall be righteous still” (Mormon 9:14; compare Alma 7;21). These examples make it abundantly clear that filthy is an antonym of righteous, not a reference to skin tone. Gardner likewise observes that “filthiness is obviously a moral quality.” There is a close connection with losing the light of the gospel and becoming dark and filthy in a spiritual sense. In short, it is the “sinful and polluted state” of the Lamanites that most concerns the Nephites (Mosiah 25:11).

Jacob describes the “filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon [the Lamanites’] skins” (Jacob 3:5). Some have misinterpreted such labels for Lamanites as “filthy” as evidence of overt “racism,” sexism, and even Nephite patriarchy. However, there is absolutely no justification for reading “racism” into the use of the term. A thorough examination of all contexts of its use makes it clear that filthy refers to being stained with sin. Jacob’s use of the term in a poetic construction is most revealing:

Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you,

which is the word of God,

that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their

skins;

neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness;

but ye shall remember your own filthiness,

and remember that their filthiness came because of their

fathers. (Jacob 3:9)

Here “darkness of their skins” is poetically coupled with “their filthiness”—a clear moral statement rather than a reference to any physical skin tone. Note also that Jacob expressly states the Nephites themselves are “filthy” because of the sins they are committing in taking more than one wife and having concubines (see Jacob 3:10). Indeed, he says the Lamanites are “not filthy like unto [the Nephites]” since the Lamanites sinned without a knowledge of the gospel, and therefore are not as “filthy” (vv. 3, 5). In this context, a “skin of darkness” is analogous to a garment that has become “filthy,” on that can be worn, removed, and washed. Isaiah similarly speaks of garments as representing our deeds, be they righteous or evil:

For all of us have become like one who is unclean,

And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment. (Isaiah 64:6, New American Standard Bible)

Sin is viewed by Isaiah as something “filthy” that stains humanity’s “garment,” language that resonates clearly with the Nephite idiom of “skins” as “garments” and metaphorically refers to one’s deeds. When Joshua’s “filthy garments” were taken off by command of an angel, there too the removal “caused [his] iniquity to pass from [him]” (Zechariah 3:3-4). This relationship between “skin” and “garment” also appears in the writings of Augustine, who taught that when we die, we “strip off” both the “garment” of our physical body as well as “the inner ones we have put on, which resemble ‘those of skin.’”

. . .

CONCLUSION

The Book of Mormon is filled with metaphorical language relating to color and clothing. Jacob’s use of the metaphor “robes of righteousness” provides a helpful framework for viewing ancient conceptions of righteousness and unrighteousness through garment imagery. Throughout the Book of Mormon, skin color metaphors emerge as the preferred imagery to index one’s commitment to God’s covenants. As I have argued here, “dark skin” in the Book of Mormon symbolically represents one having their “garments” stained with sin, and references to skin as “white” or “pure” refer metaphorically to those whose “garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb” (Alma 13:11)—both descriptive metaphors also used by numerous early Church Fathers. Apart from the connotative meanings of black and white, Nephite society embraced the spiritual metaphor of dark skin “as a typology for sin,” in Rhamie’s words, with no conception of an actual skin-hue change. The discursive strategy of Book of Mormon authors employing a dark/white dichotomy was strictly tied to scriptural symbolism of darkness representing sin (that is, noncovenantal behavior) and whiteness representing purity (that is, correct covenantal behavior).

A lack of understanding regarding this dark/light metaphor in the Book of Mormon has led to generations of readers who believed literal skin-color change took place throughout the record. On the other hand, some have willfully read racialism in the record’s pages because they believe the text is a product of the nineteenth-century. Stevenson has succinctly summarized this dangerous motivation not read racism into the text of the Book of Mormon: “For scholars who place Joseph Smith as the center of the Book of Mormon’s creative process, contextualization against an antebellum contexts requires engagement with ‘whiteness’ as an American racial construct—a meaningful concession for those who accept the text as ancient.” Readers of the text, however, need to avoid the trappings of a postmodern critique, whereby definitions of race arising since the seventeenth century obscure our understanding of the cultural subtleties in his ancient record. Interpreting skin color symbolism in the Book of Mormon based on modern descriptions is by definition anachronistic and destined to mislead. I fully concur with Byron’s observation that “it is more fruitful to explore the symbolism meanings and the possible implications within the ancient context” when trying to understand notions of “blackness” in antiquity. Issues of race in the Book of Mormon are highly complex, and they deserve to be analyzed in the ancient cultural context in which they occurred.

While ethnocentric and prejudicial views were no doubt held by some actors in the text (as would be expected for some among any culture), the Book of Mormon does not contain the racial tensions often ascribed to it. “Racism” against Lamanites, according to modern definitions, is simply not present in the book. In contrast, the Book of Mormon in fact elevates the status of the Lamanites in God’s eyes as a highly favored people which goes completely against the prevailing views of the nineteenth century. It is the Lamanites who are expressly promised longevity in the Book of Mormon, not the Nephites (see Alma 9:16-18; Helaman 15:4). It is the Lamanites who are given divine assurance that they will help build Zion, not the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 21:23-25). All of this is utterly counter to the racist views against Native Americans in Joseph Smith’s day. As Bushman keenly observed, the Book of Mormon “overturns conventional American racism. . . . [It] is not just sympathetic to Indians; it grants them dominance.”

What does not square with a racialized reading of the Book of Mormon it is overwhelmingly inclusive history and theology. All are welcome in God’s tent. The Lord, Nephi wrote, “Inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; 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” (2 Nephi 26:33; compare Acts 10;34; 1 Corinthians 12:13). As Belnap argues, the Book of Mormon does not promote racial stereotyping; rather, “It advocates and even idealizes the exact opposite.” A close reading of the text proves beyond doubt that the Book of Mormon emphasizes all races and genders are equal in the eyes of God—and all are eligible to have their robes washed “white” and free of sin through God’s grace. As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has affirmed, “If we will be faithful, there is a perfectly tailored robe of righteousness ready and waiting for everyone.”