Were Adam And Eve White?

[thesometimesaint]

Aren't the other language versions dubbed from the English film?

 

All I'm saying is we need to recognize there is great diversity within the church and that our monochrome version of the gospel can hurt people who don't fit the idealized temple version. People still feel and even teach (I've heard it taught at church but not conference) that everyone in the celestial kingdom will be white. When people hear that kind of thing and then they only see white representation in the temple and in the top quorum of the church, it could cause some pain. And that is not immaterial.

 

Not all. There is a Sign Language version. I don't know if they are dubbed or not, but I suspect they are. 

 

Will there someday be various skin colors presented in the ceremony? I sure hope so. I long for the day when all are judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin. 

[BlueDreams]

To the OP:

 

Officially I don't think any of us know.

My personal opinion, no, they probably weren't. But that's just my gut feeling. 

 

I  would suggest that anyone who is worried about the color/race of the actors portraying Adam and Eve while they are in the temple is probably not ready to be there. Just saying. 

 

I would disagree with that suggestion. I'm a temple worker of 3 years. I know most of the endowment by heart. I open my scriptures often to find the temple in many of these verses. I utterly love the House of the Lord. But I was disappointed when Adam and Eve were white....for all three new videos. I ran through the reasons, especially with the last video when Eve is a bottle blonde and all of them have hair of the 21st century, that obvious symbolic representations of Adam and Eve had to be white. I remember the deflated feeling I had as I saw the beginning of a new video and hoped anew for a moment (they put in a light brown apostle in the background in the second.... so maybe)...and was disappointed. I went through the feasible reasons why they wouldn't in my mind and none of them seemed to fit. A worldwide church with a large percentage of it's members varying shades of brown, and all we had were the palest variety to represent the start of all humanity.

 

And it still bothers me....I figure I'll have to wait another round before I get a brown Eve. I'm not even picky about what type of brown Eve would be....just any color would throw a monkey wrench into old beliefs that still linger and general assumptions about where diversity came from/what will happen to our looks after. You think those would be gone, but I saw someone just the other day (a black convert, I think) asking questions about what color we would be in heaven, curses, etc....because all depictions of the ancient folk are always a shape of European (usually the northern brand

 

So no, it has nothing to do with preparedness busybee. I love my faith, I have a good testimony, I know/love the temple....and it still bothers me. In part because our faiths (ie. minorities' experiences) magically appear in representational LDS images mostly 40 years ago (usually in photography...it's closer to 10 years in art).There's now one painting of Jane Manning James in a few temples, but that's about it. But in art we are astoundingly missing, unless we're the bad/fallen guys. I don't know how to explain exactly the effect that has as a person of color...but I assure you it's not pleasant.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited August 24, 2015 by BlueDreams

[JAHS]

I don't remember ever hearing that Joseph said Jesus had blue eyes. Very interesting. Reference?

 

Here's a few references that mention the blue eyes of Jesus:

 

"A description of the vision given by Alexander Neibaur, a teacher who instructed Joseph Smith in German and Hebrew. He recorded in his personal journal, dated May 24, 1844, the following account as related to him by Joseph:

[Joseph Smith] went into the Wood to pray kneelt himself down... saw a fire towards heaven come near and nearer saw a personage in the fire light complexion blue eyes a piece of white cloth drawn over his shoulders his right arm bear after a wile a other person came to the side of the first." (Times and Seasons 3 (March 1, 1842): 706)

 

"During the winter that I boarded with[bro[ther] Joseph... we had a number of prayer meetings, in the Prophet's chamber.... In one of those meetings the Prophet told us if we could humble ourselves before God, and exersise [sic] strong faith, we should see the face of the Lord. And about midday the visions of my mind were opened, and the eyes of my understanding were enlightened, and I saw the form of a man, most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in a most majestic form, His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white, whiter than any garment I had ever before seen. His countenance was the most penetrating, and yet most lovely. (Orson Pratt, An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions (Edinburgh: n.p., 1840),)

[TheSkepticChristian]

As Adam and Eve are metaphorical rather than historical persons, I think any color for the actors should be fine. 

 

but always white American? there are many LDS that still believe the original human race is white, but Cain became black because of sin, or that black skin used to be a curse. A black adam or eve in the temple films will open new possibilities, and it will kill racist assumptions.

 

IT is not fair that Adam and Eve are always white American, we need a black Adam at least for one temple film.

A black Adam or Eve will send a strong message against racism, especially against racist assumptions of the 19th and early 20th century church leaders.

 

 

PS A black Adam or Eve will more accuratly represent the first humans

 

 

Officially I don't think any of us know.

 

and that is why Adam and Eve shouldn't always be white.

Edited August 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

I disagree, there are many LDS that still believe the original human race is white, but Cain became black because of sin.

A black adam or eve in the the temple films will open new possibilities, and it will kill racist assumptions.

 

ITI s not fair that Adam and Eve are always white American, we need a black Adam at least for one temple film.

A black Adam or Eve will send a strong message against racism, especially against racist assumptions of the 19th and early 20th century church leaders.

 

 

PS A black Adam or Eve will more accuratly represent the first humans

 

 

 

and that is why Adam and Eve shouldn't always be white.

 

I don't believe it is necessary to aid the continuance of some members prejudices. However to be fair diversity just for the sake of diversity isn't a goal of the Church. Imagine the hew and cry if Lucifer was portrayed by a black man.

[Ahab]

White is the combination of all colors so that would make the most sense.

[jkwilliams]

White is the combination of all colors so that would make the most sense.

 

Actually, white is the absence of color.

[Gray]

but always white American? there are many LDS that still believe the original human race is white, but Cain became black because of sin, or that black skin used to be a curse. A black adam or eve in the temple films will open new possibilities, and it will kill racist assumptions.

 

IT is not fair that Adam and Eve are always white American, we need a black Adam at least for one temple film.

A black Adam or Eve will send a strong message against racism, especially against racist assumptions of the 19th and early 20th century church leaders.

 

 

PS A black Adam or Eve will more accuratly represent the first humans

 

 

 

and that is why Adam and Eve shouldn't always be white.

 

Sure, some more diversity among the actors would be great, to help dispel any lingering myths about cursed races. 

[Gray]

White is the combination of all colors so that would make the most sense.

 

I believe you're thinking of black

[rodheadlee]

White is the combination of all colors so that would make the most sense.

Well they were white when the came out of the Garden of Eden because there was plenty of shade, after they got booted out they turned red with sunburn. after many years of toiling in the land they turned dark brown with a fabulous tan. 

[Ahab]

White is...composed of a mixture of all (as in ALL) frequencies of the light of the visible spectrum.

That's the white I am talking about.

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

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab is correct when it comes to color. Pigment is a different question. Skin hew is unrelated to both, and is a function of the amount of melanin in the skin. Absence of melanin makes a albino. There are albino blacks in Africa and they experience severe discrimination.

SEE https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=albino+blacks+in+Africa&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-005

[Gray]

White is...composed of a mixture of all (as in ALL) frequencies of the light of the visible spectrum.

That's the white I am talking about.

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

 

That's light itself, but when we're talking about pigments, if you want to make black, mix all colors together and black (or very dark brown) will be what you see. 

Edited August 24, 2015 by Gray

[halconero]

Well, according to Joseph Smith, Jesus had blue eyes.  So I think it might be reasonable to assume that he inherited his fathers looks as opposed to the semitic traits of the Middle east through Mary. Either way, we do know the father and the son look the same.   Now, given that, depending on what one believes about Adam-God, either Adam looked the same as Jesus, or they both had the same physical father.  Just saying...

It's not like blue eyes or blond hair are unknown in the region. The whole "Semitic" look is a very very broad generalization.

Jews, Egyptians, Syrians, etc could and did vary at the time of Christ. They would have also been largely indistinguishable from Greeks or Romans, the two prevailing groups. The notion that they kept themselves distinct from their Gentile counterparts in terms of dress and style is largely discarded in the face of literary and archeaological evidence.

I've attached a few pictures of not atypical features you might see across the Levant, including in Jesus' time.

[Guest]

Admittedly, I haven't been to the temple in about 9 years, but last I heard, the actors playing Adam and Eve were white Americans. I notice there's some controversy out there about the physical features of our earliest ancestors, who apparently came from Africa. A number of people have suggested that Adam and Eve would have been black. I wonder if having actors who are not Caucasian might be more inclusive to members around the world.

The Temple film was made in America...what a shock the actors are white Americians; oh the horror, and how it makes no difference who plays the part or what race they might have been.

[Ahab]

Ahab is correct when it comes to color. Pigment is a different question. Skin hew is unrelated to both, and is a function of the amount of melanin in the skin. Absence of melanin makes a albino. There are albino blacks in Africa and they experience severe discrimination.

SEE https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=albino+blacks+in+Africa&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-005

The fall of Adam and Eve resulted in changes to their bodies so we can't really compare their state before the fall to our state now afterwards. What would be a fair comparison is our Savior's state after he was resurrected when he showed himself in his glory, and white from his light was a prominent feature of his appearance then. We should also bear in mind that he was also able to show himself to others without them realizing that he was resurrected, as he did with 2 of his disciples on the road to Emmaus. So on some occasions his skin color/appearance may not be in every color included in white.

[The Nehor]

That sure would have made it easier for the guards in the Garden of Gethsemane if Judas would have just said, "get the guy with the blue eyes".

It happened at night. Eye color is hard to distinguish in the dark (especially before street lights) unless you get really close.

[The Nehor]

Well, if they are the parents of all races then logically they were mutts.

[TheSkepticChristian]

isn't a goal of the Church.

 

A significant number of church leaders taught racist assumptions for years, it is time for our church to send a message against racist assumptions, especially to reinforce what it say in the new essay.

 

We need to tell the church that we want to see a black Adam or Eve, at least for one temple film

 

Imagine the hew and cry if Lucifer was portrayed by a black man.

 

if a black Adam or Eve are also in the same film, it shouldn't really matter.

Remember, many church leaders taught that the mark of Cain is black skin, and that black skin used to be a curse. 

 

 

Sure, some more diversity among the actors would be great, to help dispel any lingering myths about cursed races. 

 

Let's tell that church that, it is very important

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

P: (801) 240-1000

50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States

Edited August 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[BlueDreams]

The Temple film was made in America...what a shock the actors are white Americians; oh the horror, and how it makes no difference who plays the part or what race they might have been.

 

Even though there aren't a ton of minority members in the U.S (percentage wise).....there's still plenty enough that if they wanted to, they could have easily found active, temple worthy, non-white American actors....heck they could have found a number who weren't American. Last I checked there's plenty of both in the U.S. to fill in 1-2 acting roles. 

[BlueDreams]

 

We need to tell the church that we want to see a black Adam or Eve, at least for one temple film

 

That seems excessive....at this point I'm sure at least a few Church Leaders have had this discussion/concern brought up to them before.

Edited August 24, 2015 by BlueDreams

[KevinG]

The "Out of Africa" genetic data goes back 25K - 75k years depending on the "race" (ethnicity is a better term) and does not necessarily correlate to Adam and Eve or the Tribes of Israel.  Of course that depends on subscribing to a literal 6000 year history, what defines modern man (Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or written communication, or covenants with God, or ???).

 

If you subscribe to Adam and Eve being the direct ancestors of Israel, then I would argue that a middle-eastern or Levant ethnicity would be most accurate.

 

Of course if you want genetic purity the San people of Ethiopia are the root stock of modern ethnicities. 

 

Of course if you want to check African-American on your application forms be prepared to do a lot of explaining.

[KevinG]

Now lets discuss the horribly outdated hairstyles on the temple films.  Ouch!

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

I debate your assertion that a "significant" number of LDS still believe outdated theories on race that were never doctrinal, and are now actively being debunked by LDS General Authorities

How many times did General Authorities say that "black skin was never a curse"? or that the first humans were not necessarily white?

 

How many times do General Authorities talk about gay marriage? I will answer that one, all the time.

and they instructed bishops to read a letter about gay marriage to their congregations.

 

 

Now it took me about 10 minutes to find all of these quotes from Apostles and Prophets, some from General Conference talks.  You should be able to find more.

You didn't answer my question at all. I am not talking about the origin of the priesthood ban, I am not talking about "neutral in heaven"

Many LDS believe the mark of Cain is black skin, when did General Authorities debunk that?

 

and do they talk about it the time like they do with gay marriage?

 

 

If you subscribe to Adam and Eve being the direct ancestors of Israel, then I would argue that a middle-eastern or Levant ethnicity would be most accurate.

 

Again, we need to see a black Adam or Eve because that will kill racist assumptions. A significant number of LDS assume that

1. Black skin used to be a curse

2. The original human race is white

3. the lamanite curse is  dark skin

4. racist statements by early church leaders are correct

 

Nobody knows the color of skin of Adam (if he existed), it is not about accuracy, it is about sending a message against racism, and it is simply not fair that Adam is always a white American.

 

Let's tell the church we want to see a black Adam or Eve, at least for one film

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

P: (801) 240-1000

50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States

 

 

Now lets discuss the horribly outdated hairstyles on the temple films.  Ouch!

 

and why is that important?

Edited August 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[KevinG]

I debate your assertion that a "significant" number of LDS still believe outdated theories on race that were never doctrinal, and are now actively being debunked by LDS General Authorities.  Yes we still have our bigoted holdouts but let's not pretend that the average Latter-day Saint would be shocked by seeing a dark skinned actor portraying Adam and/or Eve in a temple film.

 

The hair comment was a joke - but it does illustrate the relative importance of superficial things like the appearance of actors in a Temple film.

 

You go ahead and write the Temple Department about the films.  I have enough work to do renewing my Temple recommend without taking time to write a letter complaining about how the ordinances are portrayed.  Mind you perhaps I don't see it as an issue because here in Atlanta I routinely worship and work with black members in the Temple.