Does God wear a tie?
I'm not an archaeologist, so I don't spend a lot of my time researching the fashions of history (except for late Elizabethan and early Jacobean England because of course). Additionally, fashion doesn't particularly speak to me--I try to look nice (most of the time) in a conventional, conservative way. It's one of the few areas in my life where I'm comfortable modifying it with the descriptor "conservative".
But when talking about God (or Jesus, which is similar and, yet, different), I start running into imaginative cul-de-sacs. Starting at the beginning (you know, 16th century Italy), I'd have to say that my mental concept for God would have to be Michelangelo's. As a lifelong Mormon and participant in selective parts of Christianity, this is a good starting point.
While an art historian could probably bring in a lot of potential layers of meaning, I'm considering fashion and appearance here, rather than symbolism and art technique. For me, the scowling, white-haired, pink (and fully) robed God is really the quintessence of my mental image.
However, as a Mormon, there's a slight modification to His presence, due in large part to what Mormons call "The First Vision". With God's appearance with Jesus as a separate person, an image like this has been, in many ways, an amalgamation of the "traditional Western" of Michelangelo with the internalization and incorporation of Americanism-via-Mormonism:
The robes remain (though the color, again according to Joseph's account, are white instead of pink), but the beard and hair become more constrained. The dynamism of God's posture has shifted from active to a complacent gesture, but that's more artistic license than anything else. (Of course, Joseph Smith is wearing the typical clothing of late 1810s New England.)
The above image is, I believe, partly informed by the "classic" Mormon version of what Jesus looks like. And, it should be said, that traditionally, Jesus is considered to be either God Himself--meaning looking at Jesus is the same as looking at God--or in the exact same likeness, since Jesus is a separate entity from God the Father (which is the Mormon interpretation; see picture above, yo). So, when an image of Jesus comes along, it's assumed that this is not simply depicting the Son of God but also of the Almighty. Therefore, the next piece of my mental image of what God looks like would be this one.
If I remember correctly, my 9th grade Seminary teacher said that a General Authority of the Church pointed to that same portrait when declaring that he (the General Authority) had seen Jesus in a vision. That could be Mormonlore, but it's a story that touches the fringes of my memory. I'm not saying the story isn't true--or that what's said in the story isn't true--but regardless of its veracity, most Mormons, when given an uncritical question about what Jesus looks/looked like, would use this as their starting point.
But that then raises questions about historicity that I think do matter, not because it would impact how Jesus would be worshiped or revered, but because there's something about being as accurate as possible that appeals to me. (As an aside, this site has an entire evolution of Christ in art, including the "Mormon Jesus" that is an appellation that appeals to me. It's a quick look; you should check it out.)
It's highly unlikely that the Indoeuropean version of Jesus that Bloch embraced (and, subsequently, so did much of Mormonism) accurately depicts the man Jesus (and if Jesus became something different after His resurrection, then some of the questions I discussed here might come to bear). The question of what is called the "historic Jesus", and what he looks like, circulates often. This article puts it fairly succinctly, including the image from an artist about the modern reconstruction of what a Galilean would have looked like, which some people took to mean the historical Jesus looked like this:
Not only do we have some idea of what Jesus, in a general way, might have looked like, we also know a bit about the fashion of the time, so that it's fair to put Jesus in robes--though the pink of Michelangelo's version may have been a stretch--and there are different types. Much of what I've seen of biblical recreations of Jesus' time have been, so far as this archaeologist would posit, fairly accurate. Seeing a picture of Jesus interacting with Jews of His time, like this one from Carl Bloch, are fine. Not perfectly accurate, but not egregiously wrong on every conceivable level--at least, when it comes to the fashion.
If we're extrapolating, from history, what Jesus looked and dressed like, then assuming that He is the perfect image of His Father, then we have an idea of what God looks and...dresses like?
And there's the crux of my question. See, if God is pictured as some variation of Michelangelo or the First Vision painting, then He's not only of the same likeness as the Son, He's also in the same fashion as the Son.
I can't remember the details, but the story goes that the artist commissioned to make the following painting wasn't LDS, and so when he painted it, the Church authorities were distraught that Christ wasn't wearing red, per the Doctrine and Covenants (133:48), so the artist gave Jesus the red sash in the center. Maybe another bit of Mormonlore, I don't know.
This conceit, then, is that Jesus--and, again, by extension, God--dresses the same way that He did when He was first on Earth. And that's strange to me.
I'm not opposed to wearing robes; as a matter of fact, they're surprisingly comfortable (though, when I wore them, it was hot and I had a lot of layers and it made me sweat). But they're also the clothing of His day--not only that, but common clothing. I don't get the feeling that the Second Coming of Jesus would see the Son of Man coming down, dressed in jeans and a tee-shirt, yet that's essentially what we have in the picture above. Sure, he's wearing white clothing, which means something different,* but we see Christ in white even during His mortal ministry. This creates a discrepancy, at least in my mental image of God.
The idea of "making God in our own image" is hardly unique. Putting aside the eschatological implications of that phrase, the idea that we see God as we are (Black Jesus comes to mind) is worth pursuing for a moment. What happens when a religion gets very prescriptive on its fashion, as Mormonism has and is? It's not uncommon for members to joke that Jesus wouldn't be allowed in the testing center at Brigham Young University because of His beard, thanks to the Honor Code. Taken to another level, we get this:
In a way, this image answers the question of if God wears a tie. In this case, He does. But the image isn't meant to be taken seriously--not in the way the original (on the left, in case you were unclear) was meant to be taken. Setting aside artistic intent, it's pretty clear that what we see on the right is the concept of Jesus as a modern Man. The interesting thing here, is that Jesus is dressed up--not in the common clothing of the times, as He is depicted in almost all religious art. In fact, I poked around Google Images for a bit, trying to find a rendition of Jesus as a modern person, wearing jeans and a tee-shirt. I didn't think any of the images I saw being something that wasn't meant to poke fun or approach the topic from anything but satire.
The question is sharpened for me as a Mormon because the Church has embraced a fashion that is, at this point, essentially a century old. Yes, you can make the argument that men's suits have changed a lot since the 1910s, but let's be honest: All the pieces are there. The length of the coat changes, as well as the shape of the lapel, but I could time travel to 1925 in my Sunday best and be scarcely remarked upon. And in the LDS Church, we men love our suits.
In fact, there's an unspoken expectation that if you're a man speaking in Church** or giving a lesson, you should be wearing a suit. Even in my mission, which was in southern Florida, I had to wear a suit coat on Sundays and to all Church meetings (the rest of the time I could wear the white Oxford shirt, tie, and slacks), turning the unspoken expectation into a spoken rule.
The idea, then, of Church authority--and, therefore, God's authority--is one that's bound up in the way we dress. I think there is something significant and spiritual about apparel, so I'm not making this argument as a dismissal of changing clothing for separate occasions (though I hate ties, personally, and would love to see them go away forever). But the question of whether or not how we present ourselves as a community to the world--that is, the face of Mormonism, the faces in that last picture above--is indicative of the image of God that we feel we're mirroring is what raises my question.
And, after saying all that, I still don't know.
Does God wear a tie?
----
* I'm not trying to downplay the significance of color. The idea of Christ returning, dressed in red, is a striking concept, and it's loaded with additional significance. But I think my point still stands.
** Because the Church's local wards (congregations) run on lay clergy, it becomes the resident members' opportunity to discourse during Sunday meetings, as well as prepare lessons for Sunday School and other programs.
I'm not an archaeologist, so I don't spend a lot of my time researching the fashions of history (except for late Elizabethan and early Jacobean England because of course). Additionally, fashion doesn't particularly speak to me--I try to look nice (most of the time) in a conventional, conservative way. It's one of the few areas in my life where I'm comfortable modifying it with the descriptor "conservative".
But when talking about God (or Jesus, which is similar and, yet, different), I start running into imaginative cul-de-sacs. Starting at the beginning (you know, 16th century Italy), I'd have to say that my mental concept for God would have to be Michelangelo's. As a lifelong Mormon and participant in selective parts of Christianity, this is a good starting point.
 |
| The original finger beam shooter. (Source) |
However, as a Mormon, there's a slight modification to His presence, due in large part to what Mormons call "The First Vision". With God's appearance with Jesus as a separate person, an image like this has been, in many ways, an amalgamation of the "traditional Western" of Michelangelo with the internalization and incorporation of Americanism-via-Mormonism:
 |
| God is on the right, based upon Joseph Smith's description. (Source) |
The above image is, I believe, partly informed by the "classic" Mormon version of what Jesus looks like. And, it should be said, that traditionally, Jesus is considered to be either God Himself--meaning looking at Jesus is the same as looking at God--or in the exact same likeness, since Jesus is a separate entity from God the Father (which is the Mormon interpretation; see picture above, yo). So, when an image of Jesus comes along, it's assumed that this is not simply depicting the Son of God but also of the Almighty. Therefore, the next piece of my mental image of what God looks like would be this one.
 |
| This version of Jesus is everywhere in LDS culture. (Source) |
If I remember correctly, my 9th grade Seminary teacher said that a General Authority of the Church pointed to that same portrait when declaring that he (the General Authority) had seen Jesus in a vision. That could be Mormonlore, but it's a story that touches the fringes of my memory. I'm not saying the story isn't true--or that what's said in the story isn't true--but regardless of its veracity, most Mormons, when given an uncritical question about what Jesus looks/looked like, would use this as their starting point.
But that then raises questions about historicity that I think do matter, not because it would impact how Jesus would be worshiped or revered, but because there's something about being as accurate as possible that appeals to me. (As an aside, this site has an entire evolution of Christ in art, including the "Mormon Jesus" that is an appellation that appeals to me. It's a quick look; you should check it out.)
It's highly unlikely that the Indoeuropean version of Jesus that Bloch embraced (and, subsequently, so did much of Mormonism) accurately depicts the man Jesus (and if Jesus became something different after His resurrection, then some of the questions I discussed here might come to bear). The question of what is called the "historic Jesus", and what he looks like, circulates often. This article puts it fairly succinctly, including the image from an artist about the modern reconstruction of what a Galilean would have looked like, which some people took to mean the historical Jesus looked like this:
 |
| Short haired, short beard (probably/possibly), wide nose, dark skin. A Galilean. (Source) |
 |
| Probably too colorful, though. (Source) |
And there's the crux of my question. See, if God is pictured as some variation of Michelangelo or the First Vision painting, then He's not only of the same likeness as the Son, He's also in the same fashion as the Son.
I can't remember the details, but the story goes that the artist commissioned to make the following painting wasn't LDS, and so when he painted it, the Church authorities were distraught that Christ wasn't wearing red, per the Doctrine and Covenants (133:48), so the artist gave Jesus the red sash in the center. Maybe another bit of Mormonlore, I don't know.
 |
| Christ coming at the beginning of the Millennium. (Source) |
This conceit, then, is that Jesus--and, again, by extension, God--dresses the same way that He did when He was first on Earth. And that's strange to me.
I'm not opposed to wearing robes; as a matter of fact, they're surprisingly comfortable (though, when I wore them, it was hot and I had a lot of layers and it made me sweat). But they're also the clothing of His day--not only that, but common clothing. I don't get the feeling that the Second Coming of Jesus would see the Son of Man coming down, dressed in jeans and a tee-shirt, yet that's essentially what we have in the picture above. Sure, he's wearing white clothing, which means something different,* but we see Christ in white even during His mortal ministry. This creates a discrepancy, at least in my mental image of God.
The idea of "making God in our own image" is hardly unique. Putting aside the eschatological implications of that phrase, the idea that we see God as we are (Black Jesus comes to mind) is worth pursuing for a moment. What happens when a religion gets very prescriptive on its fashion, as Mormonism has and is? It's not uncommon for members to joke that Jesus wouldn't be allowed in the testing center at Brigham Young University because of His beard, thanks to the Honor Code. Taken to another level, we get this:
 |
| If Jesus were an LDS missionary. (Source) |
In a way, this image answers the question of if God wears a tie. In this case, He does. But the image isn't meant to be taken seriously--not in the way the original (on the left, in case you were unclear) was meant to be taken. Setting aside artistic intent, it's pretty clear that what we see on the right is the concept of Jesus as a modern Man. The interesting thing here, is that Jesus is dressed up--not in the common clothing of the times, as He is depicted in almost all religious art. In fact, I poked around Google Images for a bit, trying to find a rendition of Jesus as a modern person, wearing jeans and a tee-shirt. I didn't think any of the images I saw being something that wasn't meant to poke fun or approach the topic from anything but satire.
The question is sharpened for me as a Mormon because the Church has embraced a fashion that is, at this point, essentially a century old. Yes, you can make the argument that men's suits have changed a lot since the 1910s, but let's be honest: All the pieces are there. The length of the coat changes, as well as the shape of the lapel, but I could time travel to 1925 in my Sunday best and be scarcely remarked upon. And in the LDS Church, we men love our suits.
 |
| Could be a Mr. Mac convention. Okay, these are singers in the choir, which has a uniform. But, still. (Source) |
The idea, then, of Church authority--and, therefore, God's authority--is one that's bound up in the way we dress. I think there is something significant and spiritual about apparel, so I'm not making this argument as a dismissal of changing clothing for separate occasions (though I hate ties, personally, and would love to see them go away forever). But the question of whether or not how we present ourselves as a community to the world--that is, the face of Mormonism, the faces in that last picture above--is indicative of the image of God that we feel we're mirroring is what raises my question.
And, after saying all that, I still don't know.
Does God wear a tie?
----
* I'm not trying to downplay the significance of color. The idea of Christ returning, dressed in red, is a striking concept, and it's loaded with additional significance. But I think my point still stands.
** Because the Church's local wards (congregations) run on lay clergy, it becomes the resident members' opportunity to discourse during Sunday meetings, as well as prepare lessons for Sunday School and other programs.