Our Blue-Eyed Savior
Recently, our up and coming blogger, Petunia, daughter of mfranti, asked this question:
So, out of curiousity, why is Jesus ALWAYS depicted as white? He was born in israel and anyone who comes Israel now or then does not usually come to be of a lighter complexion. Or is He depicted as white because He wasn’t born from His mother and father genetics but from the Lords? The more I come across photos of the Lord, the more it provokes me to wonder, why is He depicted this way?
I have to say, I was not that precocious as a 16-year old. I lived in a mostly white world, and it never occurred to me that there was something wildly disingenuous about a blue-eyed Jesus, or a blonde-haired woman at the well. Exhibit A:
I really never thought about the cultural meaning behind pictures of Jesus until I was directly prompted to do so while teaching a seminary class a couple of years ago. The class I was teaching was probably about 65% African, 20% African-American, and 10% white. I was teaching in our RS room, about some topic from the New Testament, when one young man, a visitor to our class, and a West African immigrant, raised his hand to ask a completely unrelated question.
“See that picture of Jesus behind you? Well, sometimes I see pictures of Jesus and he’s Black. Why does he look different in his different pictures?”
Taken a little by surprise, I muttered a quick reply:
“Well, Jesus was actually Jewish, so he probably looked just….. Jewish. [embarrassed pause] Anyway, that’s not what we’re talking about right now.”
Utter teaching fail, I know.
Anyway, later that very week, I happened to be introduced to this video, a lecture at the Harvard Divinity School by James H. Cone. Cone is the father of Black Liberation Theology in America, a movement inspired by the liberation theology movement in Latin America.
Liberation theology is, quite possibly, the worldview that most closely matches my own of all that I have ever come across. It is an argument that God is not neutral in history - God is on the side of the poor and the oppressed, against the wealthy, powerful oppressors. In order to be with God, and to build up his/her kingdom, you must also be with the poor. Zion cannot exist without justice and equality.
There are many different branches of liberation theology now, including feminist (!) and queer liberation theology. But the one introduced to me the week after I blew off a student’s question is the one that I have found most compelling so far: Black liberation theology.
Cone describes how Jesus was downtrodden and oppressed during his mortal ministry. He details how Christ was persecuted, misunderstood, and hunted, until finally his oppressors tortured him and hung him to a tree.
And then he talks about the lynching tree in America.
And how Black Americans could be hunted down and caught for any perceived offense. And how their oppressors, while filled with righteous indignation and claiming God as their backer, would burn them at the stake, or string them up in a tree.
But Jesus is not with the people doing the lynching. He is up, in the tree, being hung.
Jesus is Black.
I went to my seminary class the following week, hoping the same young man would be visiting, so that I could amend my answer. Sadly, he was not there, so I just reminded the class of his question, said that I had been thinking about it all week and that it was really important, and offered my new answer (amidst much incredulous eye-raising from my much more Orthodox co-teacher), which basically followed what I roughly outlined above.
Since then, I’ve read a book by James H. Cone, called God of the Oppressed. He talks about a few different manifestations of Jesus.
There’s the historical Jesus, or who he was. There’s the present-day, resurrected and exalted Jesus, or who he is. And there’s the future Jesus, coming in glory to bring liberation to all, or who he will be.
Historically, Jesus was Jewish. And, as Cone argues, that was no accident. Members of the kingdom of Israel were oppressed and/or enslaved for centuries. They were subject to foreign rule. That the liberator of humanity would be born to these people, desperately seeking their own liberation, is a beautiful lesson of history.
Now, as then, there are innumerable groups of oppressed peoples. There are innumerable people fighting in solidarity to end that oppression and bring about the Kingdom of God. And in an American context, few groups can claim the mantle of Christlike persecution as those of African descent.
I have struggled with the culture of the church, insofar as it is a culture of achievement. I struggle with the portrayal of wealthy, privileged, powerful people as the truest followers of Christ. The Jesus I know is poor and ragged. He is long-suffering and humble. He is powerful, but his power comes from love, from his commitment to putting his body with those who suffer.
In our popular cultural representations of Jesus today, he is often portrayed as white, muscular, and somewhat handsome. The Jesus in these pictures came to atone for your sins and to sit on the board of Wal-Mart. His clothing is nice. His hair is combed. His cheekbones are chiseled. These pictures do more than pay homage to divinity - they reinforce cultural mores. More troubling, they take a symbol as powerful as Jesus, and co-opt it to look and act like European/Western ideas of nobility and power. The ubiquity of a blue-eyed Jesus is condemnatory evidence of our widespread cultural imperialism. Jesus is not one of the powerful and the privileged.
Who is Jesus today?
He doesn’t understand our suffering just because he underwent it in history, but because he is going through it with us NOW. That means Jesus is Queer. He is disabled. Divorced. Homeless.
Jesus today is Black.
Here’s an interesting site on the subject:
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery.htm
Comment by PapaKrok — July 27, 2010 @ 10:00 pm
Comment by PapaKrok — July 27, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
Wonderful post. Another important point of Liberation Theology is the fact that the experience of being oppressed can lead to insight — this is from the Beatitudes, for example — thus we should listen to outsiders when we listen for the voice of God.
Comment by Vg — July 27, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
nat, outstanding post.
Yup!
Yup. again.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 27, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
Sometimes I subscribe to the not-really-canon view of Jesus looking like whatever we need him to look like, whatever we relate to. He looks different to everyone because everyone has their own personal concept of what Jesus looks like. For some he’s Black, for some he’s White, and for some he looks like Aslan.
Now, the mortal Jesus? He could have been Black. I would be neither surprised nor disappointed. I voiced the possibility to my mom, but she refuses to believe that he could look any different than the “Mormon portrait” version (you know?). I don’t think it really matters what he looked like, in any case.
Comment by Amanda C — July 27, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
The art historical record of many missions–particularly Catholic and Anglican–often gets out of the white-Jesus mindset, depicting Jesus and the Holy Family as looking like the local population, Asian in China, Maori in New Zealand, Mayan in Mexico, and so on. This demonstrates, for me, one of the complexities of colonialism and religion. On the one hand, colonialism is directly responsible for the oppression and death of many, many of these non-European people. And in such situations, Christianity was often a tool of colonialism. At the same time, the Christian missions were often points of resistance against colonialism. Nat Kelly, you’ve often quoted that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” but in some ways, religion can be adopted to combat the destructive colonialism that establishes it in the first place.
Thanks for the post.
Comment by ChrisKay — July 27, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
Excellent post, Nat. This one I will be ruminating on for a while.
Comment by Risa — July 27, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
Great post, Nat!
I think people want Jesus to be something familiar, someone they can relate to, and therefore we make him look like us: pale skin, light brown hair, blue eyes. But the truth is, like you pointed out, there’s no way he looked like that.
I liked the Jesus gallery link PapaKrok (particularly how the overused Del Parson paining is labled “Mormon Jesus” and is right next to “Hindu Jesus”)
This doesn’t have much to do with Jesus’ coloring, and I’m not trying to threadjack, but as a brunette I was always excited when the temple video was the one featuring the brown-haired Eve, as opposed to Blonde Eve.
Comment by Allison — July 27, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
Amen, and amen, Nat.
One of the most fascinating college classes I took was called “Jesus and the Moral Life” - taught by one of the icons of liberation theology, Harvey Cox. (author of “The Secular City”) I think it was for that course that I bought and read “Jesus Before Christianity” by Albert Nolan - a book that altered my understanding of Jesus and his ministry in a very fundamental way.
I love what I call “pure Mormonism” - and I love the LDS Church like a sibling who is VERY dear to me regardless of the wedgies I want to give him when he annoys me. I have a personal testimony of lots of things - some which are “mainstream LDS” and some which certainly are not.
Having said all that, I think during the early-mid 1800’s, Jesus was Mormon - in the sense this post highlights. He isn’t anymore, and I actually am glad he isn’t - for various reasons. However, I wish as a Church writ large we understood better who he is right now and loved “him” better and more fully than we do.
Comment by Ray — July 27, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
The Jesus story is very close to the story of Dionysus in the Greek theology that predates Christianity…
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa2.htm
Comment by PapaKrok — July 27, 2010 @ 11:09 pm
One more note:
About 15 years ago, I had one of the most powerful spiritual experiences of my life. I don’t see visions in any way, shape or form, but this experience dealt with race and the Gospel of Jesus Christ - and it was as close to a “waking vision” as I have experienced. It would be more precise to say it was a flash of understanding that was crystal clear and changed me in a fundamental way. I won’t go into more detail here, but it was followed relatively shortly by something that I have come to consider the culmination of that revelation.
I was sitting in the temple contemplating what I had suddenly understood, and as I saw the Lord stretch forth His hand - it was black.
God is God, but God also is me - and nat - and Lisa - and each of us. She is not white (the absence of color), and he is not black (the combination of all colors). God is white - and black - and brown - and each color any human ever has been, since each human who ever has been is divine in nature.
I have no idea if “skin color” will exist in the post-mortal world. I doubt it seriously, but I don’t care one way or the other. Frankly, it would be more than slightly cool if it did continue to be part of who we are then and there - if only to emphasize how flat-out stupid we are now and here for caring so much about it.
Comment by Ray — July 27, 2010 @ 11:14 pm
Alexander Neibaur, a convert who gathered with the Saints in Nauvoo, described in his journal what Joseph told him during a dinner conversation. Brother Neibaur wrote that the Prophet said he had been “struck” by a passage on prayer in the Bible and so went into the woods to pray. After his tongue cleaved temporarily to the roof of his mouth, he saw a fire which gradually drew nearer to him. He “saw a personage in the fire, light complexion, blue eyes. … [Another] person came to the side of the first. Mr. Smith then asked, must I join the Methodist Church. No, they are not my People, [they] have gone astray. There is none that Doeth good, not one, but this is my Beloved Son harken ye him.” Journal of Alexander Neibaur, 24 May 1844, LDS Church Historical Department.
Comment by Jan — July 27, 2010 @ 11:14 pm
Love this post, Nat! I have gone round and round with my kids about whether Jesus is black or white. All they’ve seen are the kinds of paintings you talk about. I try to tell them that Jesus really probably didn’t look like that, but they remain unconvinced. I need to take them to a black church so they can see other depictions of Christ besides Simon Dewey (isn’t that his name?).
Comment by hkobeal — July 27, 2010 @ 11:25 pm
Allison, I prefer the brunette Eve to the fake bleached blonde hair Eve.
Comment by jks — July 27, 2010 @ 11:46 pm
Who cares? (I did think it was funny that petunia used the term “photos” rather than lithographs or paintings of Christ). I think most western art from the crusades on- i.e. European-based artists painted Christ as white because they were primarily white and saw themselves as superior. You could argue that this is based on Roman traditions from pre-Constantine images as well. So- I see this as an art-history question at best.
Having been raised in a multi-cultural area with various ethnicities, and artistic (evern gendered) depictions of Christ- I came to the conclusion that I don’t care what He looked like or what he is painted/sculpted like, I am thankful for the atonement.
Comment by spunky — July 27, 2010 @ 11:57 pm
I always thought that Simon Dewey painting looked like Viggo Mortensen.
Jesus is often shown in the guise of the cultural heritage that He is presented in, and I think that’s pretty cool. But it bothers me that so much LDS art seem to be so emphatically white. The church is NOT all white, nor should it be, and therefore showing our Lord as something other than what he probably looked like historically forces artists to either show Him as belonging to many races or to pick a favorite one. This can’t be good for a church that already has the baggage of the Priesthood ban and the assumption, by many people, that God favors the whites because they are the ones really created in His image. (eye roll)
Just a side note. For those of you who haven’t yet, you should all see Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons. Excellent film, and very enlightening.
Comment by AllieKay — July 28, 2010 @ 12:20 am
You mean Jesus doesn’t look like a Viking? I’m so disillusioned.
Liberation theology? You better be careful or you’ll get Glenn Beck after you. (or his groupies)
PapaKrok
Since I’m interested in the Historical Jesus, I interested in the forensic reconstruction of Yeshua of Nazareth. Popular Mechanics Dec 2002 had a cover story– The Real Face of Jesus. For some strange reason he looked someone at the top of the terrorist profile list. What’s the meaning of that?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 28, 2010 @ 12:20 am
A couple of years ago I read a book called “The Color of Water” and it was about a biracial couple that raised 7 children. One day one of the sons asked his mother what color God was and she told him He was the color of water. Ever since then, that is what I imagine God’s color. May be a little off the topic but I thought I’d share. It’s a great book if anyone is interested.
Comment by ssj — July 28, 2010 @ 12:21 am
Oh, and then there was the rumor about this picture. I’ve heard this rumor many, many times about some GA (can’t remember which, but it hardly matters) who saw this painting and declared that it looked exactly like the real Jesus except for his eyes. Okay, so that still gives us a white Jesus.
Comment by AllieKay — July 28, 2010 @ 12:25 am
You might want to google the description of Jesus by a Roman named Lentullus. I found it by trying to find Josephus’ description. There were several others - they described him as having chestnut or blondish hair and blue or grey eyes. Lots of Jewish people have reddish brown hair. I very much doubt that Jesus was black - the people of the middle east aren’t.
Comment by Mary B. — July 28, 2010 @ 12:26 am
Mary B
That roman is a fictitious guy from a work that first appeared in the 1400s.
And Josephus description of Jesus is thought to be a later addition. It’s from long after Josephus died.
But I have some Polaroids of Jesus for sale if your interested, as well as part of the Great wall of China.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 28, 2010 @ 12:42 am
Oh Nat, I am developing the biggest FMH girl-crush on you. I hope that’s ok
The football Jesus drives me nuts. I just don’t understand why mainstream Mormon art insists on portraying Jesus as the epitome of machismo and masculine badassery.
Wait… patriarchal church = super manly Jesus. All white apostles and prophets = white, all American Jesus.
I guess I am not surprised after all.
Comment by Emma — July 28, 2010 @ 12:46 am
Insightful and delightful. Thats all I have to say at this point. Great post Nat.
Comment by Emily A. — July 28, 2010 @ 12:54 am
Jews aren’t as dark as most from the Middle East. What’s the big deal if he’s Jewish? I agree that the picture you posted up above looks decidely European, but doesn’t that go along with your thesis here? Simon Dewey is a European-ancestry white guy, isn’t he?
I personally prefer the more “Jewish looking” portraits of Christ. He has a more narrow face, a larger nose, and usually his hair is a little “natural” looking as opposed to the soft, “I just combed my hair for school pictures” look that many others have.
As to the GA confirmation rumor, I heard it about this picture.
Comment by ErinAnn — July 28, 2010 @ 1:08 am
I’m with Julian of Norwich: Jesus is our Divine Mother. That view got me through postpartum depression, because I couldn’t imagine a man, even if he was half god, understanding that.
Comment by reader Rachel — July 28, 2010 @ 1:19 am
Ah, Nordic Jesus.
I have a love-hate relationship with the white depiction of Jesus. But that doesn’t bother me near as much as when people ask me if it bothers me that I’ll probably be white if I go to the Celestial Kingdom (I’m Asian).
I don’t doubt that our constant portrayal of the Nordic Jesus might contribute to such a misguided question.
Comment by Ted — July 28, 2010 @ 1:21 am
#19 Alliekay, there is indeed a story floating around how after the church commissioned Del Parson to paint the red robe picture, the council or apostles kept having him redo it, and at the end declared it to be the most accurate depiction of Christ. Problem is, Del Parson came out and said that story is absolutely false and none of the church leaders ever said anything to him about the accuracy of how Christ appeared in that picture.
And personally, I can’t say that I saw a ton of Israelis with reddish hair or blue eyes when I was living there on a study abroad. Those few that did were generally descended from the Jews who had lived in Europe for generations and then made their way back. I imagine he would have looked similar to the arab Jesus in this link: http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-240898.0.html#msg3528262. That looks closest out all the paintings I’ve seen to the people that lived there.
Comment by de Pizan — July 28, 2010 @ 1:36 am
Matt 25:31-46.
I don’t care what he looked like. I want to find his image in my countenance. I don’t want to form him in my image — I want to be formed into his.
Comment by Blain — July 28, 2010 @ 1:49 am
Okay, something else that’s only tangentially related, maybe an art history buff can help me out, since I don’t know if there’s historical context: A lot of earlier images of Jesus portray him without a beard, yet pretty much every post-Renaissance portrayal has him wearing a beard. Why?
Comment by Amanda C — July 28, 2010 @ 1:54 am
#11- Ray, I know this is not that important to the discussion and I agree with and appreciate everything you said, but there is a part of me which just can’t feel at peace until I’ve corrected you.
Maybe you knew this but it’s more accurate to say that white is the combination of all colors and black is the absence of color.
(Sorry for being so anal)
Comment by lih — July 28, 2010 @ 2:58 am
This always bothers me, so when I had to do the primary bulletin board I made Jesus darker. I doubt anyone has noticed, or just think it is a random shepherd, but it makes me feel a bit better.
Comment by Lorri — July 28, 2010 @ 3:44 am
This post reminds me of a mission story (I know, sad to still be talking about the mission, but still…)
I encountered a black man who had been taught the gospel, had accepted a lot of it, but then, one day, his wonderfully “white” missionaries came into his apartment and saw the picture of Jesus that he had on his wall. The picture depicted a black Jesus instead of a white one. The missionaries were appalled. They told him that he would have to take it down. They told him that his belief was erroneous. They told him that to believe in a black God was against the gospel. The man, feeling downtrodden and upset, ushered them out his door, threw out his BofM, and forgot about the church. It was sad, and when I encountered him we had a good conversation. Now I was only a 19 year old pathetic excuse of a missionary (like most missionaries who are honest with themselves), but I realized in that moment that it really doesn’t matter what color we think Jesus to be. It is a matter of how we can best relate to Him, how He can best communicate with us, and however we need to believe in order for us to most effectively know Him is what we need. That gentleman was one of the most influential people I have ever met in my life, and that was within the first 5 weeks of the mission, and over 15 years ago, but I still remember it. He appreciated the idea that there were people open to different ideas (since he had absolutely no problem with other people believing in a “white” Jesus).
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 4:05 am
30…actually, lih, you are both right and wrong. With light, you are correct: all colors mashed into one will create the color white, while the elimination of all color will create darkness or black. But with hues (such as pigment and dye) the absence of color creates white. All colors mixed together with pigment create black.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 4:07 am
@29
Around 600 the Eastern churches started to standardize their images of Christ. Not sure why they chose to go with the bearded version, but they did. One thought is that since Jesus was Jewish a beard would have been standard for the time.
It took a while, but slowly less and less images of clean shaven Jesus were produced and it pretty much became the standard depiction of him.
I think a better question is who invented the electric clippers to get his beard so neat and even?
Comment by Travis — July 28, 2010 @ 4:19 am
@33
Kind of. If you mix all the colors of pigment together you get a muddy dark mess that’s kind of black, but not really. Chromatic blacks are made by mixing certain hues together to get a black that’s really close to being actual black, but isn’t quite the pitch black we’re used to.
The best way to do this is to mix two colors on opposite sides of the color wheel (complementary colors) to get the closest thing. I suppose though that if you simply mixed Yellow Blue and Red together you’d get close, but not quite there.
I know that’s nit-picky, but I fashion myself an artist and get picky about things.
One other fun fact: Most black paints are just overloaded with one color and add a little of another (Usually blue)
/rant over
Comment by Travis — July 28, 2010 @ 4:38 am
yeah, Travis, my DW is the artist in the house. She just feeds me information that my non-artistic mind can understand. She would probably balk at my over simplification, but she’s asleep so I can get away with it.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 4:46 am
The first premise is wrong - Jesus is NOT always depicted as white. I’m guessing the speaker, is, though, because if she’d spent any time in black churches she would have seen all the images Jesus depicting him as black.
And he hasn’t always been depicted as handsome and muscular, either. If you look at Spanish art from more than a hundred years ago or so, he looks downright feminine a lot of the time.
So, while there are lots of images of Jesus as white, my first suggestion would be for the speaker to expand her world a little and realize her experience has been incomplete.
Comment by Katie P. — July 28, 2010 @ 6:13 am
There’s a really unique Catholic church in Seoul that looks like a temple from the outside and has pictures of Mary, the Saints, Jesus, and the Disciples carved into stone in a very Buddhist looking way on the inside. In the stations of the cross, all of the figures are wearing hanbok (Korean clothes) and have Confucian style beards. It’s always a place I take visitors when they come to Korea. There was also, up until about 2 years ago, a corner with a Korean-style Mary holding a toddler Jesus also decked out in traditional clothes and hair styles right beside a white Joseph holding a white toddler Joseph. My husband and I were so touched by this pairing. I don’t know if it was a was a conscious pairing at the church, but for a biracial, bicultural, bilingual couple, it really spoke to us that the Holy Family was a model for families like ours as well. I would even go so far to say that it was a spiritual experience just to see them together. When we returned with my mother a year ago, we were quite crushed to see the Korean Mary/Jesus replaced with a white version to make a ‘nice white’ Holy Family. It seemed to be the exact opposite message that the rest of the church complex was sending.
Comment by Msleetobe — July 28, 2010 @ 7:17 am
From the last part of the OP it sounds to me like the real question isn’t about the color of his eyes, it is about the condition of his clothes. Why isn’t Jesus in rags? Why is hair clean and neatly combed?
Paintings tell us more about the artists than they do about the subject.
Comment by Claudia — July 28, 2010 @ 8:30 am
The answer to the question is simple: because we all tend to create God in our own image. That helps us relate to Him.
For the rest, remember that Jesus was a powerful figure because He was in line for the throne of David. He wasn’t oppressed because he was poor (he had a good, lucrative occupation) or downtrodden because he was from a marginalized segment of society. He was oppressed and downtrodden because, as a member of the elite (he taught in synagogue), He rejected the power over others this granted Him.
He chose to follow His Father’s will, rather than the will that the ruling class of Jews had for Him. They hoped He would be a political figure, overthrowing Roman tyranny and restoring the Jews as a powerful nation. Instead, He taught walking the extra mile and submission to the Romans which were oppressing the Jews. He reached out to the poor and marginalized from a position of cultural power, throwing the ruling elite’s condescension in their faces. That made Him some very powerful enemies.
Comment by SilverRain — July 28, 2010 @ 8:34 am
35: As a side note, that’s only true because no pigments are pure. If they were, complimentary colors would create a true black, not muddy yuck.
Comment by SilverRain — July 28, 2010 @ 8:37 am
I have often found it helpful to vision Jesus as the short, probably dumpy, bald-headed Jew that he well may have been. The charisma was in the words and in the spirit that accompanied him. We are so familiar with the words and images, they often become petrified for us. Thinking about them in a fresh way brings them back to life.
I have also never been more proud of our ward than when we had a jolly black member be our ward’s Santa Claus at the Christmas party one year and not an eyebrow was raised.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — July 28, 2010 @ 8:53 am
Katie P #37, Nat Kelly said:
She’s already had the realization you ask of her. Please give her a little more credit.
Comment by ChrisKay — July 28, 2010 @ 8:54 am
reminds me of my favorite christmas carol (by alfred burt, 1951) okay, fine some of the descriptions aren’t the most PC but the sentiment is amazing.
Some children see Him lily white,
the baby Jesus born this night.
Some children see Him lily white,
with tresses soft and fair.
Some children see Him bronzed and brown,
The Lord of heav’n to earth come down.
Some children see Him bronzed and brown,
with dark and heavy hair.
Some children see Him almond-eyed,
this Savior whom we kneel beside.
some children see Him almond-eyed,
with skin of yellow hue.
Some children see Him dark as they,
sweet Mary’s Son to whom we pray.
Some children see him dark as they,
and, ah! they love Him, too!
The children in each different place
will see the baby Jesus’ face
like theirs, but bright with heavenly grace,
and filled with holy light.
O lay aside each earthly thing
and with thy heart as offering,
come worship now the infant King.
‘Tis love that’s born tonight!
Comment by juniper — July 28, 2010 @ 8:59 am
Isaiah 52:14
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
and his form marred beyond human likeness—
Isaiah 53:2-4
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
Comment by andrew — July 28, 2010 @ 9:01 am
OK…this may be a little off-post, but I have a question about the paintings and movies portraying His suffering in the garden. We are told he bled from every pore, right? Why is he so clean, crisp, and well presented right after the suffering? Why is there no mention of his haggard and messy appearance, if, indeed, as stated in the D&C he bled from every pore? Is it an attempt to refrain from vivid imagination of the occurrence? Would it be considered in bad taste to portray it as such? Or do we just let it go because it isn’t really all that important?
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 9:03 am
I have Jewish friends born in Tel Aviv. Dark hair, olive skin, “Jewish nose”, not tall. That is what I envision my Jesus as looking like because that seems to be the most realistic in my eyes.
Comment by StillConfused — July 28, 2010 @ 9:13 am
Not to digress too much, but art often relates to the culture of the artist who creates it. I’ve seen nativity scene displays that use crafts from around the world — and the holy family looks Ecuadoran or Korean or Tanzanian, depending on who made the piece. There are many, many pieces of madonna and child art from pre-Renaissance times wherein Mary looks quite a bit like a fashionable lady of her day.
My favorite painting of the nativity is one on display in the National Gallery in Edinburgh, Scotland. In it, Jesus is in a barn, there’s an angel sitting on a rafter, and all the shepherds are wearing kilts.
Yes, I understand your argument that Jesus is Black, but I also think that Jesus is whatever we relate to.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — July 28, 2010 @ 9:24 am
BYU Studies 39:3 (2000) has a terrific roundtable on artistic images of Jesus, which would make for useful background to this post.
Comment by Kevin Barney — July 28, 2010 @ 9:27 am
#37 — Are you talking about El Greco? That was his style; he made everyone look emaciated and zombie-ish, not just Jesus. His art was not typical of the time, either; he was very forward-thinking in his work.
In contrast, Salvador Dali’s portrayals of the Savior make Him look much healthier (even in the crucifixion scenes). However, Dali makes Jesus more Caucasion, and El Greco at least has a dark-haired Jesus most of the time.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — July 28, 2010 @ 9:29 am
Sorry, I didn’t clarify that Dali is much more recent than El Greco.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — July 28, 2010 @ 9:29 am
#24 Okay, I must have been misinformed. That Jesus is much more credible.
Comment by AllieKay — July 28, 2010 @ 9:39 am
Most likely completely off-topic, but the woman who plays blonde eve in the temple film didn’t dye her hair. She’s Icelandic and her hair is naturally that shade.
Comment by djinn — July 28, 2010 @ 9:39 am
@16 Viggo Mortensen! You are SO right!!!
Ha! Now I’m going to giggle every time I see this picture.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — July 28, 2010 @ 9:39 am
See this, to me, is infuriating. I had never heard of this until I saw Nobody Knows and heard comments by black members about when white members would offhandedly say that she’s be white in the next life. Is this a widespread belief?
Even if being exalted means we all look “white”, I would seriously doubt that it means like the white race. It seems more likely that we’ll just all radiate white light as people have said is the case with angels.
Comment by AllieKay — July 28, 2010 @ 9:43 am
And then there’s the Black Madonna, which was, interestingly enough, a medieval European phenomenon.
(Maybe they knew something we’ve since lost.)
Comment by SLK in SF — July 28, 2010 @ 9:46 am
#29 I couldn’t definitively say why the depiction changed, but it was a slow process, and most of it had to do with what the region in which the images were presented, and then that image stuck and because the trend all over Christendom.
The earliest dipictions of Christ, actually, don’t actually show Jesus but instead some sort of allegorical figure to symbolize him. I’m talking first to about the fourth century. It was considered blasphemous for the early Christians to actually show Jesus, so instead they would paint a lamb or a shepherd. The shepherd was often a youthful character with short hair and no beard. Later, when they started actually showing figured that were supposed to be the actual Jesus, they didn’t change the convention much. By that point, there was nobody alive who could say what Jesus looked like.
The bearded type became popular during the middle ages when Christianity gained a huge presence in Europe and Russia. For their purposes, not only did a bearded Jesus look more like them, but it made it easier to view Jesus as the mature, stern judge, one and the same with God the Father. The point was no longer to show the historical Jesus, but instead to show a picture of authority and wisdom. To those peoples, that meant a bearded, older man.
Comment by AllieKay — July 28, 2010 @ 9:54 am
Katie P.-
You are certainly right about tehre being many different racial manifestations of Jesus in art, but I’m fairly certain nat kelly is referring specifically to LDS art, the art we Mormons always see and refer to. LDS art nearly always shows a European-type Jesus.
Comment by AllieKay — July 28, 2010 @ 9:58 am
The Persians 2000 years ago, as well as the Medes, were a blonde people (Iran means “land of Aryans”) but years of conquests, importation of slaves, etc. and the recessive traits of blonde or red hair go away.
I have known several Jews who are pale and have bright red hair, several who are blonde or ash blonde, and a few with brown hair. Also, many, if not most, actors and actresses are Jewish and many are very light — Cameron Diaz, Gwenyth Paltrow, Sarah Michelle Geller, Sarah Jessica Parker… I would suspect that Jesus was as likely to look like Danny Kay or Woody Allen (Jews with red hair) as Adam Sandler or Jeff Goldblum (Jews with darker features).
Comment by Mike — July 28, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Nat, you did a beautiful job on this.
Comment by Reese Dixon — July 28, 2010 @ 10:14 am
List of Jewish entertainers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_actors
Comment by Mike — July 28, 2010 @ 10:15 am
So called liberation theology is just the modern term for what was called the zealot faction at the time of Jesus..
By hanging with publicans, Jesus pissed off the self-righteous zealots, just as his assotiation with other sinners pissed off the Pharisees.
When Jesus pointed out the gross hypocrisy of using Roman currency while whining about rendering taxes to that oppressive occupier, he was poking fun of, and rejecting, liberaration theology.
And these clowns still want Jesus as their sock puppet.
Jesus did not die for your politics. His kingdom was not of this world. Those who say otherwise commit far more violence against Jesus and his mission than honkies that paint him white.
Comment by Pnut — July 28, 2010 @ 10:18 am
One more interesting site:
http://britam.org/anthropology.html
And remember, Esau and King David were red haired.
Comment by Mike — July 28, 2010 @ 10:22 am
Mike - thank you that is what I was going to say about red hair. And David was Jesus’ gg…grandfather. I don’t know that it matters too much what Jesus looked like but, in my opinion, he probably wore his hair like an Hassidic Jew - probably even had the sideburn curls when he was younger - the Mosaic law said that men weren’t to mar the corners of their beards. If you want to know what a resurrected body will look like read the description of Moroni. We will probably be white & bright like light. If you mix all the colors of paint together you will get a mess but if you mix all the colors of the spectrum you get white light.
Comment by Mary B. — July 28, 2010 @ 10:56 am
I take a lot of comfort in the pronouncement by JS that as we appear now, we will appear in resurrected form (however perfected that may be)
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 11:03 am
This is the picture of Christ I have in my house. By my favorite LDS painter, J. Kirk Richards. http://www.jkirkrichards.com/store/templateitemsq.php?id_number=JKR003_05
Comment by staceface — July 28, 2010 @ 11:27 am
Interesting discussion. I don’t have anything to add, really, but I wanted to say thanks to everyone who provided photo links - a nice way to begin the morning.
Comment by Matt A. — July 28, 2010 @ 11:31 am
When I get resurrected, I want a tail. A long luxurious tail. Preferably prehensile.
If the Celestial kingdom is where everyone has to spend eternity as a anemic white person, I definitively not going. Me and my tail are headed for more interesting places.
Maybe the telestial world could use a good dose of liberation theology. Hopefully it has trees.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 28, 2010 @ 11:37 am
re: 65 “I take a lot of comfort in the pronouncement by JS that as we appear now, we will appear in resurrected form.”
Comfort??? What possible comfort is there in the prospect of eternity in an old woman’s body, with failing eyesight, droopy boobs, excess lbs, rhumatiz and sciatica not to mention a memory that’s not what it once was.
Hell’s Bells. I was kinda lookin’ forward to eternity in my 19 year old body. I mean, how hard would that be for an Omnipotent God to arrange? Why come we don’t get to choose which age we spend eternity as?
Comment by Betty Jo — July 28, 2010 @ 11:43 am
I’m only bothered by this subject when people make strong pronouncements, as in the story related in #32, or the Del Parsons urban legend, or the other legend I’ve heard of a visiting apostle chastising a ward’s practice of using whole wheat bread for the Sacrament because “The bread we use ought to be white like the Savior was.” If nobody gets uptight about it, doesn’t bug me.
#59 Bad news, bub: “Iran” does indeed mean “Aryan [nation],” but the Aryans/Persians weren’t blond. Pale-ish, sure, but not blond. See, for example, the picture at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy
Comment by Bro. Jones — July 28, 2010 @ 11:47 am
Lovely change of pace Nat, thanks.
Comment by Moniker Challenged — July 28, 2010 @ 11:50 am
re: 65 “I take a lot of comfort in the pronouncement by JS that as we appear now, we will appear in resurrected form.”
I think Heaven ought to be like Lake Wobegon - where all the Men are
good looking, all the Women are strong and all the children are above average.
Comment by betty jo — July 28, 2010 @ 11:51 am
It’s true. The Aryans were actually a group of light brown-skinned people, and they migrated and mixed everywhere in the middle east and southeast Asia. Most of northern India has a great deal of Aryan blood.
Hitler co-opted the term to mean white, blonde, and blu-eyed. I have no idea why.
Comment by AllieKay — July 28, 2010 @ 11:55 am
#44 Juniper that was lovely thank you!
Comment by Sami — July 28, 2010 @ 11:59 am
Looking at all these pictures of Jesus makes me want to have a whole bunch of different Jesus pictures in my house when I’m older. A white Jesus, a black Jesus, a Korean Jesus, a Mexican Jesus… sort of a reminder that it doesn’t matter what he looked like, but that the atonement is what does matter.
Comment by Amanda C — July 28, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
Does that make Garrison Keillor God? Or maybe Mormon, since he’s the one doing all the chronicling… either way, I’m on board
Comment by Enna — July 28, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
“The Jesus I know is poor and ragged. He is long-suffering and humble. He is powerful, but his power comes from love, from his commitment to putting his body with those who suffer. ”
Love this! Thanks!
Comment by TaterTot — July 28, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
As to why the nordic depiction of Jesus in Mormon art, the answer lies in the essentially WASP roots of the Church. Most of the early church members and especially leaders came from the US protestant tradition, in which Jesus was typically been depicted as Nordic. Like so many other things, the early restored Church adopted many of the quirks of mainstream Protestant US (another being the myth that the black skin of Africans was the curse of Cain, or, around the turn of the last century, the myth that the wine Jesus used was just grape juice). Our Church is slow to change, and so has continued to maintain as ideal the Nordic Jesus, as opposed to a very specifically Jewish Jesus.
And yes, AllieKay, I do believe the historic Mormon belief is still alive, though diminishing, that skin color represented a curse, and that it would be lifted upon resurrection (or even possibly in this life, since they interpret the BofM as saying that the Lord took the dark-skinned “curse” of the lamanites when they as a civilization became righteous).
Comment by Derek — July 28, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
Ah common Betty Jo. Your understanding of what I said would mean that every time you read that pronouncement by JS you could change your eternal bodies appearance. You are neglecting the part I put in there about the perfected state. A body with out hair, nothing drooping, firm arms and legs, flat stomach. more youthful, no physical degredation….etc
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
Betty Jo- I liked how I looked at about age 30. The body was still nice, and my face had a more interesting and life-stamped look than it did when I was 19. That’s the age I’d pick for myself.
staceface- I hadn’t seen that particular portrait of Jesus. I like it.
I’m lucky that the physical appearance of Jesus issue came up early in life. First, I asked my mother to take down the pic we had in my bedroom, because it was just plain creepy- a blond, blue-eyed Jesus with this vacuous expression that just looked like he didn’t know where the heck he was or what he was doing. I was four and it didn’t seem right.
I think I was about 7 or so, when I had the appearance discussion with a group of Jewish kids I was attending camp with- we were close friends with a Jewish family and I went to synagogue, classes, holy days and camp with my surrogate Jewish family. Anyway, I brought up the fact that I couldn’t find a picture of Jesus I liked and one of the kids (about 12 years old) laughed at me and said that was because none of the Christian pictures portrayed him as Jewish, because “they like to forget that part”- he said, “Look at us, Kim, you see us all the time- unless we have a white parent or converted, we don’t have blue eyes and most of us have The Nose (as he pointed to his own impressive schnoz)”. It comforted me because in my imagination, I had seen Jesus as having chocolate brown eyes and olive skin and that made me feel better, like all the blue-eyed portraits that creeped me out could be wrong…
It doesn’t much matter what he looked like- and it’s possible that when Joseph saw Christ and God, they may have manifested in a way that Joseph could relate to- also appearing like each other as an allegory for being of like mind and purpose. I never took that to mean that Joseph’s description was the last word- just one manifestation.
Comment by Kimberly — July 28, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
I would choose 30, too.
Comment by Stephanie — July 28, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
I wish I had even a minimal talent for drawing.
This Isaiah quote struck me quite early in life and I liked that Christ probably looked quite ordinary. I would think, if he was blazingly handsome or had uncharacteristic features for his race, that there would be some mention of it, because people of that time were really wiggy about anyone looking different- it would have been one other thing used against him. His charisma would have been downplayed as a feature of his “good looks/strange looks”. So, I’m leaning towards him having the usual Jewish features, with an exceptionally kind and loving expression…that his charisma was what attracted so many- I have given him a beautiful voice too- deep, comforting and melodious (which I’m thinking could have been true if he did a lot of speaking and people enjoyed listening to him- he must have had pretty good projection too).
Comment by Kimberly — July 28, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
82…I have often wondered just what that scripture means. I wonder if there is an error of translation throughout the years so that words like beauty and majesty were different words that the translators changed to beauty and majesty because they felt they were the best fit. Nephi describes Mary as the most beautiful woman. How could Jesus not inherit some of that? We know the Father has a perfect body. How could Jesus not inherit some of that? I am certain, however, that he wasn’t extraordinary in appearance, but knowing people like I do, I am sure He had a degree of physical attractiveness to him else he wouldn’t have had such a great following. I have, therefore, often wondered if celestial perfection has very little in common with what we view as perfection. What is considered as beautiful in humankind has changed with each generation, and we have become a conglomerate of all these ideas.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
I asked Del Parson about that scripture at an art show. He of course has read it many times. He said that to him it means that Jesus looked mortal like you and I do and, for example, wouldn’t stand out in a crowd.
Comment by Jared — July 28, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
What a beautiful post, Nat! Christ should be all things to all people. There is something really transcendent and faith-strengthening about the dozens of different images of Christ evidenced by many commenters’ picture links.
Comment by DianaH — July 28, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
I lean to the idea that Jesus would have looked like those he was related to and lived among. But, there is the fact that he is our older brother and that in itself may account for the various cultural and racial representations of our Lord.
This discussion reminds me that I was taught in Sunday School and seminary that we would all be white in the next life… this was supported by the pesky “white and delightsome” description from the BOM. I was 23 when the revelation concerning the priesthood being given to all worthy male members was announced and I was older when the “white and delightsome” reference was changed. I was thrilled because I had always felt that these particular troubling things (along with polygamy), would be on my list of things that I would wait to ask Heavenly Father and Jesus when I died.
I grew up in Salt Lake and had some friends leave the church as a result of the white and delightsome teaching about our appearance in the next life. This was something that I chose to file away from my testimony probably because I am about as white as you can get and not be translucent. However, I always had the prompting that Heavenly Father made us and I hoped that our racial and individual features would be perfected and exist in a celestial glory after the resurrection.
If it helps anyone to develop a relationship with Jesus by imagining Christ as his brother in regards to race or even familial likeness, I can appreciate it. I have no older brother, but I have had the thought of how Christ might resemble my Dad or my brother. This was a preliminary step toward my mortal quest to make myself in Jesus’ image in my inward countenance and behavior. Granted, the concept of a Northern European Christ figure is easier to accept in this context because I am a member of the race in power within the church and most of our representations bolster this image. These pictures support an image of a brother that does resemble those in my genetic background. This fact may make it easier to build a relationship with Christ because he is presented as looking like me and tacitly supports my physical similarity to Jesus. These pictures strongly support the possibility of my becoming more like him in my thoughts and deeds because I can identify with the way he looks. I simply cannot answer the question of whether this poses a barrier to be overcome by my fellow brothers and sisters of different races or how they each develop a unique relationship to our Heavenly Father and our brother, Jesus. Or even if it is an issue to any of them. I am anxious to know how we each develop a relationship with our Heavenly Father since he is portrayed as white (very, very, white) in the first vision illustrations and films. Is it an issue or not and does it depend on your own race?
Comment by Black Sheep's Gray Lamb — July 28, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
1 John 3:2
Comment by SilverRain — July 28, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
I think that there are a lot of Mormon myths surrounding Gods appearance, and they are so wrought with personal perception as to be unreliable. Our own arrogance as natural humans could cause us to imagine that He looks like we do, but as we overcome the natural man or woman, we should be able to know him more and more as a power with a specific countenance. It would seem that our recognition of the feeling would grow as we matured in our faith. When I was a child I thought of Him looking like the picture that was in all the chapels of my youth (which is not the Mormon Christ we use now, by the way), but as I age, he becomes more of a feeling and an experience then an image. I don’t think it matters what he looks like, as SilverRain’s mention of 1 John 3:2 suggests, He will appear as he is, and I think we will know him by the ‘feel’ of his countenance. It says in the scriptures that every knee will bend. It won’t be because we recognize his face, I believe it will be because his very presence will force us to our knees, his power will be so great.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 28, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
The idea that when we are resurrected we are going to be brilliantly white, filled with light & intelligence, isn’t a racist idea. It has nothing to do with our race or color on this earth. It has to do with being like our heavenly parents. When Christ was on this earth he looked like his earthly family. When he appeared to Joseph Smith he had a celestialized body. Also, in my opinion, since the Book of Mormon was written from the Nephite point of view, it reflects their prejudices against the Lamanites. I think it is obvious that the Lamanites must have intermarried with the people who were already here. And thus the darker skin color - which the Nephites attributed to a curse.
Comment by Mary B. — July 28, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
Since I apparently need to keep adding random thoughts: I like the pictures of Jesus that have really piercing or otherwise interesting eyes. If there’s something I always imagine, it’s the idea of Jesus having eyes that stare straight into your soul, but in a good way.
I like the idea of Jesus having hazel eyes, or sort of a mix of all different colors.
Comment by Amanda C — July 28, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
I like the Popular Mechanics Jesus, which was reconstructed using a skull of a typical man from His time and place.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/index.html
Add some warmth and humor to that bland face and I think he looks very approachable, someone a regular person like me could feel I could be friends with.
Comment by Donnell Allan — July 28, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
Humans with blue eyes likely have a common ancestor from 10,000 years ago. See H. Eiberg’s paper in the journal Human Genetics, Volume 123, Number 2 / March, 2008, pg177. Primarily it is a result of the HERC2 gene inhibiting the production of OCA2. As for Jesus Christ Mormons believe that Christ is the literal Son of God (Elohim or el-Elyon) meaning that he inherited 23 chromosomes from Elohim. Mary did not have the option to store the embryonic stem cells from the umbilical cord and we do not have a blood sample so that we could investigate the ancestry of Elohim and His divine lineage through study of his Y-chromosome DNA (58Million base pairs). Since Elohim is a resurrected glorified being and resurrected beings are composed of perfected flesh and bone (no blood), his Y-chromosome DNA would look inorganic and alien to scientists today. As for me (Elijah Abel) when Joseph Smith’s father gave me my patriarchal blessing he did not declare a favored lineage from Ephraim or Joseph, but he did say “Thou shalt shalt be made equal to thy brethren and thy soul be white in eternity and thy robes glittering”. Makes sense considering Galatians 3:29
Comment by ElijahAbel — July 28, 2010 @ 5:23 pm
Re: being restored to age 19.
Isn’t it weird to think that maybe our God the Father has the body of a 19-year-old? Traditionally, we’re so used to the tall, portly type with a long beard.
Comment by AllieKay — July 28, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
I think that what Nat is saying is that Jesus is one who lives among the downtrodden, and our current art depicts Him as something else, someone more comfortable shopping in the new mall in downtown SLC than visiting among the beggars who once panhandled there.
Comment by Donnell Allan — July 28, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
Great thoughts in the post and I’m enjoying the comments. To those that mentioned that members of the Church told them that they would be white after they died is just ABSURD! Joseph Smith himself said that we would appear as we looked in the prime of our life. “Prime of our life” doesn’t mean everyone reverts to a white skin color. And I’ve always thought the idea about being “white” as a resurrected meaning meant we’d have a nice shiny aura about us, regardless of skin color.
My dad always told me that Jesus did not look like Del Parson’s senior class portrait. That he’d be olive skinned, with a full beard, and probably quite short. Because of this, I’ve never thought Jesus looked like a European or a Roman. Also I’ve always thought that artistic renderings of Christ said more about the artist than Christ Himself.
All in all, it doesn’t really matter what Jesus looks like, does it? I echo #28 Blaine’s comment.
Comment by Whitney — July 28, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
For Elohim if he wants to attend BYU he will need to abide by the honor code or attempt to obtain a beard exception: [[A student who wishes to obtain a beard exception must visit a BYU Student Health Center doctor by appointment (422.5156). The doctor will fax his recommendation. The student then needs to come to the Honor Code Office to fill out some paperwork and receive the letter allowing the growth of the beard, if approved. If a yearly beard exception is granted, a new Student ID will be issued after the beard has been fully grown, and must be renewed every year by repeating the process.]]
Comment by ElijahAbel — July 28, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
A few records from missionaries who spoke with the indigenous described Christ when he appeared at the temple near Bountiful, See Brewerton’s GC talk from Oct. 1995. Bartolomé de las Casas wrote that Quetzalcoatl, the plumed serpent, was white, had a rounded beard, was tall, and came from the sea in the east, from whence he will return (Los Indios de Mexico y Nueva España Antologiá, Mexico: Editorial Porrua, S. A., 1982, pp. 54, 218, 223).
The Tamanacos Indian tribes in Venezuela say the white bearded god: “[Amalivacá] had a face the color of the light fluffy clouds of the morning, and white was his long head of hair. … He said: ‘I am Amalivacá, and I come in the name of my father INA-UIKI’ ” (Arturo Hellmund Tello, Leyendas Indígenas del Bajo Orinoco, trans. Ted E. Brewerton, Buenos Aires, Argentina: Imprenta Lopez Peru 666, 1948, pp. 19–22)
Comment by ElijahAbel — July 28, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
The current church ban on beards at BYU, etc. is one of those silly things that come up now & then. As it is Jesus, the apostles, and the early church presidents wouldn’t be allowed in the temple.
Comment by Mary B. — July 28, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
66 Thanks, staceface. I like that.
Periodically, the Ensign publishes some quite interesting art, for one contest or another. Some of it is quite good and multi-racial.
Nat, thanks for being honest and admitting that the idea of a
non-white Jesus was a new concept for you.
Comment by Lupita — July 28, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
98 Facial hair doesn’t keep you out of the temple. Just the testing center
Comment by Lupita — July 28, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
Staceface, thanks a million times for that link. I’d seen some of his work before but I had no idea it was available in an open edition that brought it into my price range.
As I was browsing through the site I came across Gethsemane and it literally took my breath away and reduced me to tears upon first glance.
As a teenager I first read about an angel attending Christ in the garden and in my earnest devotion I told someone how I wished that I had been the one there. The person I told responded with, “Well, it couldn’t have been you. I’m sure it would have been someone who held the priesthood.”
And with that a Mormon feminist was born.
In Richards’ painting, that angel looks decidedly female to me. And so I will be buying this piece immediately.
Comment by Reese Dixon — July 28, 2010 @ 7:59 pm
Yes, Reese. Don’t you know that keeping people company and comforting them in their hour of need is strictly a priesthood function?
Comment by AllieKay — July 28, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
Along the same lines, why do we pray in Elizabethan English? Shouldn’t we pray in Hebrew?
Comment by StillConfused — July 28, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
Reese, what a statement! The first budding feminist moment I remember was reading Helaman 10 as a young girl and falling in love with the words God speaks to Nephi. I wanted to be able to hear HF call me by name and tell me, “Blessed art thou for the things thou hast done” and “I will bless thee forever and make thee mighty in word and in deed, in faith and in works” and “even all things shall be done according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will.”
I searched and searched for an example of HF speaking to a woman, telling her these types of promises, and couldn’t find one. I came to the conclusion that only priesthood holders would ever be blessed by God in this way, in this church…
Not that that has anything to do with nat’s excellent post, you just reminded me of that…
Comment by Enna — July 28, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
Tho my own previous comments on this thread (60,72) were intended only to bring a smile to their readers, the 100+ comments on this post raise a more serious issue I’ve often pondered about.
To wit, we often hear the biblical assertion that God has made us in His image. With that assertion comes a nearly irresistible
sense that we, like God, having dominion over all the creatures of the Earth might do whatever WE like, irrespective of impact to
the other critters sharing this land), and some rather excessive sense of our own intelligence, good judgment, and unquestioned
“rightness” of our own interpretation of the events we experience (not to mention whatever external skin, eye, hair color we evolutionarily and randomly happen to resemble).
Too often, I think that we presume that GOD making US in his image is a reversible concept. E.g., that God is therefore made in OUR
image. Some might say this is a heretical concept - we invent our Gods, and they are hence but figments of our own imaginations. I
confess some dalliance with this notion. For the alternative often feels rather like the “Hubris” identified by Ancient Greeks as a
tragic fault that should have (but never was) included by the early Christian Church in their list as an 8th Deadly Sin.
I currently think we might better view God / Jesus’ image as an outer reach of the Compassion that we as humans might aspire to in
deeds not physical appearance. I find the notion of “Random Kindness to Strangers” a rather appealing and might I say it “God like” notion whether such strangers are human or not.
Comment by Betty Jo — July 28, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Thanks Mary (#64). I think a lot of people look at a geographical region today and believe that the characteristics of people today accurately reflect what people looked like thousands of years ago. My understanding is that the reason southern Italy and Spain has so much black hair is due to colonization and invasion from north Africa and what is now Suadi Arabia and Yemen. Yet wall paintings show a lighter people in the regions 2000 years ago. And as for Jews today, as I said, Jesus could have looked like Jeff Goldblum (dark) or David Ducovny, Harrison Ford or Woody Allen. My understanding is that European Jews (Ashkenazi) may be more like the Jews of the Bible days than those in the Middle East (Sephardic) due to, again, the effect of migrations of other peoples and interbreeding.
Oh, and here is how the Iranians portrayed Jesus in a recent movie: http://www.faithandthecity.org/images/Jesus-Iran_Movie_080215_ms.jpg
Seems this Middle Eastern version fits fairly well with LDS portrayals. And speaking of such, doesn’t “Adam” mean “ruddy?” If that is the case maybe this guy should play Adam in LDS portrayals of our ancestor: http://www.screenfanatic.com/images/gallerynapoleondynamite1.jpg
Comment by Mike — July 28, 2010 @ 11:02 pm
What really gets me are the rubber duck, teddy bear, snowman etc. nativity sets . . .
Comment by wistfulblue — July 28, 2010 @ 11:08 pm
Mike,
Now I can’t get that image out of my head! LOL
Oh my, I’m going to hell.
Comment by AllieKay — July 28, 2010 @ 11:15 pm
107 Yikes. Jesus as a snowman?? Luckily I’ve missed that.
Comment by Lupita — July 28, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
Cracked.com has an article about things from history that people picture incorrectly. One of them was about this very subject. They had a lovely Asian depiction - Chinesus.
Comment by Sara — July 28, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
53 — Then why does she have roots that show? (I’m a fan of that film over the other in everything except I like the brunette Eve better).
94 — Yes. I got her point. Thus the scripture I referred to at the front of my post in #28. The rest of my comment was on the surface issue she brought up to get to that point.
Comment by Blain — July 28, 2010 @ 11:34 pm
God as a snowman may not be that far off.
If God is as super white as some are claiming, then according to Gloger’s rule as interpreted by me, the celestial kingdom must close to absolute zero.
And if we also consider Bergmann’s and Allen’s, then Heavenly Mother, besides being blindingly shiny, also has a barrel shape torso with short, thick, arms and legs, tiny furry ears and is named Olga.
I’d go round and round with BYU professors on this, if I only knew any.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 28, 2010 @ 11:55 pm
Blain — Some hair just grows/changes that way. I have family who’s outer layers of hair gets affected very quickly by the sun. Darker roots, blonde on top. It’s not uncommon.
Mike — I love that shot of the Iranian Jesus. He looks like a young version of Sauruman.
Comment by ErinAnn — July 29, 2010 @ 12:58 am
To commenter #25: “I’m with Julian of Norwich: Jesus is our Divine Mother. That view got me through postpartum depression, because I couldn’t imagine a man, even if he was half god, understanding that.”
I don’t want to be contentious, so forgive me if I sound that way, but does this sound hypocritical to anyone else?
I was under the impression that feminism is about gender equality. So why is it acceptable to believe that a man couldn’t possibly comprehend a woman’s depression? Or that god can’t comprehend it?
I’m sorry Rachel, but get over yourself. You are not the only person to have depression, post partum or otherwise, God loves you whether you think of him as black or white or male or female or flying spaghetti monster. I’m glad you were able to get through post partum depression, and I am very sorry that you feel that only a woman, not even a god, can understand what you’re going through or went through.
True, I have never had a baby or ever will have a baby, but I have felt my share of pain and depression in my life. One constant has always been not only has Christ suffered more, but he (or she if you prefer) has suffered my sufferings and felt my sorrows just as much as your own.
Comment by Blite Femasculinist — July 29, 2010 @ 10:07 am
Blite Femasculinist
No, it doesn’t sound hypocritical. Not even remotely.
If your view of Christ works for you, as a God/ person who suffered your suffering, then it works for you.
We are to mourn with those that mourn, give comfort to those that need comforting. I really don’t think a male flying spaghetti monster is so persnickety over antiquated sex roles that he’d be so offended if someone was relieved of suffering by relating to him as female.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 29, 2010 @ 10:49 am
Joseph Smith said that when we are resurrected we would appear as we do now. He did not say when we are exalted we would appear as we appear now.
To imagine that there are racial differences in perfected beings is a bit absurd. Black people will not be black in the Celestial Kingdom. Caucasians will not be Caucasian either.
Resurrected and perfected are two entirely different things.
Comment by Davis — July 29, 2010 @ 10:50 am
BF, I personally believe God could understand anything because He/She is at one with the feminine to a degree we can’t fathom here. You obviously are not, and to find fault with Rachel is exactly why in her time of need she used a visualization that helped her get through. For all you know, God provided the visualization, so back off. G-ma’s hackles are up. Don’t mess with the women dealing with postpartum depression. It’s in a class by itself and you are arrogant to think you have an understanding of it’s impact.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 29, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Idaho G-ma,
I agree with most of your post, but please do not assume that postpartum depression is worse than any other kind. By doing that you are making the same kind of incorrect assumption BF did.
Comment by Davis — July 29, 2010 @ 11:00 am
HA!
Get over yourself. God loves you. Seriously, did an Onion writer write that?
Comment by Reese Dixon — July 29, 2010 @ 11:08 am
I always appreciate your wit, IdahoG-ma. BF has obviously never experienced PPD, and has declared that she never will. That being said, she shouldn’t be offering advice or ridicule to anybody who has experienced PPD. With DW having had serious PPD for 2 of our 3 girls, I have a profound appreciation and respect for anybody who has emerged from the onslaught of PPD whether unscathed or marred for life. I never realized how difficult it would be to endure, even from my side. Anybody, and I mean anybody, who ridicules someone suffering with PPD for finding something, anything, that helps them deal, cope, or overcome the cataclysmic oppression of PPD needs some serious and harsh education. I say, YEA!! to Rachel for reaching out and finding something to hold on to. Personally, I think the Iron Rod’s definition is a bit shifty in times of need and crisis.
Comment by Keith — July 29, 2010 @ 11:21 am
68 - “When I get resurrected, I want a tail. A long luxurious tail. Preferably prehensile.”
Seriously? That is so awesome, Suzanne. I have never heard anyone else say that before! I have always wanted a tail, ever since I was a kid. Hopefully it will be an option.
Comment by Matt A. — July 29, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
More on blonde Eve. She has “roots that show” for the same reason my brother does. They are both natural blond(e)s whose hair comes in darker and then almost immediately lightens. If you don’t know someone like this I know the explanation sounds ridiculous, but there you have it.
Comment by djinn — July 29, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
My entire family is blonde. We all have hair like that. It’s the fake blondes who have hair that is all one color. That is why people get “highlights” - to look like natural blondes when the sun bleaches the top layer of your hair.
Comment by Stephanie — July 29, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
I never pay much attention to anybody’s eye color, but the last time this subject came up, I checked the depictions of Jesus hanging in my ward, and couldn’t find any where his iris color was discernibly blue. The painting shown here is designated Exhibit A, but I don’t recall ever having seen it before. As I said, I pay almost no attention to eye color, but I don’t remember ever noticing a painting of Jesus with blue eyes. What proportion of LDS depictions have this characteristic? Is it really that common or is this an anomaly? Where are Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, and G?
Comment by Left Field — July 29, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
Matt A.
Great to see another tail fan.
I kid around, but I seriously want a tail. I’m a bit jealous my cat has a tail and I do not. I keep telling her she should be a tail donor to my deprived coccyx, but she ignores me.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 29, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
113 & 120 & 121 — Okay. I still like Brunette Eve better. But Blonde Eve’s Satan is way better (less scenery-chewing). I’m looking forward to new films, with Eves of Many Colors, with non-Utah accents. Twenty years is long enough.
Comment by Blain — July 29, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
Ok, so now that everyone is talking about which film they like best, I’m going to come out and confess that I have a small crush on the dark haired Peter (the one with curly hair). I know, I know, so weird…
Comment by Enna — July 29, 2010 @ 4:48 pm
Now I won’t be able to keep a straight face the next time we go, Enna . . .
Comment by Stephanie — July 29, 2010 @ 5:01 pm
I’m good with Curly Headed Peter. He’s no Gordon Jump with a fake beard, but he’s okay anyhow. If we could move him and Brunette Eve to the other film, it would be optimal.
Comment by Blain — July 29, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
It’s okay, Steph. I never can
Comment by Enna — July 29, 2010 @ 5:39 pm
That is so funny, Enna- curly headed Peter looks exactly like a guy I dated. I can’t help cracking up because he was no angel.
Comment by Kimberly — July 29, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen the temple videos, but the non-curly haired Peter reminds me of Colin Mochrie from Who’s Line is it Anyway?
(and curly-haired Peter sounds like a euphemism)
Comment by AustinDM — July 29, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
I actually met one of the guys who plays one either James or John in one of the temple videos. I can’t remember as it’s been years since I went. But that was a strange experience, because I was all like, hey, I met that guy! At youth conference!
Comment by ClaudiaHen — July 29, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
I don’t know if this comment will be blocked as well, but I will try to do my best to keep it from being blocked, by being respectful.
#25, I apologize for any rudeness I directed towards you. I did not mean to insult or make light of any view you had re: your PPD or the Savior, I merely meant to say I didn’t agree with your belief that a man can’t understand what you went through, and that even Jesus could not, only if he were a woman. However, I also realize that I will never understand what going through PPD is like, so maybe you are right. But I think the Savior does understand you and loves you completely, and doesn’t need to be thought of as a woman or anything to perfectly empathize with you.
That being said, #116, maybe God did give Rachel the idea of sacred feminine, but that wasn’t where I took offense. It was her saying that a man couldn’t understand what depression or pain is like. Without getting into too much detail because no one has asked me, I take great offense to that because I have had more pain and depression in my life than anyone I know and yes, I am a man. I have never once said you can’t understand what I’m going through, God can’t understand, only another man can.
But, everyone is entitled to their own feelings and my feeling is this is a wonderful site for many people, but I don’t think I’m one of them. I bid you all adieu and may you find peace in your own opinions of God and life.
-BF
Comment by Blite Femasculinist — July 29, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
#130
LOL. I should have seen that one from a mile away.
Comment by Kimberly — July 29, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
“I’m going to come out and confess that I have a small crush on the dark haired Peter (the one with curly hair). I know, I know, so weird…”
I’m glad that you feel comfortable doing that, Enna. Funny, I always had you pegged as a girl.
Comment by Lupita — July 29, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
BF, you did a far better job this time around.
In Rachel’s extremely short comment she said nothing about pain or clinical depression. That was what you brought to it. She only said that a man could never understand PPD which you yourself acknowledge.
There is a special kind of hell in PPD in that what Mormon women in particular are taught is their entire divine purpose is what brings such overwhelming feelings of pain and failure. It is something unique to PPD that has nothing to do with ranking it against anyone else’s pain.
I’m really glad to see that you can be more reasonable, but I still think that you are being too swayed by your own experiences to respond to what was actually said.
Comment by Reese Dixon — July 29, 2010 @ 7:00 pm
BF, I agree depression is beyond description in it’s pain and scope of torment, I am Bi-polar and have five bi-polar children. I’ve suffered serious depression with and without giving birth.
But the point is that you must take the worst of what you have felt and then imagine being responsible for a new precious infant while going through that. I do not think it is possible to quantify pain, but no way can a man know the impact of PPD. It is simply a fact, not a value judgment on men, so taking offense was unnecessary. If you would like a place to discuss your depression without finding fault with another’s way of handling it, you might have actually found a good site to do it. We care, but not at the expense of another commentator’s feelings. I do think it was nice of you to apologize, but Rachel was talking specifically about PPD.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 29, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
BF- You are right, depression knows no gender. I think, in the #25 post regarding PPD, she was referring to the whole childbirth/hormonal upheaval/ensuing PPD cycle. It’s not that the Savior or HF doesn’t understand human suffering of all kinds, because of course, they do. I know that for myself, I need to channel into the feminine divine for feelings of empathy for issues that feel distinctly feminine (childbirth is one of those times- although, with child #1, during natural childbirth, I used a meditation technique that involved Christ sitting next to me holding my hand).
I have found a different kind of peace and connection by reaching out to the sacred feminine. That could just be appealing to the feminine side of Christ or Heavenly Father- I don’t know. I only know that when I petition Heavenly Mother, there is a different character to the response- I don’t have the words for it, it’s just how it is. Just how it’s different when you are sick and dad is worrying and fetching by the bed, but when mom shows up, you fall into her arms and sob with relief. Even that’s a bad example because I certainly have felt that way with Christ and HF as well.
(I’m guessing here, because I do not have that type of earthly mother, but that’s how it would be if I did.) I’m so annoyed. I really can’t explain it very well. What I can tell you is that when I had the next children, Christ was still at the bedside, but I called for Heavenly Mother and immediately, I felt like I had the Doula of the Universe at my disposal. Strength poured into me and I felt shored up like a newly framed barn. It was like She knew exactly what I needed to get through it and Christ was there to bless me and be proud of me.
Anyhow, stick around, BF. This is a pretty diverse crowd and most of us are pretty good at moving forward after an awkward exchange.
Comment by Kimberly — July 29, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
Lupita, I am a girl! But it still seems strange to have a crush on the guy who played Peter 30 years ago when I was barely born
And now that AustinDM went and mentioned it sounding like a euphemism, I’ll never make it through a session without giggling…
Comment by Enna — July 29, 2010 @ 7:32 pm
Oh, they only made those films 20 years ago. He might be younger than Tom Cruise.
BF — What Kim said. I’ve had some full-contact conversations around here from time to time. Keep coming back. It’s good for everybody here to have everybody here.
Comment by Blain — July 30, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
Well, one things for certain. Jesus is a dude and so is God.
Comment by dragonslayerhedgetrimmer — July 30, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
#142 - I’m guessing maybe you’re not Mormon - or, at least, not familiar with this site?
Comment by Ray — July 31, 2010 @ 1:05 am
The shocking thing for me is when someone tries to convince me that Jesus really was white. It makes no difference to me in the long run, but honestly if we we’re going for accuracy here, Jesus wouldn’t be white or black.
Comment by Andiep — July 31, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
I just stopped by this site briefly before going to bed. I’m usually a lurker, but I just wanted to say that I loved this post. It was a good way for me to end my day.
Comment by Lovelyn — July 31, 2010 @ 6:20 pm
On one hand, it doesn’t matter what Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost look like. What matters is faith, love and charity, and obedience.
On the other hand, it is comforting to have three images in mind when communicating with Father, via the Mediator, and being reassured by the Holy Ghost.
For more modern images of Christ, view the BYU Illustration Alumni youtube presentation. Illustrations other than Christ are also shown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCC_LDVma3U
Enjoy!
Comment by Glenn Smith — August 1, 2010 @ 1:21 am
Thank you Glenn, beautiful way to start Sunday morning.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 1, 2010 @ 9:29 am
Andiep, it actually does make a difference. When I was first reading the Book of Mormon I was under the impression that Jews were quite dark — like most modern-day North Africans. So it bothered me that they were depicted in the pictures as well as in descriptions as white (although technically the US government classifies Arabs as white). Then I started investigating what the people of the region looked like in Bible days. Well, surprise — they were diverse ethnically but they were overall white (many with blue or green eyes and even blonde or red hair). Many coptic Egyptian Christians, Syrians. Lebanese and Berbers today still have light skin, blue/green eyes and some are blondes or red heads (especially in more isolated regions where intermarriage was less likely to occur). Check out the president of Syria and his Syrian wife:
http://topnews.in/files/assad_3.jpg
http://www.menassat.com/files/images/10dama.1.650.jpg
So if one believes that Hebrews and Jews were all dark then it will effect the way they consider the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Personally, my finding out through research that I was wrong in my view that Jews were dark helped humble me a bit and encouraged me to study more into ancient peoples.
Comment by Mike — August 2, 2010 @ 4:11 am
Okay, since the remnant of this thread seems to be missing Nat’s point, and nobody seems to have followed up on the scriptural reference I put way back up at the top, here’s the story in Matt 25:31-46:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [1] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Nat’s point isn’t about Jesus’ eye-color or skin-color. I’m pretty sure she cares about those issues about as much as I do, and i don’t care at all. Her point is about how we see our brothers and sisters. Jesus said that what we do to the least of our brothers and sisters we have done unto him, and that this is the basis by which goats will be separated by sheep. When she says things like Jesus today would be black, or gay, or a woman, she’s not making theological claims about the kind of body Jesus will come back in — she’s pointing to the very people we see as “least,” and that the way we treat them is the way we would treat Jesus, because that’s what Jesus said.
The challenge she’s making is for us to see these people with love and respect, rather than fear and self-superiority. Some years ago, while visiting another ward, I pointed out that the people Jesus associated with were the scum of the Earth in his place and time, and that, if we were to be Christ-like, we would need to have a little scum in our lives. It wasn’t a minute later that somebody said “but what if I don’t want my children exposed to that,” and then everybody went back to being smugly comfortable that they didn’t really have to do anything differently after all.
There are sound reasons to be cautious about allowing emotionally and mentally unstable people into your life and home, but they do not relieve you of the responsibility you accept when you take upon you the name of Christ to care for them. You can’t alleviate that responsibility by paying your tithing or fast offering, or voting to tax other people to pay for it at a nice tidy distance from you. You have to look those people in the eye, face to face, and see them as a brother or a sister that God loves just as much as he loves you, and someone to whom you have familial responsibility to see to. The effort spent in logical gymnastics to try to get away from that needs, instead, to be spent on learning how to minimize whatever threat those individuals represent to your family while you are helping them.
Sometimes, Jean Valjean uses your silver candlesticks to change his life, and sometimes he sells them to buy crack or a gun. You are not required to harm your family, nor are you required to assist him in doing evil. There is no requirement to be stupid. But there is no way to satisfy this obligation at arms-length with clean hands. The person you’re holding at arms-length is Jesus. He said so.
Comment by Blain — August 2, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
Wow, this is powerful.
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
Blain,
THANKS.
I haven’t had time to come in and steer this conversation at all, so I’d basically given it up as a goner. You hit the nail on the head.
I think we have different ideas of how we can properly fulfill the obligation you point out, from Matthew 25, but you illuminated perfectly the main thrust of my post. Much obliged.
Comment by nat kelly — August 2, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
150 — Thanks. I tried.
151 — You’re welcome. I think discussing how to fulfill the obligation can be quite fun. I do think the answer needs to be difficult, but possible. Definitely uncomfortable and challenging. Because people who are at the low points of their lives need people who can see the pain and ugliness in that place and offer them compassion and hope in that pain and ugliness. Not everyone has to be ready to help everyone in need, and not everyone has to sell all they have and give it to the poor. But, if we are to be Celestial, we have to be ready to see everything we have and are and will receive as the property of God to be used for the building up of his kingdom. That’s not merely a symbolic exercise.
The Natural Man (human) is an enemy to God, and the manifestation of that enmity is pride. The solution to pride is humility, which is seeing ourselves in relation to God honestly. Our individual variations from one to another fade to zero when we compare ourselves with the infinity which is God, so humility leaves us unconcerned with any apparent superiority to a brother or sister (which might actually be the case).
I’m starting to ramble again. I’ll pause.
Comment by Blain — August 2, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
I was expecting people to come in here and denounce liberation theology or anything remotely resembling it, as a pernicious form of Satanism.
Instead i learned that Jesus is indeed white but not blond.
Judging by the lack of response about the meaning of a Black Jesus, am I to conclude that Mormonism is also a white man’s religion?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — August 2, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
The whole comment was good, but I like this part b/c I find that this may be a reason why many of us do strive to deal with those we see as problems at arms length. We think “well he’s homeless and a former drug addict, I can’t have him in my house or near my kids”, and so we offer no help at all.
Comment by Andiep — August 2, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
Amen.
I love how you said it all, Blain.
Comment by Donnell Allan — August 2, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
#153 - Did we read the same comments?
Pretty much all internet threads meander around and end up being an argument among a handful of people after about 100 comments - with individuals here and there trying to go back to the original point of the post and everyone else dropping off gradually. It’s just the way it is.
Comment by Ray — August 2, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
Oh, and great job refocusing the discussion, Blain!
Comment by Ray — August 2, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
153 — And a white woman’s religion. And a black man’s religion. And that of many others.
154 — I think that’s it, alright. And it may be that someone who is homeless and a former addict isn’t safe to have around your children — but they might be. Learning to have graduated boundaries of closeness and trust helps, as does teaching your children how to respond to people who are potential threats (target hardening). You can do that without scaring the Hell out of them, also.
Probably wouldn’t hurt to start by volunteering at a homeless shelter, and getting a feel for what real homeless people are like (they’re not all crazy, nor are they all scary, although some of the not-scary ones can/should be very scary). After you’ve got a better idea of the reality of who you’re talking about, you’ll have a better idea of how to prepare your children.
155 & 157 — Wow! Thanks.
Comment by Blain — August 2, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
I have not read any of the comments, forgive me. The original post reminds of a statement that a black woman we tracted into made on my mission. “You boy’s can’t be christian because you are not BLACK!” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Comment by rationalthought — August 5, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
Check this out…
The Protestant preacher in the second film (the one with the cheeks) was Spencer Palmer, the temple president in Seoul Korea that tried to talk me out of my temple marriage there…
Freaked me out to be interviewed for FIVE hours in his office, then see him in clergy garb when I went through the session. Talk about a total mind job… he was pretty strong in his views about interracial marriage and tried everything he could to discourage it. The funny thing is, he embraced another interracial couple that was getting married the next day because the bride was from a prominant Korean Stake Presidents family, eventhough she was marrying a Yankee as well…go figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_J._Palmer
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064697/
http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/seoul/presidents/
Comment by PapaKrok — August 5, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
Two quick thoughts:
1) Along the lines of middleastern and central asiatic features . . . we all remember the 1985 National Geographic Afghani cover girl with her GREEN eyes . . .
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2002/04/afghan-girl/index-text
2) Interesting that NO ONE has mentioned the proclomation of “The Living Christ” issued by the First Pres & Quorum of 12 on Jan 1, 2000 . . . they include a description of the ressurected Christ.
3) Interesting that the feminists haven’t ventured very much into Mary’s physical description. Historically, she’s always been blonde (as described in Josephus . . yes, not a primary source by far, but still much closer to the time than we are today) and alluded to (with controversy) in Nephi’s “most fair” description. In later Christian art she was often depicted with brown or dark hair, sometimes blonde.
yet in the past decade we’ve ALWAYS seen a black or brown haired Mary in church film and art. I personally think she was more golden-light haired.
Black haired mary 1
Black haired mary 2
New Zealander/Austrialian Keisha Castle- Hughes as Mary in the 2006 movie ‘The Nativity Story’
Blonde mary
Blonde Mary 2
4th Century byzentine icon of mary . . . like many early depictions . . . with a head covering hiding her hair.
Comment by J.A.T. — August 6, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
My favorite Bar-B-Que resturant in deeper Lawrence County Alabama, Nash’s, has a medium brown Jesus with curly black hair as well as a rendering of the last supper with people who look more like what one would expect them to look from an ethnic origin perspective. I love it and always point it out to friends whom I take there.
Comment by cgbmac — August 12, 2010 @ 11:16 am
Once artists learned about depth and perspective in art, they set out to capture a true representation of the human body, hence all the naked statues. However, Jesus was rarely ever shown naked in past religious artwork. Why? Not out of respect for modesty like you’d expect, but to hide the fact that Jesus was circumsized. For some reason, Christians had a hard time reconciling the fact that their religious head was a member of another religion. To accept that Jesus isn’t Anglican is to accept that white culture isn’t inherently separated from the rest of the world, in a state of consistent “right-ness”.
Comment by Nadi — August 16, 2010 @ 2:51 am