Why Engraven Images Of A Caucasian Jesus?

[TAO]

"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 shat not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." - Exodus 19:4,5

Maybe the reason why this was listed as one of the 10 commandements is because it's important! Keeping this commandment could be a challenge & in breaking it (even slightly) - could cause problems, as with racial prejudice, in inaccurately portraying images of Jesus...And Book of Mormon scriptures associating righteousness with fair skin contributes to "mischief."

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?" - Psalms 94:20

"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, & that write grievousness which they have prescribed." - Isaiah 10:1

"See that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged." -Moroni 7:18

Heather Ann. There is another thread on here about 'the debate is over'. The debate isn't over though, no matter what historians or geneticists say.

There is nothing wrong with an Asian Jesus. There is nothing wrong with an African Jesus. There is nothing wrong with a Caucasian Jesus. These really don't matter.

What matters is his love. That is all that matters.

So please... I'm asking you... so this thread will drop... stop worrying so much about how an image looks. Worry about what Christ would want the image to convey.

Like this one, okay? =P

No hard feelings intended, k =).

Somber Wishes,

TAO

Edited July 17, 2011 by TAO

[Libs]

Well said, TAO.

Love the pic.

What matters is his love. That is all that matters.

Amen.

[Pahoran]

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.

Pardon me, what "evidence to the contrary" is that?

Do you not actually see posts that don't support your assumptions?

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

Earth to HeatherAnn! Earth to HeatherAnn! Come in HeatherAnn!

Let's accept that they do.

Modern Arabs and Palestinians are Caucasian.

What does this tell us about first century Judeans and Galileans?

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

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

Joseph saw Jesus. In person. In daylight.

But he "knew much less what Jesus LOOKED like than we do," did he?

As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger: Who "we," Paleface?

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.

So, according to you, how Jesus appears in pictures suddenly becomes a moral question, does it?

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

And if Jesus turns out to be whiter than you would like to imagine, will you then reject Him?

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

Ah, "Diversity." The PC codeword for "people who think like us."

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/

As has already been explained to you: the one sure fact about that reconstruction -- made from a skull without any actual skin pigmentation, so the colouring is an assumption -- is that it is not the face of Jesus.

Jesus, you see, was resurrected. His skull is therefore unavailable for forensic examination.

Perhaps it's just me, but your preachments seem to be increasing in shrillness.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

"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 shat not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." - Exodus 19:4,5

And then there is this:

Exodus 25:

18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.

20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

Was the Lord telling Moses to break the commandment? Or is the proper understanding of the commandment one that permits some visual representations?

Maybe the reason why this was listed as one of the 10 commandements is because it's important! Keeping this commandment could be a challenge & in breaking it (even slightly) - could cause problems, as with racial prejudice, in inaccurately portraying images of Jesus...And Book of Mormon scriptures associating righteousness with fair skin contributes to "mischief."

The commandment refers to the pre-eminence of God, not politically-correct-touchy-feely-"inclusiveness" or anything like unto it.

If we accept that God's commandments are important, then we will resist having them hijacked for political purposes.

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?" - Psalms 94:20

"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, & that write grievousness which they have prescribed." - Isaiah 10:1

"See that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged." -Moroni 7:18

Such as when anyone presumes to judge the Latter-day Saints as sinners! over anything as trivial as artistic taste.

HeatherAnn, just a couple of suggestions:

1. Try being straight-up about the arguments you're trying to make instead of relying upon devious indirection.
   
2. Try to read the scriptures for what they mean, not how they might be folded, spindled, mutilated and pressed into service.
   

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sevenbak]

Sevenbak,

When you feel the spirit, is it through your optical lenses?

"All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, & can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when our bodies are purified, we shall see that it is all matter." - Joseph Smith

"The kingom of God cometh NOT with observation... the kingdom of God is within you." - Jesus (Luke 17:20, 21)

Are you saying Christ was only spirt, and didn't have a body of flesh and bone? Even if that was true, how do you explain Moses, Bro, of Jared and other OT prophets seeing God face to face?

For your interpretation of that scripture to be valid, you'll have to throw out most of 3 Nephi, and the Savior appearing to the Nephites, letting them feel his wounds. Yes, it was real, it was physical, they saw with their eyes and felt with their hands.

Let me ask you a question... How did Joseph know what the Apostle Paul looked like?

Description of Paul, given by the Prophet Joseph, January 5, 1841, at the organization of a school of instruction:

“He is about five feet high; very dark hair; dark complexion; dark skin; large Roman nose; sharp face; small black eyes, penetrating as eternity; round shoulders; a whining voice, except when elevated, and then it almost resembled the roaring of a lion. He was a good orator, active and diligent, always employing himself in doing good to his fellow man.” Description of Paul

[volgadon]

Erichard,

Just as in Middle Eastern countries, there may have & be some with lighter complexions, but the majority have darker skin.

If Jesus had lighter skin, he would've stood out... yet remember, the guards could not tell him apart from his apostles, so Judas dinstinguised him with a kiss of betrayal?

For starters, it was dark. Second, lighter complexions were not as rare as you assume. The really dark complexions were more unusual before the Arab conquest, in which a large number of Yemenites took part.

[volgadon]

Either nothing... or who he was... not some made up version because they can't handle the truth of Jesus' true appearance.

Which is what, Sub-Saharan African?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

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?

I don't get it. What is skin color to God? Doesn't He control the destiny of nations of the earth, and control the heavens? What is skin color to Him?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[Storm Rider]

I don't get it. What is skin color to God? Doesn't He control the destiny of nations of the earth, and control the heavens? What is skin color to Him?

I agree. The Father is "white"? What on earth does that mean? He is complete truth, complete righteousness, completely pure, but white? Someone get me a stick, it is time for whack-a-mole. Of course he is not white anymore than I am white. Are you saying he is Caucasian or western European? These are some of the saddest topics ever discussed by disciples of Christ. Does anyone really think God gives two hoots in H*** what skin color someone has? Forget the stick, get me a dang gun so that this nonsense can be blown to smithereens.

People, skin color means nothing other than it may portray some DNA code that your parents possessed. It does nothing to reveal the heart of man. It does not address righteousness. Joseph Smith was clear in his last translation of the Book of Mormon in 1840 when he changed all the "white" to pure. We just had the unfortunate circumstance of using the 1842 edition printed in England rather than the 1840 edition. I don't think the gun is big enough, what about a nuclear weapon?

[thesometimesaint]

Storm Rider:

I don't know how to blow up an idea. But I agree it is long past time to move on.

[Tramper]

Tramper,

Israel is a tad far away from Scandinavia... maybe that was your point, though.

Yes that was my point. Why does the Church choose a highly unlikely picture of the Savior. How the church portrays Jesus says more about the church than Jesus.

The Mormon Church was a racist church and the good members were expected to be racists as well. We should not however equate racist with evil. The church members in general probably treated the black people kindly. They did however see them as less valiant and as a result of that less blessed, and the white members were (and still are) not expected to intermingle with black people. Before 1979 a good Mormon was a racist. However a very kind and respectful one.

Why is it important to portray Jesus at all? Why not just focus on his teachings and leave the artistic nonsense aside. The true church should boycott all pictures of the Savior.

[Jeff K.]

We imagine Christ as best we can, attempting vainly to tie the humble, with the majestic, with the omniscient. We apply our own western cultural motifs to the painting, nothing more. It has nothing to do with racism or liklihood of what might or might not be Christ.

It is a false accusation that the Mormon church expected its members to be racist. And the fact that you ignore historical context reflects your own agenda driven anger rather than a desire for dialogue on the issue. It will not matter to you what Latter-day Saints say or do in this matter. Whether our portrait of Christ is accurate or not, is unimportant to you.

[thesometimesaint]

Tramper:

Because like all normal people we like art. We find beauty and joy in producing and owning beautiful paintings, statues, songs, and the like.

No it doesn't any more than having any piece of artwork does. IF I owned a Salvador Dali. Would mean that I saw the actual world in the same way as represented in his paintings?

That is insulting, and absolutely untrue. The Church has consistantly stated that there is no place for any racism in the Church, and those that harbour such feelings need to repent.

Racism is evil. The Church has consistantly taught that ALL are equal in God's eye's.

How very condescending of you to say that we probably treated black people kindly.

That is incorrect. Whatever the personal opinions of members of the Church there has never been any doctrine of the Church that blacks were less valient in the pre-existence.

We intermingle every day. Further LDS congregrations have never been segregated by race.

I was baptized in 1971. Years before the Priesthood Ban was lifted. Was I a racist then?

Because like all normal people we like art. WHY? Just because you say so. I have two paintings of Jesus in my own home. They bring me great satisfactions, and joy in being reminded of the great love my Savior has for me.

[Tramper]

We imagine Christ as best we can, attempting vainly to tie the humble, with the majestic, with the omniscient. We apply our own western cultural motifs to the painting, nothing more. It has nothing to do with racism or liklihood of what might or might not be Christ.

It is a false accusation that the Mormon church expected its members to be racist. And the fact that you ignore historical context reflects your own agenda driven anger rather than a desire for dialogue on the issue. It will not matter to you what Latter-day Saints say or do in this matter. Whether our portrait of Christ is accurate or not, is unimportant to you.

Uuhh ... I am an active member of the LDS-church and I do hold a valid temple recommend. The advice to marry within your race (current opinion of the Church) and the pre-1978 advice not to intermarry with black people were racist. As mentioned earlier racist view should not be equated with evilness. Good people can be racists.

Why not throw those western cultural motifs away and only focus on the teachings of Christ. Those teachings are majestic enough and needs not to be improved by inaccurate and worthless paintings that provide nothing more than cultural biases. Throw these paintings in the junk where they belong

... Isn’t the scriptures good enough? What do these paintings contribute that the scriptures can't do?

[Jeff K.]

Uuhh ... I am an active member of the LDS-church and I do hold a valid temple recommend. The advice to marry within your race (current opinion of the Church) and the pre-1978 advice not to intermarry with black people were racist. As mentioned earlier racist view should not be equated with evilness. Good people can be racists.

Why not throw those western cultural motifs away and only focus on the teachings of Christ. Those teachings are majestic enough and needs not to be improved by inaccurate and worthless paintings that provide nothing more than cultural biases. Throw these paintings in the junk where they belong

... Isn’t the scriptures good enough? What do these paintings contribute that the scriptures can't do?

Holding a temple recommend means nothing in regards to being righteous and acting righteously or doing the right thing. A falsehood, such as the one propagated that the LDS church expected its members to be racist reflects a certain ability to twist the truth, whether speaking with the public or in a private interview.

I suggest you do some research, such as knowing that Utah signed the enfranchisement of all races and colors into its laws before the US did, and the many other different parts of history that makes your accusations of the church false. It appears you pronounce these things with either a pre arranged agenda with no regard for the truth, or do them with a depth of ignorance which is reflected by your lack of any research.

One can of course complain about anything. The way Christ looks, how the pews are set up, where the podium is. It seems rather petty to me. But then, for some, it seems the norm. The reasons for the paintings of Christ have been well explained, you are free not to accept them and to continue reflecting a bitter point of view. I see no reason to curtail the desires of man to express themselves in art as part of their adoration of Christ.

[Tramper]

Tramper:

Because like all normal people we like art. We find beauty and joy in producing and owning beautiful paintings, statues, songs, and the like.

No it doesn't any more than having any piece of artwork does. IF I owned a Salvador Dali. Would mean that I saw the actual world in the same way as represented in his paintings?

That is insulting, and absolutely untrue. The Church has consistantly stated that there is no place for any racism in the Church, and those that harbour such feelings need to repent.

Racism is evil. The Church has consistantly taught that ALL are equal in God's eye's.

How very condescending of you to say that we probably treated black people kindly.

That is incorrect. Whatever the personal opinions of members of the Church there has never been any doctrine of the Church that blacks were less valient in the pre-existence.

We intermingle every day. Further LDS congregrations have never been segregated by race.

I was baptized in 1971. Years before the Priesthood Ban was lifted. Was I a racist then?

Because like all normal people we like art. WHY? Just because you say so. I have two paintings of Jesus in my own home. They bring me great satisfactions, and joy in being reminded of the great love my Savior has for me.

Yes you were racist in 1971. You did accept the idea that the black people were not entitled to the same blessings as you were. The priesthood ban, which the leaders of the church are unable to explain, is a testimony of a racist past. The teachings from Brigham Young, John Taylor, Orson Pratt, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie was consistent. The black skin and the priesthood ban was a result of their behavior in pre-existence. Whether or not this was doctrine is nothing but a cowardice escape route. The priesthood ban was founded on certain verses in the scripture. It was not an invention independent of the Mormon scriptures.

Racism is not always evil. Racist actions can very well be evil. A white priesthood holder who fell deeply in love with a black girl back in 1971 but whom decided not marry this girl due to the priesthood ban were indeed a racist. Necessarily not an evil one.

The words of Jesus need not to be improved by culturally biased paintings. That is only ridiculous. What ludicrous nonsense.

[Tramper]

Holding a temple recommend means nothing in regards to being righteous and acting righteously or doing the right thing. A falsehood, such as the one propagated that the LDS church expected its members to be racist reflects a certain ability to twist the truth, whether speaking with the public or in a private interview.

I suggest you do some research, such as knowing that Utah signed the enfranchisement of all races and colors into its laws before the US did, and the many other different parts of history that makes your accusations of the church false. It appears you pronounce these things with either a pre arranged agenda with no regard for the truth, or do them with a depth of ignorance which is reflected by your lack of any research.

One can of course complain about anything. The way Christ looks, how the pews are set up, where the podium is. It seems rather petty to me. But then, for some, it seems the norm. The reasons for the paintings of Christ have been well explained, you are free not to accept them and to continue reflecting a bitter point of view. I see no reason to curtail the desires of man to express themselves in art as part of their adoration of Christ.

I repeat. The words of Jesus need not to be improved by culturally biased paintings. That is only ridiculous. What ludicrous nonsense. We need to be like him inside of us. The outside matters nothing. That is the true teaching of Christ. Why then make Jesus a bearer of western cultural biases? In what way does that add to your spiritual well being and your testimony? What stupidity! I am a happy sister btw :-)

[Jeff K.]

I repeat. The words of Jesus need not to be improved by culturally biased paintings. That is only ridiculous. What ludicrous nonsense. We need to be like him inside of us. The outside matters nothing. That is the true teaching of Christ. Why then make Jesus a bearer of western cultural biases? In what way does that add to your spiritual well being and your testimony? What stupidity! I am a happy sister btw :-)

One can of course complain about anything. The way Christ looks, how the pews are set up, where the podium is. It seems rather petty to me. But then, for some, it seems the norm. The reasons for the paintings of Christ have been well explained, you are free not to accept them and to continue reflecting a bitter point of view. I see no reason to curtail the desires of man to express themselves in art as part of their adoration of Christ.

[Jeff K.]

Yes you were racist in 1971. You did accept the idea that the black people were not entitled to the same blessings as you were. The priesthood ban, which the leaders of the church are unable to explain, is a testimony of a racist past. The teachings from Brigham Young, John Taylor, Orson Pratt, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie was consistent. The black skin and the priesthood ban was a result of their behavior in pre-existence. Whether or not this was doctrine is nothing but a cowardice escape route. The priesthood ban was founded on certain verses in the scripture. It was not an invention independent of the Mormon scriptures.

Racism is not always evil. Racist actions can very well be evil. A white priesthood holder who fell deeply in love with a black girl back in 1971 but whom decided not marry this girl due to the priesthood ban were indeed a racist. Necessarily not an evil one.

The words of Jesus need not to be improved by culturally biased paintings. That is only ridiculous. What ludicrous nonsense.

On presupposes you would call Jesus a genocidal racist based on your somewhat flawed logic, lack of facts and perhaps selective reading of the Old Testament.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Jeff K.

[thesometimesaint]

Tramper:

You are incorrect. I've NEVER been a racist in any shape, form, or matter. Please DO NOT tell me what I believe again.

Holding the Priesthood is not, nor ever has been, a determinate for receiving all the blessings from God.

NO Blessing from God will be denied in the eternities because of skin pigmentation that we are otherwise entitled to.

I've always accepted the fact that God hasn't told me, and that I didn't know the reason behind the Priesthood Ban. Any more than God has told me why for a time only the first born son of a Priest in House of Levi could serve in the Temple, or why Jesus during his mortal ministry only went to the Jews, or why Peter needed Revelation from God to change that, or why to this day women can not hold the Priesthood.

By your reasoning is God a racist, and a sexist.

From my point of view the Ban was not to last forever. NO ONE regardless of skin pigmentation will be refused ANY blessing from God that is otherwise worthy of it.

It wasn't a test for worthy blacks, but a test for the rest of us to see if we could/would accept blacks in full.

See http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11017

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

As I have no way of juding the intents of anyone else's heart. I can only address their actions. I personally know of a LDS mixed race couple that were married before the Ban was lifted. They were Sealed soon after the ban was lifted. You AGAIN are incorrect.

Only in your personal opinion. See Article of Faith #13 ...If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

[HeatherAnn]

Yes that was my point. Why does the Church choose a highly unlikely picture of the Savior. How the church portrays Jesus says more about the church than Jesus.

The Mormon Church was a racist church and the good members were expected to be racists as well. We should not however equate racist with evil. The church members in general probably treated the black people kindly. They did however see them as less valiant and as a result of that less blessed, and the white members were (and still are) not expected to intermingle with black people. Before 1979 a good Mormon was a racist. However a very kind and respectful one.

Why is it important to portray Jesus at all? Why not just focus on his teachings and leave the artistic nonsense aside. The true church should boycott all pictures of the Savior...

I repeat. The words of Jesus need not to be improved by culturally biased paintings. That is only ridiculous. What ludicrous nonsense. We need to be like him inside of us. The outside matters nothing. That is the true teaching of Christ. Why then make Jesus a bearer of western cultural biases? In what way does that add to your spiritual well being and your testimony?

Tramper,

Very well put!

Thank you! I admire your emapthy & integrity regarding this issue.

I'd say we all hold some type of prejudice... based on past experiences.

I was just thinking about some neighbors who have acted rudely with us. Part of me wants them to suffer too... yet I wonder what kind of pain they are experiencing to act that way to others. I have no idea but I do know everyone has their share of burdens. And like an old friend used to say, "Everyone is Exactly where God would be, if He were in their shoes!" In other words, if I were raised around racism - it may be an unquestioned traditional belief. Yet, the world is getting so much more accessable - to learn & thus to empathize with other perspectives, so we can love better. I truly believe that God IS love & that our purpose is to learn to love. The 2 greatest commandments are based on loving God, others & ourselves. Love is based on understanding. If you understand someone or your own needs (& what is best) you are better able to show love. God is no respector of persons & loves Jesus - dark skin & all... If we truly want to be more Godlike, we'd do likewise. We're all connected... as Jesus taught, how we treat others, we treat him... as we judge others, we'll be judged.

Despite tradition, we'd do good to stop embracing paintings of someone we worship, since we've been clearly commanded not to.

Edited July 18, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Jeff K.]

Despite tradition, we'd do good to stop embracing paintings of someone we worship, since we've been clearly commanded not to.

I have never seen a Latter Day Saint worship a painting. Indeed we don't burn incense to the painting nor do we pray to it, nor do we believe it has magical powers. Perhaps our definitions of the concept of worship are different? While I admire many different paintings of Christ, I see them as the equivalent of singing a hymn, only through a different medium. Do we worship hymns too perhaps?

[HeatherAnn]

Jeff,

Then why have pictures of a person we worship?

Especially when we're specifically commanded "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image... though shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor seve them..."

We don't bow down to serve images of Jesus (we don't bow down at all in church).

Yet, we DO have paintings of someone we worship throughout our worship service (on walls & in curriculum)... which corrupts spiritual messages with cultural bias.

Also, these lds scriptures associate skin tone with rightousness... (which goes against God, who is no respector of persons)

"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

And see what "mischief" has come of it & Book of Mormon scriptures associating righteousness with fair skin contributes to "mischief."...

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?" - Psalms 94:20

"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, & that write grievousness which they have prescribed." - Isaiah 10:1

"See that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged." -Moroni 7:18

Edited July 18, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Jeff K.]

You seem to have missed the point... Let me re-express them for you and perhaps elaborate if I am being too obtuse.

I have never seen a Latter Day Saint worship a painting. Indeed we don't burn incense to the painting nor do we pray to it, nor do we believe it has magical powers. Perhaps our definitions of the concept of worship are different? While I admire many different paintings of Christ, I see them as the equivalent of singing a hymn, only through a different medium. Do we worship hymns too perhaps?

1-Can you show me one instance in which a ward worshipped a painting? Is a painting automatically considered an act of worship? If so, photographs must make us truly polytheistic.

I would take your interpretation as being too literalist because if we review the entire commandment...

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:

Based on your statement, we should also have no likeness of anything in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water. A picture in the Book of Mormon with the hand of Christ being seen by the brother of Jared clearly is a violation based on your interpretation. And yet the prophets and apostles are fine with that.

The prohibition in Exodus 20: (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/20.?lang=eng#) (see also Deuteronomy 5: (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/duet/5.?lang=eng#) ) is not the production of graven images per se but the bowing down and serving of such images. We should remember that God later commanded the construction of the seraphim and cherubim for the ark (Exodus 25:17-22 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/25.17-22?lang=eng#17-22) , Exodus 37:8-9 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/37.8-9?lang=eng#8-9) ) and temple of Solomon (1 Kings 6:23-35 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-kgs/6.23-35?lang=eng#23-35) , 1 Kings 8:6-7 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-kgs/8.6-7?lang=eng#6-7) ), and the veneration given to the Ark of the Covenant, as well as the brass serpent (Numbers 21:6-9 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/num/21.6-9?lang=eng#6-9) ).

In similar fashion, Latter-day Saints do not bow down and serve/worship images of Moroni and images of past and present leaders.

One of the facts that must be reconciled with any interpretation of Exodus 20:3-4 is that the Bible states that God explicitly commanded that the Israelites make images and include them in their holiest places of worship. The text explicitly says that these images were revealed to Moses while he was on the mount (Exodus 25:40 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/25.40?lang=eng#40) and Exodus 26:30 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/26.30?lang=eng#30) ), meaning that they were given at the same time as the Ten Commandments and are part of the environment in which Exodus 20 must be interpreted.

For example:

■ Exodus 25:18-20 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/25.18-20?lang=eng#18-20) : God commands that gold Cherubim be made to cover the mercy seat in the tabernacle. (Exodus 37:7-9 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/37.7-9?lang=eng#7-9) says that Moses made the image.)

■Exodus 25:33 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/25.33?lang=eng#33) : God commands that the tabernacle bowls be almond-shaped with flowers. (Exodus 37:19 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/37.19?lang=eng#19) says that Moses made the image.)

■Exodus 26:1 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/26.1?lang=eng#1) : God commands that Cherubim be fashioned on the Tabernacle curtains. (Exodus 36:8 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/36.8?lang=eng# says that Moses made the image.)

■Exodus 26:31 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/26.31?lang=eng#31) : God commands that Cherubim be on the vail of the temple. (Exodus 36:35 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/36.35?lang=eng#35) says that Moses made the image.)

■Exodus 28:33 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/28.33?lang=eng#33) : God commands that pomegranates be sewn onto the hem of the high priest's robe. (Exodus 39:24-26 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/39.24-26?lang=eng#24-26) says that Moses made the image.)

And finally:

And Moses did look upon all the work, and, behold, they had done it as the LORD had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them. (Exodus 39:43 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/39.43?lang=eng#43) ).

Furthermore, we have not even mentioned all the images that were used during the construction of Solomon's Temple, such as the oxen holding up the brass sea (see 1 Kings 7:25 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-kgs/7.25?lang=eng#25) ) or the lions, oxen, and cherubim on the base (see 1 Kings 7:29 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-kgs/7.29?lang=eng#29) ).

Those people who reject all images of things on earth or in heaven have an interpretation of Exodus 20:3-4 that doesn't agree with God's interpretation of those verses or with Moses' interpretation of those verses.

Conclusion

Since

1.God is the revelator of the verses in question, and

2.God is God, and

3.Moses was there and heard first hand,

one should side with God and Moses and say that Exodus 20:3 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/20.3?lang=eng#3) does not mean that one cannot have pictures, statues, or images of earthly or heavenly things in one's home or in church.

Instead one should stick with the unambiguous interpretation of this principle that is given in Exodus 34:17 (http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/34.17?lang=eng#17) , "Thou shalt make thee no molten gods." We are commanded not to worship images, or anything else besides God, and members of the Church do not.

It is ironic that those who accuse the LDS of not being Christians then complain that the Saints use images of Christ to remind them of their worship of him.

Mormonism and the nature of God

They research it and say it much better than I do.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Despite tradition, we'd do good to stop embracing paintings of someone we worship, since we've been clearly commanded not to.

Seriously? We have been over this before. It is not against any commandment to have a picture of some one. That is not having a graven image.