The Contested Color of Christ


Kawazu
 Share

Recommended Posts

Perhaps; but your cite is incorrect. Book 1, Chapter 8 deals with physical facilities.

And citing to an entire chapter is pretty darned vague; so I do hope that when you post the corrected cite you will be a bit more specific.

Thanks JAG, I was hoping someone would point this out. I was trying to figure out how Bhodi would reference Book 1, chapter 8, in a discussion about interracial marriages, when the chapter speaks about facilities.

I also thought it was interesting that he quoted a whole chapter in the handbook instead of a specific paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would fit better with his mission if He simply blended in with everyone around Him and didn't stand out in any sort of way, Hymn “Oh God the Eternal Father” #175, 3rd verse; When Jesus the anointed, descended from above, and gave himself a ransom to win our souls with love – With no apparent beauty that man should him desire, He was the promised Savior to purify with fire."

As several have stated though, I don't see how that really matters unless one is of the type that somehow have adopted this belief that how we look in this life is how we look in the next. That belief creates a lot of problems, this is one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"White Jesus" in Mormon theology?

I am posting this NPR piece in Gospel Discussion because I am curious to know how accurately it describes the skin color of Jesus Christ in relation to LDS doctrine. It seems to me that the article contains some common misconceptions:

'Color Of Christ': A Story Of Race And Religion In America

NPR - November 19, 2012

What did Jesus look like? The many different depictions of Christ tell a story about race and religion in America. Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey explore that history in their new book, The Color of Christ: The Son of God and the Saga of Race in America. The book traces how different races and ethnic groups claimed Christ as their own — and how depictions of Jesus have both inspired civil rights crusades, and been used to justify the violence of white supremacists.

The Ku Klux Klan could not rely on Christian doctrine to justify their persecution and violence, so they had to turn to religious icons. "The belief, the value, that Jesus is white provides them an image in place of text," Blum tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "It gets them away from actually having to quote chapter and verse, which they can't really do to present their cause."

If Blum had to paint a realistic portrait of Jesus, he says he wouldn't be white: "I would probably paint him darkly complected, not pure black, more in a kind of light brownish ."

Up until the late 1800s, Blum says Americans were comfortable with Jesus' Semitic roots and depicted him with brown eyes. But as waves of Catholic and Jewish immigrants came to the United States, some Americans "became concerned that it was changing the face of America too much, changing it racially, changing it religiously." In the early 20th century, there was an attempt to distinguish Jesus from his Semitic background. Religious writers and artists who were advocating for immigration restrictions began to depict Jesus with blond hair and blue eyes.

Interview Highlights:

On how slave owners presented the image of a white Jesus

"When slave owners try to Christianize their slaves, they bring Jesus in two forms — one is as a servant, and that's to say, 'Hey look, service is good, service is godly, so your work service is good.' But they also present Jesus as master ... You have to follow his lead to not lie, not steal. But when slaves take this Jesus, how they reconnect the dots is to say, 'OK, well if Jesus is master, then my earthly master isn't my only one, he's not my most powerful one, in fact I have a master above my master ... and that master can challenge the slave owner, can teach a higher law.' And then when we get to service, when slaves hear that Jesus was a servant, they say, 'Hey, wait a second, he also suffered, he was crucified, but that wasn't the rest of the story. The rest of the story was he was resurrected, and not only was Jesus resurrected, but he resurrected his friends in the story of Lazarus.'

"So for African-Americans who have death all around them — and not just literal death, but also the death of families, you know, when you see your wife or child sent away ... Jesus has resurrection power for him and his friends. So what slaves do is they basically take those models of master and of servant, and they just connect them differently than the way the slave masters intended, and they create basically a wholly new form of Protestant Christianity."

On how Mormons claimed a sacred America with the image of a white Jesus Christ

"Geographically, one of the problems Americans had had before Mormonism was they wanted to stake their belief on Jesus, but a Jesus who never lived here, never lived in this space. So when the Book of Mormon has prophecy of [Jesus] and then [has] Jesus here on the American continents, all of a sudden America is sacred. ... It precedes Columbus, and the fact that this Jesus is white with blue eyes — it gives Americans long history; not theft from the Indians, but a reclaiming of the land. So the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they're reclaiming the faith, they're reclaiming the land, and they're doing it through a white notion of the sacred."

How Joseph Smith explained race in America

"In Mormon theology — and Smith himself would claim he's not explaining any of this, that these are revelations to him from on high — that basically physical distinctions like light skin, white skin, dark skin, black skin, that those are made by God in part from the Book of Genesis, where after the flood, Noah curses his grandson and, supposedly, his son and grandson then go to Africa. So it seems that Noah's curse is actually from God, and so people of African descent are cursed. But also in Mormon theology, there is a sense that one's skin tone reflects one's pre-this-life sinfulness.

"For Mormons, one's body existed before in a pre-life state, and it'll exist after our lives — our literal bodies will — and so when Joseph Smith looked around him and saw Native Americans, when he saw black Americans, when he saw white Americans — the revelation told him the lighter the skin, the more blessed one and the less sinful one was in the past. And he actually thought that societies would lighten. So the more Native Americans, for instance, would join the church and be good Latter-day Saints, they would actually lighten over time as part of becoming more sacred. But the curse of those [of] African-American descent is intense. Brigham Young, for instance, would say that if a white man was caught having a sexual relationship with a woman with any African descent, he should be executed, perhaps even beheaded on the spot. So while Native Americans could be redeemed more with time, Africans-Americans, people with African descent, were seen really as the ultimate other."

On when the image of a black Jesus emerged

"During the 1920s and 1930s, we see people out of W.E.B. Du Bois' circle drawing Jesus as a Southern black man who is lynched, basically. And then the second time we see it is during the civil rights movement, during the mid- and late-1960s and the 1970s ... that Jesus is more Africanized. He might have an Afro, he might wear a dashiki. ... We see the rise of identity politics, and so making a Jesus who looks like you as part of an expression of power, it becomes important — and that's exactly the same time that African-Americans are quote unquote 'discovering their roots,' as Alex Haley put it. And so going back to Africa, looking more ... 'African' becomes important culturally, and so doing that to Jesus happens at the same time." [Copyright 2012 National Public Radio]

Questions:

What are the sources for the idea that Joseph Smith taught righteousness had to do with skin color? Doctrine and Covenants?

Is the LDS Jesus Caucasian? (I know there are paintings to that effect but I never really took them as historically or theologically accurate.) Realistically, Jesus would have been more Middle Eastern, in appearance, correct?

what color one is inclined ot think christ is is generally is influenced by what culture one grows up in. Most likely he would have had middle eastern features. What Christs's skin color is or was is not taught in the LDS church so memmbers are allowed to come to whatever conclusion in that regard.

Rightiousness affecting skin color is almost absent from our scriptures the only case i can recall is when a group broke away and rebelled from gods people in the america and he gave them a darker skin so that his people would know to avoid them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isaiah 53:2

"he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty (Heb; it is not for his appearance) that we should desire him."

Thanks, and Joseph Fielding Smith interpreted these words to mean that Jesus would look like an ordinary man and thus the Jews would not recognize him as the Son of God. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:23)

And in verse 3; "He is despised and rejected of men ... we esteemed him not."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember seeing a cartoon of a massive black hand coming out of the clouds and it was ready to flick a KKK leader off a hill top while doing his speech. I had a good laugh when I saw that cartoon. Then wondered what if he and Jesus was dark skinned? It does not matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

Another POST from years ago.

It is IRONIC.  People from the area just North of Israel were considered related more to the European than much of those with a tad more melanin for many centuries.  In fact, it was not until the invasions of the Medieval and later times that the skin tones of many of those in the related areas were darkened.  The Byzantium (aka...Eastern Roman) Empire was FULL of those who we would recognize as appearing as those with European roots.  There was a solid mixing between those of Persian and Greek/European descent prior to the time period of the Roman Empire among those who were Semitic and by the time of the Lord you would have those who were VERY white to those who were darker in tone. 

It has been an agenda piece of some to try to force a dialogue by IGNORING what the historic peoples of the area looked like, and indeed, even what they look like today where they tend to be a LOT more fair than what you would find from those of Northeast Africa.  In most accounting, he probably would NOT have looked like what they posted from Popular Mechanics as that is taken from how those (slightly south) in the Middle East may look today after invasions and intermixings of blood from Africa and Asia rather than what they probably appeared as when they were primarily retained in their original appearance.  Even today, if you look at those from Palestine (the Palestinians) they are not necessarily as DARK as the article posted.  In fact, one who went among the Palestinians (who many consider the natives of the area, or more native than some of the European Jews who came back) they would immediately question who this article was getting their DNA analysis from. 

It seems it is more from those who wish to poke a stick in the eye of those who are Christian, or mock the traditional Christian ideas of what the Lord looked like that are pushing a narrative in this direction.  It is not just about pure scientific study and speculation, but with an agenda to tear down the traditional ideas of Christianity.

Nevertheless, there are those that ARE that dark or darker.  There are those that are fairer.  If anything, all any article could point out is that we do NOT KNOW what he really looked like. 

What should be obvious are that the pictures created where he appears like a certain European Noble instead of someone who was more Jewish in appearance probably are inaccurate.  In this the agenda is probably not as bad as some may think, as tearing away the traditional idea that he was copied in face and form after a European Noble rather than what he probably really appeared like is probably a good thing.  We probably shouldn't be worshipping the picture of some Nobility from Europe years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I think people who argue about what skin color He was miss the point. It doesn't matter what skin color He was. It just matters if you believe in Him. 

Nah man, this is important!

After we settle this I’ll start a thread about whether he is right or left handed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Fether said:

Nah man, this is important!

After we settle this I’ll start a thread about whether he is right or left handed

That's awesome. lol  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2019 at 7:45 PM, Fether said:

Nah man, this is important!

After we settle this I’ll start a thread about whether he is right or left handed

I can't believe that there were 25 million results on Google when I Googled it: 

https://www.google.com/search?q=was+jesus+right+or+left+handed&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS744US744&oq=was+jesus+right&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.13071j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it matter?

 

If you are in the ER and a doctor saves your life, does it matter what color they are?  Or if he is a he or a she?  Maybe even outright gay, or perhaps transgender.  But, does it matter?

What about if you are in a car wreck and an EMT saves your 5 year old daughter's life.  Does any of that matter?

So if it doesn't matter in those two cases why should it matter what color Jesus was?  Yeah, it's a good debate topic, but in the end it's still the same question- does it really matter?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my personal opinion that man has fallen and that one effect of the fall is genetic diversity.  Among mortals there is no superior or inferior genetic identity - not white, not black and not anything in between.   We may call some genetic diversity a inferior or corrupted genetic condition - but mortality in my mind is corrupted genetics.  It is my opinion that there is no corresponding kind of genetic diversity in the resurrection.  It may be possible (perhaps even likely) that there is genetic diversity between Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial resurrected beings.  

I believe that if we were to see Jesus Christ today - we would not see him as he is if we were to see him as he appeared in mortality.   Likely, if we were to look directly at Christ it would burn holes in our retina quicker than looking directly at the sun.

That Jesus came to earth and was born of a mortal mother - in mortality we tend to see and think of him as we see and think of ourselves.   I am of the mind that if we could see anyone in their glory (before or after our mortal condition) we would fall down and worship them - also we would be amazed, astonished and completely captivated at their sheer beauty.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share