Why Engraven Images Of A Caucasian Jesus?

[HeatherAnn]

In our home, we have pictures of Jesus.

Once, a Muslim friend asked if we believe in the commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," then why do we put up pictures of Jesus?

He made a good point. I've also wondered why Jesus is usually (at least in the LDS church) portrayed as being caucasian, when he wasn't.

Through, foresnic anthropology, & using 1st century Jewish skulls, a face of a typical man in Israel during Jesus' time was created...

http://en.wikipedia....i/Race_of_Jesus

(scroll down to picture under "Emergence of Racial Theories")

We also know that Joseph & Mary hid with Jesus in Egypt, Africa & that he blended in with his apostles.

We discussed this in Sunday School. One argued that many Jews in Israel today are fair-complected.

Along that line of logic, we (in the USA) would all look Native American... which we don't.

Another argued that Heavenly Father is white, so it follows that his son would be.

This goes along with the Nephites' fair complexion being associated with being a more pure & delightful people.

My guess is that most people on this forum are caucasian, so maybe this doesn't bother you.

Yet, if you had darker skin, how would you feel about this?

Why is white skin deemed more god-like than dark skin, when it isn't? - Or if it is, then Jesus wasn't God-like.

And why do we break the 2nd commandment?

Edited July 14, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yet, if you had darker skin, how would you feel about this?

It still would not bother me. Content of Character and all that.

Why is white skin deemed more god-like than dark skin, when it isn't?

It is not. And that is not church doctrine. Under an ancient context skin of lightness or skin of darkness did not refer to physical skin.

- Or if it is, then Jesus wasn't God-like.

Nope.

And why do we break the 2nd commandment?

We don't. We don't worship any picture of Jesus. We don't pray to the picture. I think that is what is meant by "no graven images".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry

Idolatry is a pejorative term for the worship of an idol, a physical object such as a cult image, as a god,[1] or practices believed to verge on worship, such as giving undue honour and regard to created forms other than God.[

As you can see, we as LDS do not do this.

[TAO]

Graven Image refers to idol worshiping.

I do not think we worship idols, with those pictures, but instead, they bring us into the right mood for communicating with Christ.

It is the same case with the scriptures actually... we shouldn't revere the scriptures more than we revere God himself. Nor our buildings, nor the rituals in performing our dedications to God.

But nah, since the pictures are not 'unto thee' (you are not making them to worship), I do not think this would qualify. Not sure though =).

[etana]

In our home, we have pictures of Jesus.

Once, a Muslim friend asked if we believe in the commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," then why do we put up pictures of Jesus?

He made a good point. I've also wondered why Jesus is usually (at least in the LDS church) portrayed as being caucasian, when he wasn't.

I think your Muslim friend has a point. The commandment is a fence around the sin of Idolatry. Much like the WoW is a fence around the sin of carnal addiction. We do approach the line when we depict the Lord, but most of us don't cross it. As for your second question, yes the blond and pale Jesus is likely pretty inaccurate at depicting his mortal body. As for the immortal, who can say? His disciples didn't recognize him on the road to Emmaus.

[bluebell]

Why is white skin deemed more god-like than dark skin, when it isn't?

I don't think it's seen as more God-like, i think most people just see God as being similar to how they themselves look. I'm guessing that's why i've seen pictures of Jesus as a black man in cultures where the majority of people were black, and why He looks asian in pictures from cultures that are asian.

And why do we break the 2nd commandment?

I don't believe having pictures or statues in our homes IS breaking the second commandment.

[HeatherAnn]

It still would not bother me.

It's difficult to know how we'd feel, unless we've walked a while in another's shoes, or unless we emapthize well.

Under an ancient context skin of lightness or skin of darkness did not refer to physical skin.

??

These scriptures are clear that the reference was to the lightness or darkness of physical skin...

"And I beheld the spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper & obtain the land for their inheritance; & I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair & beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." -1Nephi 13:15

"And he 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, & exceedingly fair & delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." -2Nephi 5:21

"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 & their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, & Joseph, & Sam, who were just & holy men."-Alma 3:6

We don't. We don't worship any picture of Jesus. We don't pray to the picture. I think that is what is meant by "no graven images".

MolaRamSudaRam, thanks for explaining that. You're right, as LDS, we don't pray to pictures of Jesus.

Yet, I still wonder...Why is Jesus portrayed to be caucasian when he wasn't?

And why is skin-tone prejudice taught in scriptures?

[HeatherAnn]

Graven Image refers to idol worshiping.

I do not think we worship idols, with those pictures, but instead, they bring us into the right mood for communicating with Christ.

It is the same case with the scriptures actually... we shouldn't revere the scriptures more than we revere God himself. Nor our buildings, nor the rituals in performing our dedications to God.

But nah, since the pictures are not 'unto thee' (you are not making them to worship), I do not think this would qualify. Not sure though =).

Tao, Yeah, that makes sense... we don't pray to them.

Yet, images are powerful, & when they are inaccurately encouraging white skin being God-like, it might not be inspiring the right mood.

[HeatherAnn]

I think your Muslim friend has a point. The commandment is a fence around the sin of Idolatry. Much like the WoW is a fence around the sin of carnal addiction. We do approach the line when we depict the Lord, but most of us don't cross it. As for your second question, yes the blond and pale Jesus is likely pretty inaccurate at depicting his mortal body. As for the immortal, who can say? His disciples didn't recognize him on the road to Emmaus.

Thanks for your understanding. Yeah, our friend did make me think about it deeper.

Worship is beginning to change meaning to me. I don't think of it as just praying... but more as what we focus on & prioritize.

That's a good point about how his disciples didn't recognize him on the road to Emmaus. I've heard it argued for reincarnation (I know that's another thread.)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

These scriptures are clear that the reference was to the lightness or darkness of physical skin...

"And I beheld the spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper & obtain the land for their inheritance; & I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair & beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." -1Nephi 13:15

"And he 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, & exceedingly fair & delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." -2Nephi 5:21

"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 & their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, & Joseph, & Sam, who were just & holy men."-Alma

I am well aware of these verses. And many people assumed they are talking about physical skin. They are not. The mark that was set on the Lamanites was the loss of the spirit. It was not that their skin turned black. Anyway that we demand another thread. You should start it.

MolaRamSudaRam, thanks for explaining that. You're right, as LDS, we don't pray to pictures of Jesus.

Yet, I still wonder...Why is Jesus portrayed to be Caucasian when he wasn't?

And why is skin-tone prejudice taught in scriptures?

I think of the picture of Jesus that is very common in LDS circles.

http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-2-83,00.html

And I would not say he looks like a Caucasian from Sweden.

I would say this picture is not to far off of the 2001 CGI of what Jesus may have looked like. Olive skin runs in my family and I am Caucasian, so I don;'t know what all the hubbub is.

[HeatherAnn]

I don't think it's seen as more God-like, i think most people just see God as being similar to how they themselves look. I'm guessing that's why i've seen pictures of Jesus as a black man in cultures where the majority of people were black, and why He looks asian in pictures from cultures that are asian.

I don't believe having pictures or statues in our homes IS breaking the second commandment.

Yeah, I realize it may not be exactly breaking the commandment, but it does lean that way.

Some depict Jesus as people in their culture, yet not always.

And when you combine the white images of Jesus displayed with the scriptures praising white skin over dark skin, it's no wonder why I've come across racial prejudice among many LDS.

[Libs]

I don't think we should put too much importance on our perceptions of the image of God. Whatever image we put up (Christ, of whatever color, Buddha, Krishna, etc) is only representative of the God we know, mostly, by his character...his perfect goodness and love...not his image. The image is simply a reminder of his attributes, which is what we worship and try to emulate.

[Nathair/|\]

These scriptures are clear that the reference was to the lightness or darkness of physical skin...

"And I beheld the spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper & obtain the land for their inheritance; & I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair & beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." -1Nephi 13:15

"And he 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, & exceedingly fair & delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." -2Nephi 5:21

"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 & their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, & Joseph, & Sam, who were just & holy men."-Alma 3:6

Yet, I still wonder...Why is Jesus portrayed to be caucasian when he wasn't?

And why is skin-tone prejudice taught in scriptures?

To put the verses in their original cultural context:

This amazing coincidentia oppositorum is the clash of black and white. With the Arabs, to be white of countenance is to be blessed and to be black of countenance is to be cursed; there are parallel expressions in Hebrew and Egyptian. And what of Lehi's people? It is most significant that the curse against the Lamanites is the very same as that commonly held in the East to blight the sons of Ishmael, who appear to the light-skinned people of the towns as "a dark and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations, . . . an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety," etc. (1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:24). It is noteworthy that all the descendants of the Book of Mormon Ishmael fall under the curse (Alma 3:7), as if their Bedouin ancestry predisposed them to it. The Book of Mormon always mentions the curse of the dark skin in connection with and as part of a larger picture: "After they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people," etc. "Because of the cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people . . . and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey" (2 Nephi 5:24). The statement that "God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21) describes the result, not the method, which is described elsewhere. Thus we are told (Alma 3:13, 14, 18) that while the fallen people "set the mark uponthemselves," it was none the less God who was marking them: "I will set a mark upon them," etc. So natural and human was the process that it suggested nothing miraculous to the ordinary observer, and "the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves; . . . it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them" (Alma 3:18). Here God places his mark on people as a curse, yet it is an artificial mark which they actually place upon themselves. The mark was not a racial thing but was acquired by "whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites" (Alma 3:10); Alma moreover defines a Nephite as anyone observing "the tradition of their fathers" (Alma 3:11). Which makes the difference between Nephite and Lamanite a cultural, not a racial, one. Does this also apply to the dark skin? Note that the dark skin is never mentioned alone but always as attending a generally depraved way of life, which also is described as the direct result of the curse. When the Lamanites become "white" again, it is by living among the Nephites as Nephites, i.e., adopting the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:15—16). The cultural picture may not be the whole story of the dark skin of the Lamanites, but it is an important part of that story and is given great emphasis by the Book of Mormon itself. There is nowhere any mention of red skin, incidentally, but only of black (or dark) and white, the terms being used as the Arabs use them.

Nibley, Hugh W. Lehi in the Desert

[Brant Gardner]

Regarding the Caucasian Jesus, it is only the force of tradition. We know what Jesus is supposed to look like, and therefore can pick him out of any religious painting without arrows pointing and a "here he is" sign. How it got that way is a much longer story. The earliest artistic depictions appear to have borrowed Greek themes, and typically Apollo. I have heard some speculation that the particular long-haired and bearded version (Apollo was clean-shaven and his sun symbol evolved into the halo) came from the face on the giant carving of Zeus in his temple (now lost). Who knows if that is correct, but it would make sense with so much of the Hellenic culture influencing the early church.

I suppose that some artist might try to buck the trend, but it would take some effort to make people recognize the "new face" as Jesus. A lot of people would complain that it just didn't look right.

[HeatherAnn]

I am well aware of these verses. And many people assumed they are talking about physical skin. They are not. The mark that was set on the Lamanites was the loss of the spirit. It was not that their skin turned black. Anyway that we demand another thread. You should start it.

I think it's completely related to this topic, so no need to start another thread.

If "loss of the spirit" was meant, and not light & dark skin, it would have been written, "Loss of the spirit" or similar, as it is written in other scriptures...

"Wherefore, all mankind were in a lost & in a fallen state..."-1 Nephi 10:6

"For so exceedingly do they anger that it seemeth that they have no fear of death; & they have lost their love, one towards another; & they thirst after blood & revenge continually." -Mormoni 9:4

"Blessed are the poor in spirit" Matt & 3 Nephi 12:3

The previous scriptures associating righteousness with skin tone, made reference to appearance ("beautiful" "fair" "darkness" "skin"), not spirit.

Furthermore, most LDS (especially caucasians aqainted with scripture) will concur that those scriptures refer to appearance, not spirit.

It would be nice if it was reworded & reinterpreted to refer to spirit, though.

I think of the picture of Jesus that is very common in LDS circles.

http://lds.org/hf/ar...-1-2-83,00.html

And I would not say he looks like a Caucasian from Sweden.

I would say this picture is not to far off of the 2001 CGI of what Jesus may have looked like. Olive skin runs in my family and I am Caucasian, so I don;'t know what all the hubbub is.

That picture is extremely different, lol.

Edited July 14, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[HeatherAnn]

I don't think we should put too much importance on our perceptions of the image of God. Whatever image we put up (Christ, of whatever color, Buddha, Krishna, etc) is only representative of the God we know, mostly, by his character...his perfect goodness and love...not his image. The image is simply a reminder of his attributes, which is what we worship and try to emulate.

Yeah, someone else told me that & I see your point.

I just have family & friends who happen to have dark skin & when I see members of our church treat them as less than others with lighter skin, it ticks me off!

Traditions, especially in the form of images are POWERFUL! They are important, to the aspect of our spiritual development related with loving others, no matter what, including accepting Jesus for who he is... & for accepting others who look like him for who they are.

[HeatherAnn]

Regarding the Caucasian Jesus, it is only the force of tradition. We know what Jesus is supposed to look like, and therefore can pick him out of any religious painting without arrows pointing and a "here he is" sign. How it got that way is a much longer story. The earliest artistic depictions appear to have borrowed Greek themes, and typically Apollo. I have heard some speculation that the particular long-haired and bearded version (Apollo was clean-shaven and his sun symbol evolved into the halo) came from the face on the giant carving of Zeus in his temple (now lost). Who knows if that is correct, but it would make sense with so much of the Hellenic culture influencing the early church.

I suppose that some artist might try to buck the trend, but it would take some effort to make people recognize the "new face" as Jesus. A lot of people would complain that it just didn't look right.

Yeah, traditions or habits are hard to break, but necessary if they're harmful.

TRADITION!!

Edited July 14, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Libs]

Yeah, someone else told me that & I see your point.

I just have family & friends who happen to have dark skin & when I see members of our church treat them as less than others with lighter skin, it ticks me off!

Traditions, especially in the form of images are POWERFUL! They are important, to the aspect of our spiritual development related with loving others, no matter what, including accepting Jesus for who he is... & for accepting others who look like him for who they are.

One of my son-in-laws is black (and my granddaughter). They are currently living with us, and we have a lot of different images of God, in our home. My son-in-law gave me this beautiful wooden statue of a black Jesus, for Christmas, a couple of years ago. It's lovely, and we have it in the livingroom. I also have pictures of Jesus in varying shades of white to tan, in various places in the house. I also have a statue of the Buddha, on my desk, and a beautiful cross, on the wall, above my desk. They all represent God's attritubes and grace, to me.

I do understand what you're saying, when people actually believe that God's image is, in reality, "white", and it would, therefore, be the desirable skin color. That's a whole different mindset, IMO. I know that Joseph Smith saw God...and he saw him as white...but, I had always considered that a "countenance", rather than an actual skin color. (I know some, likely, don't see it that way, so I do understand your concern)..

Edited July 14, 2011 by Libs

[Libs]

Btw, I do know some Christians who refuse to have any kind of pictures or "graven images" of Jesus, in their homes. They do believe the temptation is there to worship the image, rather than the "real" God. To each his own.

[TAO]

Tao, Yeah, that makes sense... we don't pray to them.

Yet, images are powerful, & when they are inaccurately encouraging white skin being God-like, it might not be inspiring the right mood.

Hehe... I wouldn't worry too much about race =).

I think what I like most about the picture talked about in the Social Hall Thread, is that the picture shows Christ as loving you. That, I think, is the most important aspect of the picture, if you are going to do that... humble love. I really do like that picture with Christ in the clouds =).

I will say this... looking at the picture has helped me... as has spiritual music. I have had a powerful experience that was all stimulated by looking at that picture... the picture caused me to reflect, which opened me to the experience. I am glad for it... and yet, I don't know how to explain it... I read into more than the picture... you could say it's a set-up. =)

Edited July 14, 2011 by TAO

[Pahoran]

In our home, we have pictures of Jesus.

Once, a Muslim friend asked if we believe in the commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," then why do we put up pictures of Jesus?

He made a good point.

Only from the standpoint of his own culture, in which any visual representation of someone may be seen as a "graven image."

Some strict Muslims won't allow pictures of anyone in their homes. Some older Muslim art doesn't have pictures of any kind at all, but employs a kind of "calligraphic pictography" wherein written words (passages from the Qur'an) are actually manipulated by stretching the letters to create semi-abstract pictures. OTOH, mediaeval Persian art frequently includes some brilliant (and highly idealised) representations of religious scenes in which most of the participants are shown with surprising realism, but Muhammad is invariably shown with a brilliant white veil over his face. This is in deference to the same commandment your Muslim friend mentioned, but the singling out of one mortal for such reverential treatment may arguably be seen as running counter to the spirit of that commandment.

Note that, not long after he received that commandment, Moses was giving directions for the decorations of the Tabernacle, which included carvings of birds, flowers and fruit. The most important object in the Tabernacle was adorned with gold carvings of two cherubim, angelic figures with outstretched wings. Clearly he understood the commandment -- as do we -- to forbid, not the making of visual representations of anything, but the making of them for the purposes of idolatrous worship and the actual worship thereof.

If a Latter-day Saint family was kneeling to face a picture when they prayed, lighting candles in front of it, bringing fresh bunches of flowers to it every day, I'd be worried. But simply having a picture does not violate any commandment; not as Latter-day Saints understand it, anyway.

I've also wondered why Jesus is usually (at least in the LDS church) portrayed as being caucasian, when he wasn't.

Actually he was. "Caucasian" is one of three major racial divisions that encompass the entire human species, and is not to be conflated with pasty-faced "white" folks. Levantine Semites are neither Negroid nor Mongoloid; they are Caucasian. See here.

As Brant pointed out, the way we depict Jesus is largely a matter of tradition. We imagine the face of Jesus to look that way because most European art has portrayed him that way since approximately forever.

The pinnacle of European art (painting and sculpture) came during the Renaissance. Artists during this period, when asked to portray Jesus, frequently or usually endeavoured to show him as embodying such traits as intelligence, wisdom, compassion, authority and heroism. They most often did this by finding live models whose faces seemed to advertise such qualities and basing their depictions of Jesus upon those faces. We should neither be surprised by the fact that the resulting depictions looked like the kinds of people the artists saw around them, nor should we feel that we can patronise them therefor.

Through, foresnic anthropology, & using 1st century Jewish skulls, a face of a typical man in Israel during Jesus' time was created...

http://en.wikipedia....i/Race_of_Jesus

(scroll down to picture under "Emergence of Racial Theories")

Yes, this has been a popular one in this forum. Since Jesus was resurrected, the one sure fact about this face is that it is not Jesus.

We also know that Joseph & Mary hid with Jesus in Egypt, Africa & that he blended in with his apostles.

Joseph and Mary probably went to northern Egypt, which had a considerable Greek presence at the time, and the fact that the soldiers couldn't easily pick him out from among the Twelve at night without street lights is hardly evidence that they looked like triskaidekuplets.

We discussed this in Sunday School. One argued that many Jews in Israel today are fair-complected.

Along that line of logic, we (in the USA) would all look Native American... which we don't.

Another argued that Heavenly Father is white, so it follows that his son would be.

This goes along with the Nephites' fair complexion being associated with being a more pure & delightful people.

My guess is that most people on this forum are caucasian, so maybe this doesn't bother you.

Yet, if you had darker skin, how would you feel about this?

Why is white skin deemed more god-like than dark skin, when it isn't? - Or if it is, then Jesus wasn't God-like.

And why do we break the 2nd commandment?

KA, it's difficult for me to work out what the point of your OP is. Do you want to talk about the existence and content of pictures of Jesus?

Or was that simply a convenient way to segue into the theme that Mormons are racist?

Regards,

Pahoran

[CV75]

Yet, if you had darker skin, how would you feel about this?

Why is white skin deemed more god-like than dark skin, when it isn't? - Or if it is, then Jesus wasn't God-like.

And why do we break the 2nd commandment?

I think that most believers do not worship artwork of Jesus as an idol. But I do think that religious-themed artwork is a form of prayer or worship, like hymns are. Hymns and paintings are obviously more superficial than those spiritually purer “groanings which cannot be uttered” but like writing, language, and even our bodies, give our spirits something physical to respond to. So at some point I suppose one’s artistic taste in, creation of and response to various works of art may reflect their certain level of inspiration and spirituality.

There are so many renditions that I think that we can find one that suits our tastes and meet our expectations for what we want to accomplish with the artwork; this is why we purchase it. I have seen in LDS Church settings a variety of personalities representing Jesus, and more than one tone used for His skin. Artists and their patrons simply don’t know what color it was precisely, and probably don’t make much of a science of determining what it should be, so tradition prevails to meet the broadest demand, and the European West is where Christianity got its most lasting foothold.

Equating skin color with godliness is bigoted. The curse in the Book or Mormon was specific to the Lehites in that particular time and place, for a specific lesson to be taught within their singular culture. I do not believe the Lamanites’ curse of a dark-pigmented epidermis is an eternal principle applicable to all humanity, though it is interesting to consider that “spiritual skin” can become lighter or darker with righteousness or rebellion.

[LeSellers]

In our home, we have pictures of Jesus.

Once, a Muslim friend asked if we believe in the commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," then why do we put up pictures of Jesus?

...

And why do we break the 2nd commandment?

The commandment is "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

The operative word is פּסל (pesel—"graven"). The noun is "missing", pesel includes "image, or, as the context demands, "idol".

It does not mean "painting"; it means "carved" or, as the English word says, "graven". It is not a two-dimensional representation, it is a three-dimensional, statue-like image.

The issue is "idols", not "art". It is not a single clause, this sentence is compound and complex.

Even so, we Saints do not worship any "picture of Jesus", we use these pictures solely as a means to help us "always remember remember Him", which is the covenant we made at baptism, as I recall (it's been 55 years for me, but, as I renew that covenant every week, that's 2,800 times—not counting Temple baptisms I've done), but I think I have it right.

Lehi

Edited July 15, 2011 by LeSellers

[Sevenbak]

In our home, we have pictures of Jesus.

Once, a Muslim friend asked if we believe in the commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," then why do we put up pictures of Jesus?

He made a good point. I've also wondered why Jesus is usually (at least in the LDS church) portrayed as being caucasian, when he wasn't.

Through, foresnic anthropology, & using 1st century Jewish skulls, a face of a typical man in Israel during Jesus' time was created...

http://en.wikipedia....i/Race_of_Jesus

(scroll down to picture under "Emergence of Racial Theories")

We also know that Joseph & Mary hid with Jesus in Egypt, Africa & that he blended in with his apostles.

We discussed this in Sunday School. One argued that many Jews in Israel today are fair-complected.

Along that line of logic, we (in the USA) would all look Native American... which we don't.

Another argued that Heavenly Father is white, so it follows that his son would be.

This goes along with the Nephites' fair complexion being associated with being a more pure & delightful people.

My guess is that most people on this forum are caucasian, so maybe this doesn't bother you.

Yet, if you had darker skin, how would you feel about this?

Why is white skin deemed more god-like than dark skin, when it isn't? - Or if it is, then Jesus wasn't God-like.

And why do we break the 2nd commandment?

The simplest answer is that Joseph Smith described Christ as such during the First Vision.

"The first personage had "light complexion, blue eyes, a piece of white cloth drawn over his shoulders, his right arm bare." -1844 account

Further, I would ask why we are putting more stock in the traditions of the DNA of ancient Israel than in the reality of Christ being the literal son of God, and all that that implies? Especially since Joseph describes Christ as being in the express image of the Father...

And to add fuel to the fire, I would add this reference from the BoM, describing the appearance of Mary, although it can easily be interpreted to mean different things.

1 Nephi 11:13 "And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white."

Edited July 15, 2011 by Sevenbak

[rpn]

Painters painted their view (and it reflected our inherent expectation that we are like Him). His glory (expressed as being surrounded by white) would make it hard to discern skin color --- which is probably a mortal body issue rather than eternal anyway.

[Mortal Man]

The earliest artistic depictions appear to have borrowed Greek themes, and typically Apollo. I have heard some speculation that the particular long-haired and bearded version (Apollo was clean-shaven and his sun symbol evolved into the halo) came from the face on the giant carving of Zeus in his temple (now lost). Who knows if that is correct, but it would make sense with so much of the Hellenic culture influencing the early church.

They also borrowed from Asclepius.