Christ was not white ..

[_Sethbag]

SNAP. The Great Flood means Cain and his "mark" would have been wiped out...

what now?

You should read the Book of Abraham. Here's a link to it at scriptures.LDS.org.

I'll quote verses 21-24 of chapter 1.

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

Joseph Smith said that the curse of Cain was preserved when Ham, one of Noah's sons, married a woman named Egyptus, who was of the lineage of Cain. Due to the "one-drop" rule then in effect, that made all of Ham's children effectively of the race of Cain, and therefor banned from holding the priesthood. Ham, along with his brothers Shem and Japheth, was saved in the Ark, along with their families. Joseph Smith said that the nation of Egypt was then settled by a descendant of Ham, and thus Egyptians were of the lineage of Cain, and not eligible to hold the priesthood.

Notice that the Book of Abraham talks about "Canaanites" where they really mean "Cainites", or the lineage of Cain. I think it's kind of a funny error, actually. The Bible talks about Canaanites as these "others" who were separate from the Jews, but I read several years ago (thus no cite, sorry) that modern scholarship considers Jews to be Canaanites. Ie: Jews were simply a subset of the Canaanite peoples who long occupied those lands. If only Joseph Smith had known that the Jews were actually Canaanites, he might have written the Book of Abraham a little differently... Or maybe not. Whatever. It's all a steaming pile of shite.

To answer the OP: in Mormon scripture, the default race is essentially caucasian. Departures from that standard are documented in Mormon scriptures as a condition imposed upon a people due to iniquity, by God. Mormons believed Cain was made black, and that's why black Africans could not hold the priesthood in the Mormon church until 1978 (blacks had been "cursed as pertaining to the priesthood" to quote the Book of Abraham). The Lamanites being made dark and loathsome, in contrast to their sparkly white Nephite brethren, due to iniquity, is another example.

Apparently Joseph Smith wasn't exposed enough to other than black and white people, and Native American peoples, so Mormon beliefs and scriptures are utterly silent on why Chinese/Japanese/Vietnamese/etc. people look the way they do. But it's a condition that has to have been pretty recent, since the only humans on Earth just a few thousand years ago after the Flood were either white (Noah and most of his family), or black (the children of Ham).

If this all smells like BS it's because the entire belief system regarding Cain, the origin of black people, the coloring of native Americans, the racial identity of God, and so forth, is all pure hogwash. It is the way it is because Mormonism is just another made-up religion, like every other religion on Earth, and religions typically, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, invent gods for themselves which tend to look like themselves.

Thus, the idea that Jesus and Elohim, his dad, are caucasian (or even whiter) is unsurprising considering Mormonism was founded by white people.

[_beefcalf]

This conversation has made me think of something I hadn't before thought of...

With regard to the question of the origin of the Native American peoples, the faithful believer in the Book of Mormon would hold that they came from Jerusalem 2600 years ago, while the critical view holds that they arrived via the Bering Land Bridge some 15- to 20-thousand years ago. This question has been discussed at some great length because of the possibility to test these two points-of-view via DNA studies.

Isn't it also a truth claim of LDS teachings that all of today's black people (those who were subject to the priesthood ban prior to 1978) all descend from the wife of Ham, Egyptus? If so, does this not present an opportunity to decide whether the evidence available to us would support or erode that truth claim?

Here's what I'm thinking: With the knowledge of haplotypes and haplogroups, with their characteristic drifting and branching through time, shouldn't one be able to look at the Y-DNA of a modern black male and discover whether there are any markers which could only have been inherited from an ancient hebrew tribe?

If the claim made in the Book of Abraham, about Ham and Egyptus being the bottleneck for the curse of Cain, is really true, as we might expect if God is the author, shouldn't there be telltale traces in the Y-DNA of modern black males?

I would say that the null hypothesis, in keeping with a modern understanding of human evolution, is that the hebrew DNA should show traces of descending from more ancient African peoples, but there would be almost no reason to expect to find Hebrew Y-DNA in literally all black males, as we would expect if the Book of Abraham was correct.

Anyone want to set me straight on why this expectation is fundamentally flawed, or why it is not feasible in practice?

[_Quasimodo]

This conversation has made me think of something I hadn't before thought of...

With regard to the question of the origin of the Native American peoples, the faithful believer in the Book of Mormon would hold that they came from Jerusalem 2600 years ago, while the critical view holds that they arrived via the Bering Land Bridge some 15- to 20-thousand years ago. This question has been discussed at some great length because of the possibility to test these two points-of-view via DNA studies.

Isn't it also a truth claim of LDS teachings that all of today's black people (those who were subject to the priesthood ban prior to 1978) all descend from the wife of Ham, Egyptus? If so, does this not present an opportunity to decide whether the evidence available to us would support or erode that truth claim?

Here's what I'm thinking: With the knowledge of haplotypes and haplogroups, with their characteristic drifting and branching through time, shouldn't one be able to look at the Y-DNA of a modern black male and discover whether there are any markers which could only have been inherited from an ancient hebrew tribe?

If the claim made in the Book of Abraham, about Ham and Egyptus being the bottleneck for the curse of Cain, is really true, as we might expect if God is the author, shouldn't there be telltale traces in the Y-DNA of modern black males?

I would say that the null hypothesis, in keeping with a modern understanding of human evolution, is that the hebrew DNA should show traces of descending from more ancient African peoples, but there would be almost no reason to expect to find Hebrew Y-DNA in literally all black males, as we would expect if the Book of Abraham was correct.

Anyone want to set me straight on why this expectation is fundamentally flawed, or why it is not feasible in practice?

A really interesting point, beefcalf!

I'm wondering, though, given the proximity of the Egyptians to both the Semitic peoples just to the East and the Negroid peoples just to the South if they wouldn't normally carry some genes from both.

[_beefcalf]

I'm wondering, though, given the proximity of the Egyptians to both the Semitic peoples just to the East and the Negroid peoples just to the South if they wouldn't normally carry some genes from both.

Hmmm... Yeah, that's probably gonna be an issue, too...

My understanding is that the various waves of migration out of mother Africa, separated by tens or hundreds of thousands of years, can be detected in various DNA markers, but I think I would need to read up on this a bit more before I could confidently state it as fact. I would expect that the semitic tribes of the middle east diverged from their African forebears long ago, and that early divergence is likely evident in the haplogroup studies. If this is the case, a recent re-infusion of hebrew DNA back into African DNA might be discernible.

Yet the more I think about the patrilineal DNA, the less confident I am that we should expect to see these markers in the Y-DNA for every single black male. Yet, the preponderance of black males would still (I think) be expected to show some hebrew markers if the Book of Abraham is not fictional.

[_Quasimodo]

Hmmm... Yeah, that's probably gonna be an issue, too...

My understanding is that the various waves of migration out of mother Africa, separated by tens or hundreds of thousands of years, can be detected in various DNA markers, but I think I would need to read up on this a bit more before I could confidently state it as fact. I would expect that the semitic tribes of the middle east diverged from their African forebears long ago, and that early divergence is likely evident in the haplogroup studies. If this is the case, a recent re-infusion of hebrew DNA back into African DNA might be discernible.

Yet the more I think about the patrilineal DNA, the less confident I am that we should expect to see these markers in the Y-DNA for every single black male. Yet, the preponderance of black males would still (I think) be expected to show some hebrew markers if the Book of Abraham is not fictional.

While there was a VERY early divergence of Semitics from Africans, I think there was a pretty healthy trade between all those people in more recent times (over the last few thousand years). You know how traveling salesmen are. Lots of cross cultural babies, I would bet. All that would have to be taken into account.

Genetic studies of world populations is all the rage these days (both patralinear and mitochondrial). I wouldn't be surprised if some clever anthropologist hasn't already done some great DNA work on the Egyptians and published it.

Let us know what you find!

[_Cardinal Biggles]

Here's what I'm thinking: With the knowledge of haplotypes and haplogroups, with their characteristic drifting and branching through time, shouldn't one be able to look at the Y-DNA of a modern black male and discover whether there are any markers which could only have been inherited from an ancient hebrew tribe?

I'm not sure I understand. Eber, the alleged patriarchal ancestor of all Hebrews, was supposedly a descendant of Shem, not Ham. What am I missing here?

[_beefcalf]

Here's what I'm thinking: With the knowledge of haplotypes and haplogroups, with their characteristic drifting and branching through time, shouldn't one be able to look at the Y-DNA of a modern black male and discover whether there are any markers which could only have been inherited from an ancient hebrew tribe?

I'm not sure I understand. Eber, the alleged patriarchal ancestor of all Hebrews, was supposedly a descendant of Shem, not Ham. What am I missing here?

Hmmm, yes. I hadn't thought of that. If Noah and his sons were not considered 'Hebrew,' or at least semitic, then my original falsification would not be possible, or at least it would not be very persuasive.

Good catch. Thanks!

[_Fiannan]

While I'm not refuting that fair skinned individuals lived in Judea during Christs time there, contemporary pictures of whites from regions not associated with whites don't necessarily reflect the racial make up of the Judea and Palestine regions two thousand years ago. Yes there where Romans,
some of which were from Gaul and France, thus more white then olive. Given that Jews were historically recognized as strictly marrying other Jews, I find it hard to believe that inter marriage amongst the Roman military and Jewish locals as a source for Christ potentially being white.

Especially not Nordic white as commonly depicted in Europe and N. America.

One thing some on the board fail to take into account is that the Middle East is sort of a hub of civilization. Many peoples lived in the region who ranged in every sort of way in regards to race. FOr instance, King Tut's father's genes match those of the people of Ireland today, while the mummy most people believe was the famous Ramesis has red hair (when the hair was examined it was found that that hair is indeed that of people with red hair, not the result of any mummification process). Cleopatra was a Greek and other dynasties of Egypt were made up of Nubian blacks at times. As for the Persians, ancient drawings depict some as blondes, some with red hair and others with black -- sort of like modern-day British whites.

Jews are quite often blonde or red headed. Even Arabs often are born with blue or green eyes and light hair. Light complexions are recessive so as waves of invaders into the Middle East from Asia or places like modern-day Yemen, coupled with bringing in slave women from Africa (males were often castrated so they did not contribute to the genetic mix) have over time created the olive-skinned, black haired look that most Arabs and Sephardic Jews have today, although you still have kids of pure Middle Eastern origin who come out light (look at Kadaffi's family -- he is mixed Jewish and Arab and has a daughter who could easily pass as French). Arafat had a blonde Palistinian wife. So it is likely that many of the original peoples of the region were light. Also, all the Roman cities had large Jewish populations -- like Rome and London. Most converted to Christian while few Christians converted and married into the Jewish populations. If the Jews (who made up 10% of the Roman Empire's population) were dark then one would expect the regions with these ancestors would be dark. However, when one looks at Jewish population in areas that are dark one finds there is a larger proportion of Jews who are blonde or red headed. SO the idea that Ashkenazi Jews are light because of mixing with Europeans is bogus.

[_Quasimodo]

One thing some on the board fail to take into account is that the Middle East is sort of a hub of civilization. Many peoples lived in the region who ranged in every sort of way in regards to race. FOr instance, King Tut's father's genes match those of the people of Ireland today, while the mummy most people believe was the famous Ramesis has red hair (when the hair was examined it was found that that hair is indeed that of people with red hair, not the result of any mummification process). Cleopatra was a Greek and other dynasties of Egypt were made up of Nubian blacks at times. As for the Persians, ancient drawings depict some as blondes, some with red hair and others with black -- sort of like modern-day British whites.

Jews are quite often blonde or red headed. Even Arabs often are born with blue or green eyes and light hair. Light complexions are recessive so as waves of invaders into the Middle East from Asia or places like modern-day Yemen, coupled with bringing in slave women from Africa (males were often castrated so they did not contribute to the genetic mix) have over time created the olive-skinned, black haired look that most Arabs and Sephardic Jews have today, although you still have kids of pure Middle Eastern origin who come out light (look at Kadaffi's family -- he is mixed Jewish and Arab and has a daughter who could easily pass as French). Arafat had a blonde Palistinian wife. So it is likely that many of the original peoples of the region were light. Also, all the Roman cities had large Jewish populations -- like Rome and London. Most converted to Christian while few Christians converted and married into the Jewish populations. If the Jews (who made up 10% of the Roman Empire's population) were dark then one would expect the regions with these ancestors would be dark. However, when one looks at Jewish population in areas that are dark one finds there is a larger proportion of Jews who are blonde or red headed. SO the idea that Ashkenazi Jews are light because of mixing with Europeans is bogus.

Some of what you say is true. Some is pretty spurious.

The real question is why you would care. Does it bother you that Jesus probably had brown eyes, dark curly hair and a dark complexion? Could the Christ only be genuine if he had light hair and blue eyes?

[_Fiannan]

Some of what you say is true. Some is pretty spurious.

The real question is why you would care. Does it bother you that Jesus probably had brown eyes, dark curly hair and a dark complexion? Could the Christ only be genuine if he had light hair and blue eyes?

No, it is because the people promoting the idea just want to make the prevailing attitude of what Christ looked like seem silly and even racist. However, most of these people making such comments have not visited the Middle East or probably know few people from that region.

I know quite a few people from the Middle East. I know a couple of Iranians with green eyes and light skin, a few Assyrians who look more like Italians (slightly olive skin but light eyes and auburn hair) a couple of Syrians who have blue eyes and light complexions, and one Moroccan who has light brown hair and quite white skin -- he says his grandfather in Africa is as blonde as any Swede. An Afghan I know has a grandmother she says had pale skin, red hair and blue eyes. And since every Jew I know ranges between a somewhat Welsh look (slight olive skin with dark brown hair) or blonde to red hair then I find it quite unlikely that the people of the region that is Israel today were dark. Besides, if the Romans were light people then they would have noted if Jews were dark.