Why Must Jesus Be Painted White?

[Whiskeypete]

If I remember correctly, JS described him as a white man.  However, I'm not so sure that we can reasonably conclude the JS saw Jesus in His earthly form.  Shortly after the resurrection, Jesus walked with two of his followers on the road to Emmaus and neither one recognized Him as Jesus.  

Luke 24:13-35

 

It stands to reason that HF and Jesus would have appeared to JS in forms that he would recognize.

Is there a case of ANYONE in the scriptures recognizing Jesus after his resurrection?

I think there might be one exception, but in nearly every case, Jesus had to tell them who he was.

[BlueDreams]

But some of the arguments in this thread that I do disagree with are: 1) artistic interpretations of a Caucasoid Jesus are not reasonable or made in good faith; 2) Jesus could not have been a “white man”; 3) there is only one narrow way that Jesus could have looked as a Jew from Galilee during His lifetime; 4) “White” means “Western European”; and 5) that stereotypes of Irish, Swede, West African and Chinese (there may have been other) phenotypes were used to support these ideas. These points were used to defend the call to redesign Christological artwork currently used by the Church as proof and enforcement of the Church’s disavowal of incorrect theories about race and the priesthood and its condemnation of racism in all its forms.

 

I don't have time to go through each point this morning. But for a number of these points, I feel that's a little too much extrapolation for the newb's point. I've read the entire thread. This isn't what I saw. I don't even think he's saying to get rid of all the White, black, or asian Jesus' out there. Just maybe it's about time that Jesus looks more like what the people probably looked like at the time. Right now, jesus is depicted about the exact same with microscopic variation in looks, giving this indication that we really do know what Jesus looked like and it does fit a stereotypical, relatively attractive, western white looking dude. I can mostly agree with you on the first point, though I don't think the picture we've made of christ is very reasonable, per se...I do think it's largely made in good faith. No one goes out to paint Christ with bad intentions in the LDS community.  

 

That said, I do think our art can send an unspoken message. I do think that, though not purposeful, that the sheer amount of white people (not even including christ) depicted in lds art look very white. Can give an unspoken message about brown people....quite frankly it erases them. Think of a painting of Noah, Nephi, A+E, Rebecca, Ruth, etc. Think of just about every depiction of heavenly hosts. Think of angels come to send messages. They're white. They're western european sort of white. Diversity is shown by throwing in some blondes or a red head or 2. To put it very bluntly, it gives an unintentional message that white is right or at the very least the default/neutral race. I have more to say, but I'll leave it at this: Jesus is one thing, I would give you Him. One Man who we don't know what the Father really looked like....definitely could look somewhat like what we've ended up narrowly painting Him as. But all of them ....EVERY last person, who's ever hailed from the fertile cresent/middle eastern region, minus the Egyptians, the 3rd wise man, and the Lamanites are depicted as white. One spiritual mystic, and 2 usually polarized bad-guy groups. At best it leaves brown people as just missing. At worse it leaves us looking spiritually out of place or even lacking.

 

So the last point you made I would definitely agree with. There are beliefs that are reinforced or depicted (or both) through our art. But I've said too much. School is calling. I hate leaving an unfinished thought or one I haven't really looked over. If this doesn't make sense I can clarify later.

 

With luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have time to go through each point this morning. But for a number of these points, I feel that's a little too much extrapolation for the newb's point. I've read the entire thread. This isn't what I saw. I don't even think he's saying to get rid of all the White, black, or asian Jesus' out there. Just maybe it's about time that Jesus looks more like what the people probably looked like at the time. Right now, jesus is depicted about the exact same with microscopic variation in looks, giving this indication that we really do know what Jesus looked like and it does fit a stereotypical, relatively attractive, western white looking dude. I can mostly agree with you on the first point, though I don't think the picture we've made of christ is very reasonable, per se...I do think it's largely made in good faith. No one goes out to paint Christ with bad intentions in the LDS community.  

 

That said, I do think our art can send an unspoken message. I do think that, though not purposeful, that the sheer amount of white people (not even including christ) depicted in lds art look very white. Can give an unspoken message about brown people....quite frankly it erases them. Think of a painting of Noah, Nephi, A+E, Rebecca, Ruth, etc. Think of just about every depiction of heavenly hosts. Think of angels come to send messages. They're white. They're western european sort of white. Diversity is shown by throwing in some blondes or a red head or 2. To put it very bluntly, it gives an unintentional message that white is right or at the very least the default/neutral race. I have more to say, but I'll leave it at this: Jesus is one thing, I would give you Him. One Man who we don't know what the Father really looked like....definitely could look somewhat like what we've ended up narrowly painting Him as. But all of them ....EVERY last person, who's ever hailed from the fertile cresent/middle eastern region, minus the Egyptians, the 3rd wise man, and the Lamanites are depicted as white. One spiritual mystic, and 2 usually polarized bad-guy groups. At best it leaves brown people as just missing. At worse it leaves us looking spiritually out of place or even lacking.

 

So the last point you made I would definitely agree with. There are beliefs that are reinforced or depicted (or both) through our art. But I've said too much. School is calling. I hate leaving an unfinished thought or one I haven't really looked over. If this doesn't make sense I can clarify later.

 

With luv,

BD

 

There is a lot of cultural assumptions there.

[K-2]

I've already mentioned how Jesus is in the express image of his father's person and so presumably looks just like his father rather than like his mother, and also that Joseph Smith said that the Father was of fair complexion and had blue eyes, but for those of you who might want to think that Jesus looked like his mother, I present 1 Ne. 11:13:

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.

[CV75]

Just maybe it's about time that Jesus looks more like what the people probably looked like at the time.

On one hand, doing so would require a subjective balance between the classical depictions of Jesus (some of which are supported by ancient accounts) and anthropological updates. I imagine both kinds of depictions have fans and critics (but the majority of neutrals) along the bell curve. The Church Media Library does seem to provide a combination of both classical and modern works, offering a variation in the artistic representation of skin tone and features of Jesus and other scriptural characters.

On the other hand, the current artwork for several years in Church publications / websites has represented the racial diversity we see amongst today’s modern membership—and these are living people whose appearance we can verify!

I understand the Church to be very purposeful in what it puts out to the members and the public. I don’t see racial politics driving the content of this material in opposing directions.

[BlueDreams]

On one hand, doing so would require a subjective balance between the classical depictions of Jesus (some of which are supported by ancient accounts) and anthropological updates. I imagine both kinds of depictions have fans and critics (but the majority of neutrals) along the bell curve. The Church Media Library does seem to provide a combination of both classical and modern works, offering a variation in the artistic representation of skin tone and features of Jesus and other scriptural characters.

 

I'm not seeing much variation in the library. The paintings given are largely from the mid to late 1800's at the oldest and the latest is probably Friberg's.....so 80'-90's (one that looks like it might be a Walter Rane piece....same timing though). They all look vaguely the same, features wise. And their skin tone varies even less. The most varying feature I see from perusing a few on line is his hair color, which ranges from a dark honey blonde to a medium brunette (there's maybe 2 that have very dark hair....but that could be shadowing as well).  There are a combination of classical and modern works. But I cannot see how one could say they vary beyond that. They're not even all that expansive in artistic style (Rane's the closest to something more expressive). 

 

Also, from what I could read, the ancient accounts weren't actually near the time of Christ by a couple hundred years in either direction.

 

On the other hand, the current artwork for several years in Church publications / websites has represented the racial diversity we see amongst today’s modern membership—and these are living people whose appearance we can verify!

I understand the Church to be very purposeful in what it puts out to the members and the public. I don’t see racial politics driving the content of this material in opposing directions.

 

 

Yes. But all of the diversity that's represented in both photography and painting is largely modern depictions. It's like brown people didn't exist pre-1980's (yes, this is an exaggeration, but not by much). The church is very purposeful in what it put out to the members. I don't think they're exceptionally driven by, say racial politics....not overtly. But I do think there's a not-so-subtle preference that I don't put squarely on the institutional back. Think of it this way. There was once a black Jesus sold in the byu bookstore for a very short period of time. It was short because the store received a number of complaints about the painting. It was removed.....then told to be put back out by overhead because black people found out about it. And there it stayed until it was sold and was never placed out again. To have a very different representation of Christ was too much for more than just a few buyers, insomuch that they openly complained. There is an expectation for what JC looks like. When it drastically doesn't fit it isn't accepted. For church/gospel art to be used around the usual meeting or class. They choose general, informative style paintings, that don't distract (thus, no abstracts in that gospel art book). You get more variance in the international art competition. 

 

What I'm stating is that there is definite preference in depiction for scriptural figures. It has become the traditional view of how we (especially western LDS) view historical figures. This, personally, has very rarely bothers me. I understand the reasons and they're not overtly bad ones (I've mentioned them before on here). But it does have unintentional consequences from it. Including, in part, what newb has mentioned. Basically, there is validity in both what newb is stating and with generally viewed art in the church.

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[BlueDreams]

I've already mentioned how Jesus is in the express image of his father's person and so presumably looks just like his father rather than like his mother, and also that Joseph Smith said that the Father was of fair complexion and had blue eyes, but for those of you who might want to think that Jesus looked like his mother, I present 1 Ne. 11:13:

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.

 

There is more than one way to read that. And taking it from the modern american racial dichotomous view is probably not accurate. I personally, have read that as a purposefully symbolic use of language to connect/parallel the tree that Mary is an immediate explanation of.

 

 

 8  And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

...

 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.

 

 14 And it came to pass that I saw the aheavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

 

 15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.

 

I personally don't take this to mean Mary looked like a pale supermodel . But as a depiction of spirituality. She's parallel the tree in exceptional language meant to set her apart from all others just as the tree is set apart from all others. This is Mary as a visionary symbol. Any other extrapolation I don't think is really supported by the text, but has to be read with our modern assumptions about race.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 25, 2014 by BlueDreams

[mormonnewb]

There was once a black Jesus sold in the byu bookstore for a very short period of time. It was short because the store received a number of complaints about the painting. It was removed.....then told to be put back out by overhead because black people found out about it. And there it stayed until it was sold and was never placed out again. To have a very different representation of Christ was too much for more than just a few buyers, insomuch that they openly complained. There is an expectation for what JC looks like. When it drastically doesn't fit it isn't accepted. For church/gospel art to be used around the usual meeting or class. They choose general, informative style paintings, that don't distract (thus, no abstracts in that gospel art book). You get more variance in the international art competition.

Why didn't you tell me this two days ago, Bruh? This seems to be the answer to my original question. We don't depict Jesus as He MOST LIKELY looked because the saints would freak out. That makes sense to me. It's not a good EXCUSE, but it is a logical reason.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Why didn't you tell me this two days ago, Bruh? This seems to be the answer to my original question. We don't depict Jesus as He MOST LIKELY looked because the saints would freak out. That makes sense to me. It's not a good EXCUSE, but it is a logical reason.

Somethings important to remember...

None of us should assume what would make others feel uncomfortable

None of us know what he looks like..."then". So any painting is a guess.

Who knows one day no member of any race will lose sleep over such none issues.

[mormonnewb]

Somethings important to remember...

None of us should assume what would make others feel uncomfortable

None of us know what he looks like..."then". So any painting is a guess.

Who knows one day no member of any race will lose sleep over such none issues.

I'm glad that it is a non-issue in your home but I have a 9 yo who wants a "white daddy" and to know when he gets to be white too so he can be "righteous." So perhaps, you might understand why some of us do lose sleep over such "trivial" issues.

[mormonnewb]

Why didn't you tell me this two days ago, Bruh? This seems to be the answer to my original question. We don't depict Jesus as He MOST LIKELY looked because the saints would freak out. That makes sense to me. It's not a good EXCUSE, but it is a logical reason.

Let me restate in a more reasonable tone:

This is a plausible explanation for why the Church continues with traditional depictions of the Savior. SOME members may become unsettled by a non-traditional depiction, causing confusion and possibly contention, all the while detracting from the fundamental importance of the Savior's atonement.

[mfbukowski]

Not to put too fine a point on what you said, the same, in principle, holds true in our day. I doubt that any of us look exactly like this:

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Great point, and of course that was part of Picasso's point in doing these.  All art is an interpretive distortion of "reality" anyway- so why not embrace that fact?

[volgadon]

Would you say that this guy looks "white?"

 

[Tacenda]

I've already mentioned how Jesus is in the express image of his father'moos person and so presumably looks just like his father rather than like his mother, and also that Joseph Smith said that the Father was of fair complexion and had blue eyes, but for those of you who might want to think that Jesus looked like his mother, I present 1 Ne. 11:13:

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.

Yep, that's the BoM for ya. It left out delightsome though.

[CV75]

But I do think there's a not-so-subtle preference that I don't put squarely on the institutional back.

This is why I respond the way I do--I don't put these preferences squarely on the institutional back either. If I were a bishop and a ward member came up to me and asked me if we could change the painting in the lobby (or wherever it hangs) to what he thought was a more authentic-looking Jesus, my initial reaction would be to say "Sure," and give him the media library catalog to pick one out, because I think there are a few to choose from and I have no personal or inspired preferences.

 

Also, from what I could read, the ancient accounts weren't actually near the time of Christ by a couple hundred years in either direction.

I linked a number of them in an earlier post--at least one seemed to be an eye-witness description. However they can be challenged, they provided a reasonable,good-faith source / support for artistic interpretation.

 

I'm not seeing much variation in the library.

Ah, but I do... and that's OK.

 

Yes. But all of the diversity that's represented in both photography and painting is largely modern depictions. It's like brown people didn't exist pre-1980's (yes, this is an exaggeration, but not by much).

 

I was thinking the same thing, in terms of keeping up with the changing demographics of the Church and the quality and reach of its publications in various lands. They have to be modern depictions to be up-to-date and accurate--that was my point. I think the Church takes great care to represent its varied membership well, and to represent scriptural personalities and deity with the best of what it has to work with.

 

But it does have unintentional consequences from it.

Thank goodness for the Gift of the Holy Ghost! We can know if our inspiration, preference or desires for certain depictions are righteous and we will have the means to either fulfill or handle them.

[BlueDreams]

Why didn't you tell me this two days ago, Bruh? This seems to be the answer to my original question. We don't depict Jesus as He MOST LIKELY looked because the saints would freak out. That makes sense to me. It's not a good EXCUSE, but it is a logical reason.

I didn't because you were asking for a realistic version of Jesus that's more brown looking. I haven't seen one in mainstream art that has a more stereotypical middle-eastern look, so I'm not sure I could say the same reaction would apply that happened with black Jesus. Considering the angle and context of the painting, some might not even notice the difference at all. But it could have the same reaction, I just can't honestly say. If you'd asked why we didn't have a black Jesus, then I would have given you that answer. But it wasn't the exact question.  

 

With luv,

Bd

[CV75]

I'm glad that it is a non-issue in your home but I have a 9 yo who wants a "white daddy" and to know when he gets to be white too so he can be "righteous." So perhaps, you might understand why some of us do lose sleep over such "trivial" issues.

I think there may be more going on here than artwork, and there are ways to help the children understand who they, their parents, etc. really are. I recommend a new thread on that subject and you will get lots of good ideas.

Edited January 25, 2014 by CV75

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm glad that it is a non-issue in your home but I have a 9 yo who wants a "white daddy" and to know when he gets to be white too so he can be "righteous." So perhaps, you might understand why some of us do lose sleep over such "trivial" issues.

Too many times all four of my children (all grown now) that they had ANY other father? The bigger issue, is that far too often we cannot accept that we are created in God's imagine...and so we go about trying to create him in "our" imagine.

We are a reflection of him, not God a reflection of us.

In fact the promise is that " when we see him we will be like ["Him"]' for we shall see him as he is"

[BlueDreams]

This is why I respond the way I do--I don't put these preferences squarely on the institutional back either. If I were a bishop and a ward member came up to me and asked me if we could change the painting in the lobby (or wherever it hangs) to what he thought was a more authentic-looking Jesus, my initial reaction would be to say "Sure," and give him the media library catalog to pick one out, because I think there are a few to choose from and I have no personal or inspired preferences.

 

Ah, but I do... and that's OK.

 

I'm honestly curious....which ones do you think look more authentic-looking or at least more brown of some sort? I keep looking here trying to see it. I'll accept your opinion that you think they do. Though I have to say that it may frustrate the person who would hypothetically ask for such a thing, cuz I don't think they would see it either. But that's just me.  

 

I was thinking the same thing, in terms of keeping up with the changing demographics of the Church and the quality and reach of its publications in various lands. They have to be modern depictions to be up-to-date and accurate--that was my point. I think the Church takes great care to represent its varied membership well, and to represent scriptural personalities and deity with the best of what it has to work with.

 

Yes, and I'm glad that they do make good effort to have diverse faces represented in modern depictions. But to me, the problem is that the sense of spiritual heritage and connection only goes so far. Faces that need not be white...are...almost always.  It leaves the only examples as modern and generally of this world. But those angelic, spiritually raised up, and part of scriptural heritage aren't. And to me that's also a problem. It makes brownness seem almost temporary (again, not intentionally)

 

Thank goodness for the Gift of the Holy Ghost! We can know if our inspiration, preference or desires for certain depictions are righteous and we will have the means to either fulfill or handle them.

 

Yes. True. For me I don't sit on my bum, stewing about this. I act and I have the gift to express myself artistically. So my spiritual figures generally have a definite ethnic feel in depiction. I figure the only way I'll get what I want is if I do it myself . 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[BlueDreams]

I'm glad that it is a non-issue in your home but I have a 9 yo who wants a "white daddy" and to know when he gets to be white too so he can be "righteous." So perhaps, you might understand why some of us do lose sleep over such "trivial" issues.

 

I actually think this is fairly normal-ish. It's always a little disconcerting though. The brothers that I grew up with are either half-hispanic or half-moroccan. I'm half nigerian, so I'm darker than them. (we're all half white). There comes a point where they recognized the discrepancy. Either their friends were confused when they met me or it just dawned on them. And it was usually around that age. They were concerned/confused and would ask why I was darker (not all of them, but a couple). I'd explain that I had a different biological father and that we all had the same mom and so it made me look a little different. That was usually good enough for them. Sometimes this did include a number of awkward remarks or questions from them and I'd field them with simpler answers. They just start noticing differences a lot more around that age and it usually passes if you talk to them right about it. In fact later my siblings found it entertaining. My brother closest to me in age would purposely introduce me just to watch the confusion....and I'd feed it:

 

"She's your sister??" Yep...A moments pause as they think about the next logical idea. "Are one of you adopted?" Nope. Sit and watch their discomfort and confusion continue. 

 

The last time this happened we didn't think about it, because a part of the crowd was our extended family and we were acting like siblings will (ribbing each other, joking, etc). It slowly dawned on this guy that we were related as we mad family jokes with the rest of the fam:

"Oh! you guys are siblings!?" yep, what were you thinking we were. "I thought he was hitting on you and was actually getting somewhere with it" putting my arm around my lil bro...."yeah, he was." My aunt was mortified.

 

My favorite was with the youngest ones when I'd walk with them. They are so much younger than me and have light olive-tone skin, dark brown hair around the same shade as mine, and enough similar features and familiarity that people would assume I was their mom. One day we were walking in the store and the store person told him (then 4) to stay with his mom (me, a few yards away). He said "that's not my mom, that's my BD." I was so proud of him.  

 

I'd recommend showing "i'm a mormon" vids of black members or members from around the world to help him get the idea that just because your corner of the church is filled with nice and good white guys doesn't mean that every corner is and that being white does not give you the market on righteousness. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[volgadon]

Would you say that this guy looks "white?"

 

 

What about this guy?

 

[mormonnewb]

I actually think this is fairly normal-ish. It's always a little disconcerting though. The brothers that I grew up with are either half-hispanic or half-moroccan. I'm half nigerian, so I'm darker than them. (we're all half white). There comes a point where they recognized the discrepancy. Either their friends were confused when they met me or it just dawned on them. And it was usually around that age. They were concerned/confused and would ask why I was darker (not all of them, but a couple). I'd explain that I had a different biological father and that we all had the same mom and so it made me look a little different. That was usually good enough for them. Sometimes this did include a number of awkward remarks or questions from them and I'd field them with simpler answers. They just start noticing differences a lot more around that age and it usually passes if you talk to them right about it. In fact later my siblings found it entertaining. My brother closest to me in age would purposely introduce me just to watch the confusion....and I'd feed it:

 

"She's your sister??" Yep...A moments pause as they think about the next logical idea. "Are one of you adopted?" Nope. Sit and watch their discomfort and confusion continue. 

 

The last time this happened we didn't think about it, because a part of the crowd was our extended family and we were acting like siblings will (ribbing each other, joking, etc). It slowly dawned on this guy that we were related as we mad family jokes with the rest of the fam:

"Oh! you guys are siblings!?" yep, what were you thinking we were. "I thought he was hitting on you and was actually getting somewhere with it" putting my arm around my lil bro...."yeah, he was." My aunt was mortified.

 

My favorite was with the youngest ones when I'd walk with them. They are so much younger than me and have light olive-tone skin, dark brown hair around the same shade as mine, and enough similar features and familiarity that people would assume I was their mom. One day we were walking in the store and the store person told him (then 4) to stay with his mom (me, a few yards away). He said "that's not my mom, that's my BD." I was so proud of him.  

 

I'd recommend showing "i'm a mormon" vids of black members or members from around the world to help him get the idea that just because your corner of the church is filled with nice and good white guys doesn't mean that every corner is and that being white does not give you the market on righteousness. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

BD,

All of this time, I thought you were a MAN, Bruh! Do you know how dumb that makes me?

I came onto the board under the sexist assumption that only men would want to wade into the weeds of Church history, doctrine, etc. And despite the existence of a few women on the board, I held on to that prejudice despite any and all evidence to the contrary. In my head, I thought:

"BlueDreams isn't the most masculine name, but maybe, it was the name of HIS father's boat growing up."

"HE signs every post 'with luv'. It must be a black Mormon thing."

"HE sure seems to be thoughtful and considerate in conversation with others. Perhaps, HIS wife just left him or he lost his job and his confidence is waning. I'm sure it's just a phase."

And how I missed the avatar, I will never know.

But I think it's instructive (at least for me) that once you form an initial opinion, it takes A LOT to change it. Even in the face of new evidence to the contrary, our minds can automatically create explanations and justifications that will allow us to hold firm to false beliefs. This is something I must be mindful of in the future.

With embarrassment,

MN

[BlueDreams]

BD,

All of this time, I thought you were a MAN, Bruh! Do you know how dumb that makes me?

I came onto the board under the sexist assumption that only men would want to wade into the weeds of Church history, doctrine, etc. And despite the existence of a few women on the board, I held on to that prejudice despite any and all evidence to the contrary. In my head, I thought:

"BlueDreams isn't the most masculine name, but maybe, it was the name of HIS father's boat growing up."

"HE signs every post 'with luv'. It must be a black Mormon thing."

"HE sure seems to be thoughtful and considerate in conversation with others. Perhaps, HIS wife just left him or he lost his job and his confidence is waning. I'm sure it's just a phase."

And how I missed the avatar, I will never know.

But I think it's instructive (at least for me) that once you form an initial opinion, it takes A LOT to change it. Even in the face of new evidence to the contrary, our minds can automatically create explanations and justifications that will allow us to hold firm to false beliefs. This is something I must be mindful of in the future.

With embarrassment,

MN

 

Yeah, I was wondering that when you used the word Bruh. Never heard that used for me ever. And to make you feel dummer: My avatar are my lips. That's right, my Lips! You have to be one of 2 people on this board who doesn't know I'm a girl. And you darned sexist: I've been interested in social issues, doctrinal issues, and church history stuff since I was 14! Also, the username comes from a tattoo I designed for an art project of a blue horse sleeping on the moon when I was a teen. I've been signing "with luv" for around 9+ years and it has nothing to do with me being a black, white, or mixed mormon...but a way to remind myself to be kind. I'm mostly single and have no husband, let alone a wife. My confidence is definitely in tact. My consideration is because no one can see how very sarcastic I am in real life....or blunt.....or brash. That doesn't usually translate well online.

 

And to give you a better picture of what I actually look like: I'm 5'5" on a good day, am very slim, look pretty stereotypically mixed race, have long curly dark copper-brown hair, and have one of those faces that if you tried to make me look more like a man, you'd seriously fail. There's nothing masculine looking about me. (if my chin and lips are any indication....it doesn't get more masculine the further up you go, just ask Calmoriah or juliann. They've seen a pic)

 

No, but seriously you're not the first. Often the default for plenty is male.... Now you just sit there and accept your abject sexist mental blindness and try to remember that you're currently "talking" to a girl who's in her mid-twenties but is constantly mistaken as no older than 19-20. 

 

With a woman's voice, 

BD

Edited January 25, 2014 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

I saw BD's pic in the "I'm a Mormon" campaign, what a doll. MN, atleast you apologised. Tell ya what, I've mistook one or two people on here as men, when they were women. But am just a tad offended about the comment about women not normally into church history, doctrine etc. Though you could be right. Maybe they're too busy running a family, . ETA: I don't know how BD got so darn smart, so stinkin' young too! Her posts are so mature, maybe a very old soul if we're to believe in reincarnation. Or just wise beyond her years.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Dbl post

Edited January 25, 2014 by Tacenda