Why Engraven Images Of A Caucasian Jesus?

[KevinG]

I don't know about ethnicity but if the Savior decides to show up on the BYU campus on the morning of the first resurrection He had better be shaved with short hair.

[thesometimesaint]

Tell your Muslim friend that WE DO NOT worship a painting. Ask him to pull a some money from his wallet. Then ask him if he worships it.

Ps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus

Edited July 15, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[HeatherAnn]

Thanks for the comments.

From this discussion, I've realized that...

1. engraven images are not commanded against, but the worship of them is commanded against... &

2. many (not all) still think that Jesus was & should be portrayed as Caucasian, despite evidence to the contrary.

I don't know about ethnicity but if the Savior decides to show up on the BYU campus on the morning of the first resurrection He had better be shaved with short hair.

Once, my hubby went to do something on BYU campus. At the time he wasn't attending there. He had a little facial hair, so the woman at the desk refused to serve him.

It is ironic that Jesus is portrayed as having long hair, when he likely didn't & when cultural tradition & church schools dictate men to have short hair & be clean shaven.

Edited July 15, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Jigglysaint]

I've always wondered if Jesus, in his resurrected state, will appear to people in the form that they would most identify with. That would mean Caucasians would see Him as such, and others of other skin tones would see Him as such. A blind person might perceive Him as only a voice, while perhaps a deaf person may see a visual representation, but communication might be telepathic.

I think what Jesus looked like, or sounded like, or other physical attributes are not as important as who he was or what he taught and what he did for us.

[fatherofone]

Thanks for the comments.

From this discussion, I've realized that...

1. engraven images are not commanded against, but the worship of them is commanded against... &

2. many (not all) still think that Jesus was & should be portrayed as Caucasian, despite evidence to the contrary.

Once, my hubby went to do something on BYU campus. At the time he wasn't attending there. He had a little facial hair, so the woman at the desk refused to serve him.

It is ironic that Jesus is portrayed as having long hair, when he likely didn't & when cultural tradition & church schools dictate men to have short hair & be clean shaven.

when I asked a leader of mine why Jesus had facial hair and long hair and I could not he told me, Jesus also always had on a long robe and sandals, go and do thou likewise...

[HeatherAnn]

I've always wondered if Jesus, in his resurrected state, will appear to people in the form that they would most identify with. That would mean Caucasians would see Him as such, and others of other skin tones would see Him as such. A blind person might perceive Him as only a voice, while perhaps a deaf person may see a visual representation, but communication might be telepathic.

I think what Jesus looked like, or sounded like, or other physical attributes are not as important as who he was or what he taught and what he did for us.

Jigglysaint,

Yes, based on scriptures as well as lds books about Near Death Experiences (& psychology), we do resonate with what we are most familiar with - hence, "Many mansions."

I do not think we should commit the "Heaven's reward" thinking distortion - postponing repentence & its joyful result, until Jesus is resurrected.

This life is the time to correct our thinking... not when Jesus is resurrected, nor after we die.

God doesn't look on the appearance, but on the heart, & Jesus repeatedly taught to look within & not trust superficial observations.

If we cannot identify with a God-like person having dark skin as Jesus did, then we won't be able to identify with those who truly have learned to love.

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE. - 1John 4:8

Matt 4:17 “From that time Jesus began to preach, & to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

*At hand = NOW

Matt 16:28 “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

*He prophesied that some of his disciples would experience the kingdom of God within, during their lifetimes.

Mark 1:15 “The time is fulfilled, & the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, & believe the gospel.”

*Jesus aknowledged an after-death heaven, but focused his teachings on the kingdom of God within, here & now, “at hand.”

Edited July 16, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[inquiringmind]

...the blond and pale Jesus

I've heard this criticism before, but I've never seen a blond Jesus.

Every picture I've ever seen depicts Him with black or brown hair.

Also, every Jew I've ever known has been caucasian.

(The Song of Solomon would seem to indicate that dark skin was a rarity in Israel, and I don't think the racial charecteristics of mordern Arabs and Palestinians can tell us much about the racial charecteristics of frist century Judeans.)

Edited July 16, 2011 by inquiringmind

[HeatherAnn]

Also, every Jew I've ever known has been caucasian.

(The Song of Solomon would seem to indicate that dark skin was a rarity in Israel, and I don't think the racial charecteristics of mordern Arabs and Palestinians can tell us much about the racial charecteristics of frist century Judeans.)

lol Do you have any idea what how many times the Jews have been scattered & interbread with other cultures?

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

Claiming Jesus must've been white because all Jews today are white is like saying, Native Americans must have been white since all Americans are white. lol

It's ironic that on one hand you seem to jump from the conclusion that because all Jews you've ever known have been caucasian, they've always been... Yet, then you "don't think modern Arabls & Palestinians can tell us much about the racial characteristics of 1st century Judeans." lol

I'm amazed & disappointed how some refuse to admit what archeologists & common sense clearly explains... that Jesus had dark skin.

Why is this so hard for some to accept?

http://haha.nu/science/real-face-of-jesus/

[Libs]

I'm amazed & disappointed how some refuse to admit what archeologists & common sense clearly explains... that Jesus had dark skin.

I don't see that anyone is refusing to admit Jesus may have had dark skin. It's just that no one really knows, for sure...and, honestly, I don't think it is important, what color his skin was. What he taught and who he was, is really what is important and where our focus should be. None of us (not even the best archaeologists) can tell us, exactly, what he looked like. It simply doesn't matter. He was the embodiment of perfect love and goodness. He loved us enough to die for us. That's all we need to know.

[inquiringmind]

lol Do you have any idea what how many times the Jews have been scattered & interbread with other cultures?

http://en.wikipedia..../Jewish_history

Do you have any idea how long this was after the Song of Solomon was written?

The Jews hadn't been scattered and interbred with other cultures even once when Solomon's lover complained of being ostrasized by the daughters of Israel because of her darker complexion.

And again, I've never seen a blond Jesus.

In western religious art, and in eastern iconography, He's depicted with black or brown hair.

Edited July 16, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Sevenbak]

I'm amazed & disappointed how some refuse to admit what archeologists & common sense clearly explains... that Jesus had dark skin.

Why is this so hard for some to accept?

http://haha.nu/science/real-face-of-jesus/

Why should I take the words of an archeologist who has no idea what the literal son of God looked like, over the words of Joseph Smith, who described him as having a light complexion and blue eyes? That's the kind of common sense that clearly explains it to me.

[HeatherAnn]

I don't see that anyone is refusing to admit Jesus may have had dark skin. It's just that no one really knows, for sure...and, honestly, I don't think it is important, what color his skin was. What he taught and who he was, is really what is important and where our focus should be. None of us (not even the best archaeologists) can tell us, exactly, what he looked like. It simply doesn't matter. He was the embodiment of perfect love and goodness. He loved us enough to die for us. That's all we need to know.

Yes, what skin anyone has DOESN'T MATTER... except when people make it matter, as I've seen with prejudice shown on this thread & from other church members.

Libs, You seem to have shown an open- mind to other concepts. Try to imagine how you'd feel as a person with dark skin... coming into a ward of predominately caucasians, who give you dirty looks or ignore you... basically treat you as less than caucasian members. One member refused to receive the sacrament from an Aaronic Priesthood holder who happened to have dark skin.

How would you feel being part of a church that teaches righteousness is based on skin tone?? (based on scriptures previously mentioned, as well as additional related scriptures)

Maybe if you've never experienced prejudice yourself, or had someone you loved experience it, you might not be able to empathize as well.

Yet, I believe we can all learn to see things from different perspectives, & if we want to become more Godlike - more loving - we must.

Edited July 16, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[inquiringmind]

Why should I take the words of an archeologist who has no idea what the literal son of God looked like, over the words of Joseph Smith, who described him as having a light complexion and blue eyes? That's the kind of common sense that clearly explains it to me.

Where did Joseph describe Him as having a light complexion and blue eyes?

I've looked for a physical description and haven't been able to find one.

[Jeff K.]

Even when some people make it matter from their perspective, it has no impact on the important eternal aspects of Christ's love for us. Making skin color matter in regards to loving someone else, or giving them service, will only result in a judgement upon the person who takes that approach, it matter little to Christ or others, placing such considerations in the realm of the unimportant.

[Sevenbak]

Where did Joseph describe Him as having a light complexion and blue eyes?

I've looked for a physical description and haven't been able to find one.

It's from the 1844 account of the First Vision.

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

Really, I think this whole notion is a bit backwards. If we really believe Jesus to the the only begotten of the Father, even if we assume Mary was dark skinned, since when do we try to put Mary's genes as superior or domineering above those of God the Father?

We know Christ is in the express image of the Father, so someone has to prove God the Father had dark skin for this kind of an argument to work.

Sorry I have no biases toward or against people with darker skin, but I can't stomach theology based on political correctness.

[HeatherAnn]

Why should I take the words of an archeologist who has no idea what the literal son of God looked like, over the words of Joseph Smith, who described him as having a light complexion and blue eyes? That's the kind of common sense that clearly explains it to me.

So, you think Joseph Smith was infallible & omnipotent??

He knew much less what Jesus LOOKED like than we do.

Many, including him, make up their imaginations of what Jesus looks like which is influenced by tradition.

Back in the 1400's, Cesare Borgia's image was used to depict Jesus & many (including LDS) pictures of Jesus reflect this...

http://en.wikipedia....i/Cesare_Borgia

Just as you wouldn't expect archeologists to be expert in church revelations, you wouldn't expect Joseph Smith to be expert in archeology.

I realize that tradition is hard to let go, but when it harms people, tradition needs to be released... like inaccurately depicting Jesus with fair skin & associating skin tone with rightousness.

As you treat others you treat Christ... It's also written that if you reject Christ, Christ will reject you.

Try to be open to the reality of diversity... & that "the kingdom of God is within" not dependent on skin tone.

Accepting Jesus for who he was is a good start... & that will influence how you treat others who look like Jesus.

http://haha.nu/science/real-face-of-jesus/

Edited July 16, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Sevenbak]

So, you think Joseph Smith was infallible & omnipotent??

He knew much less what Jesus LOOKED like than we do.

Many, including him, make up their imaginations of what Jesus looks like which is influenced by tradition.

Back in the 1400's, Cesare Borgia's image was used to depict Jesus & many (including LDS) pictures of Jesus reflect this...

http://en.wikipedia....i/Cesare_Borgia

Just as you wouldn't expect archeologists to be expert in church revelations, you wouldn't expect Joseph Smith to be expert in archeology.

I realize that tradition is hard to let go, but when it harms people, tradition needs to be released... like inaccurately depicting Jesus with fair skin & associating skin tone with rightousness.

As you treat others you treat Christ... It's also written that if you reject Christ, Christ will reject you.

Try to be open to the reality of diversity... & that "the kingdom of God is within" not dependent on skin tone.

Accepting Jesus for who he was is a good start... & that will influence how you treat others who look like Jesus.

http://haha.nu/scien...-face-of-jesus/

Why should he know less what he looked like than we do???

He saw Him, more than once. I believe he was a prophet and I believe in the real and literal sense of the manifestations from heaven.

I haven't seen him, I suspect you haven't either. Anyone else that has that we should be talking about that we should put their testimony above that of Joseph's?

Either the visions he has were real, and he recorded them as fact or they weren't. It's pretty simple to me.

[Nathair/|\]

So, you think Joseph Smith was infallible & omnipotent??

He knew much less what Jesus LOOKED like than we do.

Um, Brother Joseph saw Him on several occasions. I think that trumps any amount of deduction and inference.

[HeatherAnn]

Why should he know less what he looked like than we do???

He saw Him, more than once. I believe he was a prophet and I believe in the real and literal sense of the manifestations from heaven.

I haven't seen him, I suspect you haven't either. Anyone else that has that we should be talking about that we should put their testimony above that of Joseph's?

Either the visions he has were real, and he recorded them as fact or they weren't. It's pretty simple to me.

Why should a parent know more than a child? Why should our medical books be more accurate than 100 years ago? We progress... through learning, including archeology.

I also believe Joseph Smith was a prophet... in the sense that he lead people in a new direction, spiritually, religiously & culturally.

Joseph Smith had a spiritual experience... spiritual experiences (as evident in scriptures & LDS NDEs) are based on what we resonate with & largely intepreted subjectively.

When I've had spiritual experiences, they were visually unclear... yet the feeling was clear & I can still feel it when I think about it... but visually seeing spirits is periphial at best.

It's not a visual thing as much as an intuitive thing, as Jesus taught, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation... the kingdom of God is WITHIN you." (Luke 17)

A spiritual experience is not EITHER real OR not. It's too subjective & based on faith for that.

IMO, an attitude of eitiher or (black or white thinking) is not healthy psychologically nor spiritually.

Edited July 17, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Sevenbak]

Why should a parent know more than a child? Why should our medical books be more accurate than 100 years ago? We progress... through learning, including archeology.

I also believe Joseph Smith was a prophet... in the sense that he lead people in a new direction, spiritually, religiously & culturally.

Joseph Smith had a spiritual experience... spiritual experiences (as evident in scriptures & LDS NDEs) are based on what we resonate with & largely intepreted subjectively.

When I've had spiritual experiences, they were visually unclear... yet the feeling was clear & I can still feel it when I think about it... but visually seeing spirits is periphial at best.

It's not a visual thing as much as an intuitive thing, as Jesus taught, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation... the kingdom of God is WITHIN you." (Luke 17)

A spiritual experience is not EITHER real OR not. It's too subjective & based on faith for that.

IMO, an attitude of eitiher or (black or white thinking) is not healthy psychologically nor spiritually.

I don't think we're going to agree on the significance and reality of the first VISION and the others that he had. They were much more than mere spiritual experiences, they were manifestations of persons, down to the eye color, hair color, skin color, style of clothing or lack thereof. I'm sorry if that's painful to some, but I believe it to be true.

As to children knowing more than their parents, I believe that to be a fallacy. All knowledge is not truth. I think our generation could learn a few things from preceding ones.

My tagline shares a bit of why I believe Joseph knew much more than he even shared with the saints. I believe we would be well advised to err on the side of accepting his words to us instead of questioning everything he said in the gauge of "was he speaking as a prophet or not?" But that's just me.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Sevenbak

[HeatherAnn]

Um, Brother Joseph saw Him on several occasions. I think that trumps any amount of deduction and inference.

I'll repeat... I do believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Several years ago, after reading about him for a lesson, I felt a strong spirit & respect for him. Cooincidentally, Jehova Witnesses came knocking on my door at the same time & before they could get a word in... I was sharing my excitement about Joseph Smith. lol

I love how he taught about personal revelation, & how he raised the standard in health & in finding truth...

"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."-Joseph Smith

Brother Joseph did not SEE with his eyes... he felt with his heart spiritual experiences, unless JESUS was wrong when he said, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.... the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17)

Joseph was a beautiful person... who did many great things, but he wasn't perfect.

He propheside some things wrong... like saying Jesus would return within 56 years (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189).

[HeatherAnn]

...As to children knowing more than their parents, I believe that to be a fallacy. All knowledge is not truth. I think our generation could learn a few things from preceding ones.

My tagline shares a bit of why I believe Joseph knew much more than he even shared with the saints. I believe we would be well advised to err on the side of accepting his words to us instead of questioning everything he said in the gauge of "was he speaking as a prophet or not?" But that's just me.

I previously wrote, "Why should a parent know more than a child?"

Obviously, healthy parents know more than their newborn & children (minors) about most things. There could be exceptions like with geniuses, but that's rare & still, parents tend to have more wisdom through experience. Again, my point being... parents know more because they've experienced more over time. We're learning & progressing with time. In every field of study, as a human race, we're learning more... including archeology. Now we have a better idea of what a man during Jesus' time & are might have looked like.

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

Joseph, did NOT teach us to just accept anything without questioning. Nor did Jesus.

They taught to question, & to seek learning through study and by faith.

To blindly follow is what the adversary taught, not Joseph, nor Jesus.

Edited July 17, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[TAO]

Heather... Jesus is brilliantly white... meaning pure and perfect... that is what is meant by white, I think... although he may be Caucasian too, not sure =D.

Humble Wishes,

TAO

[HeatherAnn]

Heather... Jesus is brilliantly white... meaning pure and perfect... that is what is meant by white, I think... although he may be Caucasian too, not sure =D.

Humble Wishes,

TAO

Whiteness does NOT equate to purity & perfection.

Are outerspace... the depths of the sea, tree roots underground, or navy suits imperfect because they aren't white or lack light?

We've got to get away from associating white skin with rightousness. It simply is wrong & causes others pain. Don't you realize that, Tao?

It may not cause you pain because you're white, but if we want to show love to others... to be like God, who IS love... then we must learn to empathize with others different from us & to show compassion.

Edited July 17, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[bluebell]

Whiteness does NOT equate to purity & perfection.

Are outerspace... the depths of the sea, tree roots underground, or navy suits imperfect because they aren't white or lack light?

Yes, they are imperfect, but not because of their color.

TAO didn't mean that Jesus's skin is fair because He is perfect. He's using the term 'white' to mean 'pure', the same way that the bible declares that though our sins are scarlet, they will be 'white as snow' through the Atonement. The color white (not the skin complexion) denotes purity.

We've got to get away from associating white skin with rightousness.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has done that, least of all Tao.