Why Must Jesus Be Painted White?

[Calm]

Hint for newbies young and old...besides having kittens for one's avatar, another clue that someone is a woman is if there is the UMW in a signature....there are two male honourary UMWs, but they don't post much anymore...if at all. I think one was Selek and it was his peanut brittle that got him drafted, another guy we brought on but none of us remember why....probably because he was just so dang cute.

Another hint...don't ask what UMW stands for, if we told you we would have to kill you...and by a very unpleasant death by drowning either in MiracleWhip for those of us who believe in the Real Thing or Mayo for those that find that condiment somewhat more horrific....or maybe we would be kind and just sit on you for several days force feeding Mayo and uttering dire threats until we were assured of your silence.

If you have issues with Mayo, take that up with Morningstar as that is her obsession...the rest of us just know a handy obsession when we see it.

BD would of course just smile if asked and demurely shake her head as she is of the newer recruits and not as vicious and diabolical as us old timers.

PS: after all that I just realised I had deleted the logo from my sig...I fear to think what Morningstar will come up with for me at our next gathering...

Edited January 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Would you say that this guy looks "white?"

 

Great pic, and spe

Great pic and it speaks directly to the point at hand imo

[volgadon]

Hint for newbies young and old...besides having kittens for one's avatar, another clue that someone is a woman is if there is the UMW in a signature....there are two male honourary UMWs, but they don't post much anymore...if at all. I think one was Selek and it was his peanut brittle that got him drafted, another guy we brought on but none of us remember why....probably because he was just so dang cute.

Another hint...don't ask what UMW stands for, if we told you we would have to kill you...and by a very unpleasant death by drowning either in MiracleWhip for those of us who believe in the Real Thing or Mayo for those that find that condiment somewhat more horrific....or maybe we would be kind and just sit on you for several days force feeding Mayo and uttering dire threats until we were assured of your silence.

If you have issues with Mayo, take that up with Morningstar as that is her obsession...the rest of us just know a handy obsession when we see it.

BD would of course just smile if asked and demurely shake her head as she is of the newer recruits and not as vicious and diabolical as us old timers.

PS: after all that I just realised I had deleted the logo from my sig...I fear to think what Morningstar will come up with for me at our next gathering...

 

Of course, for especially heinous offences, the torture is made more diabolically exquisite by the use of Hollandaise.

[Tacenda]

Of course, for especially heinous offences, the torture is made more diabolically exquisite by the use of Hollandaise.

I use to be into Mayo but now it's the Real Thing, but Hollandaise, never tried that.

[california boy]

Just to throw a little Mormon folklore into the mix.  A long time ago, I can't even remember the date, but the Oakland temple was closed for quite a while for renovation.  So some in our ward arranged a trip down to the Los Angeles temple.  While we were there, the rumor I heard is that there was a painting of Jesus being baptized by John in the baptistry.  I was told that when David O McKay saw the painting he said that the painting was the closest likeness of what Jesus really looked like he had ever seen.  So of course, I wandered down to the baptistry and sure enough there is one wall painted depicting the baptism of Christ on it.  To this day, I remember what Christ looked like.  He was indeed nothing like any other painting of Christ that I had ever seen.  He was more rough.  Definitely more ethnic. Strong features, but definitely not what I would call handsome.

 

Has anyone else ever heard this?  Has anyone else ever seen the painting in the baptistry in the Los Angeles temple?  I have never seen a reproduction of the mural in any church publication.

[BlueDreams]

Great pic and it speaks directly to the point at hand imo

 

I didn't really comment, because black and whites aren't really good at deducing whether one looks white. Thurgood marshal is a good example (see second and third pic)

 

Here's an arab guy who kinda looks like the pics in color (there was another that was even darker and still looked like the pic when put in sepia. But now I can't find it)

 

 Just to show it may not be so black and white (pun intended)

 

And frankly, to both of those my first thought was....not really.  

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited January 25, 2014 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

I have a granddaughter as old as you. She too is drop dead gorgeous, and that is not just a proud Grandpa talking.

[volgadon]

I didn't really comment, because black and whites aren't really good at deducing whether one looks white. Thurgood marshal is a good example (see second and third pic)

 

Here's an arab guy who kinda looks like the pics in color (there was another that was even darker and still looked like the pic when put in sepia. But now I can't find it)

 

 Just to show it may not be so black and white (pun intended)

 

And frankly, to both of those my first thought was....not really.  

 

With luv,

BD 

 

By not really, do you mean don't really look white?

 

In that case, what about this guy?

 

I mean the one standing next to Ben-Gurion, on the right hand side.

 

[Calm]

Made me think of Jaques Cousteau for some reason...the hair perhaps...or the smile.

[BlueDreams]

By not really, do you mean don't really look white?

 

In that case, what about this guy?

 

I mean the one standing next to Ben-Gurion, on the right hand side.

 

Yes and yes. But personally to me its a point of probability than possibility. I could have yanked out some better modern examples of people that looked more white from ethnic groups in the general area (not sure why the old pics, personally). But for every light haired, lighter skinned person, I found 20+ more with darker tan/browns and to most people here would be considered "ethnic" of some sort or "mixed with something."  And I think that's more the point.

 

The question is likelihood. How likely is it that Christ looks like the portrayals we usually have. And to it's not very likely.

 

Also, one other funny thing you might not know. People who once were darker in their youth often lighten as they age. I used to get really really dark, but am slowly losing that ability the older I get. 

 

With luv,

BD  

[CV75]

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.  

 

 

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)

 

 

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 

The way I generally look at religious art, they all authentic enough for me! So I think the judgment depends on how brown the depiction has to be to meet one’s subjective requirement for authenticity. For me, that is nil.

 

On the New Testament pages (your link), Jesus doesn’t appear as having either the lightest or brownest countenance of the characters in many of the group images, so he is relatively or comparatively both “more brown” and “less brown” than other characters in those paintings. The same from the set in the “Jesus Christ Image Category”; the ones that I find Him “brownest” are: (row, column): 3, 3; 3, 5; 5, 5; 6, 4. But that’s just me; of course to someone else He will be insufficiently brown / too white in all the pictures. I don't suppose anyone would say He is not white enough... I guess the best way to measure brownness is to use a spectrometer.

 

Today I was looking at the various paintings of Jesus in the temple with the idea of assessing their authenticity/brownness. The Spirit was too strong for me to do that. Then I came home and saw your post and thought I'd try it again with a more critical eye!

 

When I look at the modern photos of Church members in Church venues, I see them as “angelic, spiritually raised up, and part of scriptural heritage.” Today in the temple I witnessed the sealing of an adopted baby girl to her interracial parents, with their three biological children in attendance. They were all “angelic, spiritually raised up, and part of scriptural heritage.” Especially in terms of scriptural heritage, the blessings of Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant were specifically discussed by the sealer before the ordinance. These are the members of the living Church, and I think the Church tries to capture this in its publication, missionary and PR material. To me that is more important than history, just as the charity shown by members is more important than their explanation of doctrine.

 

I understand some view the lack of perceived authenticity in Church art as a problem; the artwork of Joseph Smith translating the plates has been discussed often on this board. Hence my default reliance upon faith and the Spirit.

 

I think it is great that you can create your own art, and that is a greater gift to convey and derive spiritual meaning through your art. My mother took art classes while we were growing up, and while we weren’t religious, our home was graced with a number of portraits of brown people. I am lucky enough to have a couple still hanging around some 50 years later!

[CV75]

I recall a story of President Hinckley making some last-minute changes to the Church performance for the opening/closing ceremony, something about changing a dance routine or costumes... turned out to be the best artistic choices according to the professionals involved... anyone have this article? It makes me think that maybe those with the keys have the right/responsibility to select "official" artwork as well.

[BlueDreams]

The way I generally look at religious art, they all authentic enough for me! So I think the judgment depends on how brown the depiction has to be to meet one’s subjective requirement for authenticity. For me, that is nil.

 

On the New Testament pages (your link), Jesus doesn’t appear as having either the lightest or brownest countenance of the characters in many of the group images, so he is relatively or comparatively both “more brown” and “less brown” than other characters in those paintings. The same from the set in the “Jesus Christ Image Category”; the ones that I find Him “brownest” are: (row, column): 3, 3; 3, 5; 5, 5; 6, 4. But that’s just me; of course to someone else He will be insufficiently brown / too white in all the pictures. I don't suppose anyone would say He is not white enough... I guess the best way to measure brownness is to use a spectrometer.

 

Today I was looking at the various paintings of Jesus in the temple with the idea of assessing their authenticity/brownness. The Spirit was too strong for me to do that. Then I came home and saw your post and thought I'd try it again with a more critical eye!

 

When I look at the modern photos of Church members in Church venues, I see them as “angelic, spiritually raised up, and part of scriptural heritage.” Today in the temple I witnessed the sealing of an adopted baby girl to her interracial parents, with their three biological children in attendance. They were all “angelic, spiritually raised up, and part of scriptural heritage.” Especially in terms of scriptural heritage, the blessings of Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant were specifically discussed by the sealer before the ordinance. These are the members of the living Church, and I think the Church tries to capture this in its publication, missionary and PR material. To me that is more important than history, just as the charity shown by members is more important than their explanation of doctrine.

 

I understand some view the lack of perceived authenticity in Church art as a problem; the artwork of Joseph Smith translating the plates has been discussed often on this board. Hence my default reliance upon faith and the Spirit.

 

I think it is great that you can create your own art, and that is a greater gift to convey and derive spiritual meaning through your art. My mother took art classes while we were growing up, and while we weren’t religious, our home was graced with a number of portraits of brown people. I am lucky enough to have a couple still hanging around some 50 years later!

 

I'm glad you had a good time at the temple. It was good to hear. I was working there today and while reading your post I realized there wasn't a single piece that I even really saw. I would say generally that it's not something I generally worry or think about. I've mentioned it here only because I can understand newb's point and do think there is some validity to it. But I still enjoy the art of, say kershisnik or carl bloch, or richards. It doesn't take away from my enjoyment of them just because none of their figures are of different ethnic groups. I would be sad to know you wasted a good temple trip looking for a brown Jesus . There has only been 2 times that it bothered me in the temple: When I realized that everybody saw the same vid as I did even though there was no real need to have them portrayed as white. And when the vids changed. Most the time it doesn't even register. I am content in my living heritage. 

 

My art is a specific choice of preference but also expressing something deep within my soul. I find such beauty in the true interaction and incorporation of people of all nations. Not just in face, but in the traditions and aspects of peoples that fuels new perspective and insight into the gospel. When I think of heaven I think of the beautiful faces God has created, the amazing souls He has formed. All shades of brown, to the barest hint to the deepest hues. All features and shapes. I think of how God has been the thread in their lives for generations in ways we can barely comprehend. And how that has born fruit as members today. Heritage is important in the way it creates and forms who we are today and what we reach for tomorrow. It's why it's a restoration. It's why we're told to remember. To me, it's apart of tying us all to our mutual past, of generations of intertwining peoples. We're a church that literally binds the past to the future in the present, as you saw today. In my art I try to give expression to that. That it's not just a beginning of new-found spiritual conversion, but a continuation of something deep, eternal, and universal. Encompassing all of humanity and starting from the beginning on down. I can't say what is more important. For me art is birthing a part of who I am and see. I don't personally need Jesus to look more authentic. I certainly don't want artists to alter their expression to fit my own. If it hasn't become abundantly clear yet, I don't even really like too realistic art. 

 

Part of me has honestly sat and wondered how in the world I got in this debate at all and what exactly it is I'm debating. It's like constantly putting on 2 lenses on back and forth, when I don't particularly enjoy either but see a small point in both of them. Minus the orange Jesus I mentioned earlier, the other Christ painting I own is this. He has the artistic look of the pointy bearded Christ that's also likely white (esp considering the artist). It's the context that matters to me and the expression of having having all earth note His divinity. I think it's just that, though I may not agree with newb's idea exactly, I do understand the sense of almost rewriting a narrative of who people of (various) color are in the church. Or finding greater space for very different stories or expressions of those stories and allowing them to stand as equally credible. I don't know if it's exactly something that I can easily explain for myself. It's not found in one event or moment or story, but a series of them that have occurred throughout my life that happen to fall around themes of religion, family, gender, and race (among other things). It's being given various narrative, or find social expectations to fit various narratives and finding most of them fall short of what you feel and know for yourself. It's wanting to have the space for that story to have greater validity and acceptance in whatever public square (church, society, etc).    

 

On the other note of pictures: I think it's one of those things we'll just have to agree to disagree with. I could feasibly see it with the sketch at the end. But that's about it. Funny enough, I was looking at my brother when he went through this Jesus phase in looks. This is the one who's half moroccan (of the arabic sort) and half white. He ID's as white and most people see him as such. And he really does look like a good number of the pictures (with less beard and a little more curl). So I'll meet you (almost literally ) half way by giving you that.  

 

 It makes me think that maybe those with the keys have the right/responsibility to select "official" artwork as well.

 

 

Gosh, I hope not. Cuz I'm really not a fan of a lot of the "official art."  

 

 

With luv,

BD

[volgadon]

Yes and yes. But personally to me its a point of probability than possibility. I could have yanked out some better modern examples of people that looked more white from ethnic groups in the general area (not sure why the old pics, personally). But for every light haired, lighter skinned person, I found 20+ more with darker tan/browns and to most people here would be considered "ethnic" of some sort or "mixed with something."  And I think that's more the point.

 

The question is likelihood. How likely is it that Christ looks like the portrayals we usually have. And to it's not very likely.

 

Also, one other funny thing you might not know. People who once were darker in their youth often lighten as they age. I used to get really really dark, but am slowly losing that ability the older I get. 

 

With luv,

BD  

 

The old guy is the same person as the young man in the B/W photo. Pesach Pannitch, a former yeshiva student from Poland who studied orientology and Arabic after moving to British Mandate Palestine. He left the university to live as a Bedouin shepherd for a few years. Although he became entirely at home as a Bedouin, his facial features are note precisely Bedouin, if you look closely. I've no doubt that had I found a picture of the young Pesach in Polish Jewish dress before the deep tan Newb would have dismissed it as readily as my other examples, especially the Rembrandt portrait. Pesach changed his surname to Bar-Adon and became an archaeologist. The picture of him as an old man is when he discovered the Cave of Treasures by the Dead Sea. He really is only a shade darker than Ben-Gurion.

The irony is that there is an expectation of what a Palestinian/Middle-Easterner should look like which goes hand-in-hand with the assumption that the look is timeless. I posted an example of a Bedouin chieftain with fairly light features, certainly lighter than Pesach's just to show that what we might consider a Middle-Eastern look, isn't always so. 

Here is another of Felix Bonfils' photos. The two Bedouin musicians come from Sudanese slaves of which there was a large influx during the 19th century, though the one on the right has more pronounced Bedouin features.

 

 

There is more to this than just skin tone and the true diversity of the Middle East gets overlooked. As far as skin tone goes, shepherds, for example, would have been on the darker side of the spectrum, because their occupation had them exposed to the sun and harsh weather conditions more than anyone else. There is no reason to presuppose that the darker look is always going to be the more "authentic" look.

[saemo]

My wife collects nativity scenes. We have picked up several from trips to Africa where Mary, Joseph and the Christ child are depicted as non-white. I think people tend to visualize their deities through a cultural lens. Christianity was principally a European religion for much of its 2000 year history. Because of this, much of the Christian art depicts characters of European descent.

European Christian art isn't taken so literally. Ie, I don't know of any Christian who would claim Michael Angelo painted God exactly as he looks. There is more of a iconographic tradition in Christianity, where the meaning that is being conveyed is the point of the art.

The Nativity represents the Incarnation of Christ. Racial representation is along the lines of the universality of Salvation. Christ died for all. I don't think anyone believes Jesus was Japanese or Northern European. Christian art isn't about what Jesus looked like, it is about who he is and what he did.

Edited January 26, 2014 by saemo

[CV75]

My art is a specific choice of preference but also expressing something deep within my soul.

That is why I reacted to the OP's opinion-stated-as-fact criticism that something as subjective as religious art is historically inaccurate.

 

Bottom line: if you have a link, I'd like to see your artwork!

[BlueDreams]

That is why I reacted to the OP's opinion-stated-as-fact criticism that something as subjective as religious art is historically inaccurate.

 

Bottom line: if you have a link, I'd like to see your artwork!

 

No, sorry. I don't. Here's 2 that may or may not show up from FB. Last time I tried this only some people could see them and I couldn't fix it. Also.. Sorry for the size. I am not very tech savvy.

 

 

Tears of Eternity. 2013

 

 

Living Water 2009....I think. (And no, it not me)

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 26, 2014 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

No, sorry. I don't. Here's 2 that may or may not show up from FB. Last time I tried this only some people could see them and I couldn't fix it. Also.. Sorry for the size. I am not very tech savvy.

Tears of Eternity. 2013

Living Water 2009....I think. (And no, it not me)

With luv,

BD

Extraordinary!

[Calm]

Just to throw a little Mormon folklore into the mix. A long time ago, I can't even remember the date, but the Oakland temple was closed for quite a while for renovation. So some in our ward arranged a trip down to the Los Angeles temple. While we were there, the rumor I heard is that there was a painting of Jesus being baptized by John in the baptistry. I was told that when David O McKay saw the painting he said that the painting was the closest likeness of what Jesus really looked like he had ever seen. So of course, I wandered down to the baptistry and sure enough there is one wall painted depicting the baptism of Christ on it. To this day, I remember what Christ looked like. He was indeed nothing like any other painting of Christ that I had ever seen. He was more rough. Definitely more ethnic. Strong features, but definitely not what I would call handsome.

Has anyone else ever heard this? Has anyone else ever seen the painting in the baptistry in the Los Angeles temple? I have never seen a reproduction of the mural in any church publication.

Looking for this, found this nice site for temple murals:

http://thetrumpetstone.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html

Site has the picture you want, just too small for details...

http://thetrumpetstone.blogspot.com/2011/04/lds-temple-murals-pt-6-baptistery.html

Edited January 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[CV75]

No, sorry. I don't. Here's 2 that may or may not show up from FB. Last time I tried this only some people could see them and I couldn't fix it. Also.. Sorry for the size. I am not very tech savvy.

 

Tears of Eternity. 2013

 

Living Water 2009....I think. (And no, it not me)

 

Beautiful work! Thank you for sharing!

 

Here's one from when was almost 7 years old: 

 > I don't know why, but I can't upload it! (anybody know what file extension do i need to use for this community?)

 

The scanner cropped them so you don't get the full impact LOL...

 

...and one from when I was 9 years old (from life):

 > I don't know why, but I can't upload it!

 

Five decades later, I'm just as good!

 

Keep up the outstanding work!

Edited January 26, 2014 by CV75

[CV75]

<<<using avatar to display masterpieces

Edited January 26, 2014 by CV75

[CV75]

Aww, forget it!

Edited January 26, 2014 by CV75

[BlueDreams]

I like the apple. That's better than what I could paint at 7

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

That's tons better then I can paint now.

[california boy]

Looking for this, found this nice site for temple murals:

http://thetrumpetstone.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html

Site has the picture you want, just too small for details...

http://thetrumpetstone.blogspot.com/2011/04/lds-temple-murals-pt-6-baptistery.html

Great find.  Thanks.   It is too bad the photos are so small.  I wish we could click on them to get a full screen view of all of the photos.  They are really stunning murals.  It is hard to see from the very small baptistry photo how different the representation of Christ is from the normal angelic white profile that is so common.  Or maybe I am just remembering it differently.  I think I saw it in the 80's.  So a lot of time has passed.