Is this the Prophet??


bytor2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

The eyes and nose are very similar. The hair and the collar on the shirts seem to change the way the face looks. From some of the information I have read at other sites and forums it appears there are those who are wanting to question the whole "Who was Joseph Smith" based on this newly found picture.

Ben Raines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first photo looks more like I have imagined him...supposedly taken in 1844...just before his death. The second one is supposedly taken right after Liberty jail, supposedly bwhy he is so thin....but he looks way to young, I think. The third photo, supposedly taken with Brigham Young...could be. Look at how big his shoulders are...the face not like I imagined but he is definitely a physically imposing looking fellow and the other person looks like BY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in a used book store the other day picking up some books and one of the workers there brought to my attention a new book about the recently discovered photo of Joseph (the second photo)The book has many illustrations and pictures and pleads it case that the photo is Joseph. It brings out the supposed evidence as to why this is the case.

I had read the article regarding this photo in the newspaper a few months ago and didn't give it much creedence as I have always thought that the first photo kind of fell in line with the more traditional depictings of Joseph Smith through portraits etc.

But the emplyee said after reading this book that he is thouroughly convinced that that the second photo is indeed Joseph. I guess the book compares the death mask with the bone structure of the photo and then comparisons with his offspring, and also some other info and some church history thrown in. I asked him two or three times if he truly was convinced and each time he assured me of his conviction.

I was going to call the bookstore and ask him the title since I could not remember, but they close at 5:00 p.m. on Sat.

The book is thin but the body is about twice the size of a regular hardback and full of nice photos and illustrations ( that should be enough to identify it, right?)

Anyway I thought about buying it but I had already made a couple of purchaces and it was about 40 smackers-- and I thought hey, that might be enough to buy a half a tank of gas and a can of Albacore Tuna Fish (on a good day) so I went with the latter.

Maybe next payday--until then I will see if I can get more info on the book.

On the wall the store even had a big portrait that was painted from the photo (I'll bet you never see that one at Deseret Book :eek:)

HB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought the first one was a painting not a photo. The face looks animated to me. The second one I always felt looked to young for the time it was supposedly taken. I actually came a cross a photo on youtube that I thought looked more like he should look. (How he should look in my mind anyway. It was a rather handsome man.) I'll have to find it and post it when I get a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too, Breeb. I was always under the impression that it was painting.

This new photo and all the buzz surrounding it is interesting. I was watching a little blurb on TV about it and one man was saying that the picture would break this idealized image of the prophet and therefore shake the testimony of the members. Something like that may disturb those who really like Janice Kapp Perry songs (no offense, Jancie), but I find such image breaking somewhat refreshing. Joseph was a human like the rest of us. He had bad hair days and didn't have designer clothes or a PR firm. He was a man, like the rest of us, who was trustworthy enough to be an important instrument in the hands of God. I think that it is important for any and all who have a testimony of the prophet to look into and beyond the image and into a more realistic view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My H, who is a painter, says it is a painting. He can tell since that is what he does all day. I have to agree with misshalfway. When I talked to my bro about it he asked me, "What difference does it make?" I told him it didnt make a difference to me WHAT he looked like, even though I always pictured him as handsome, but when you see a picture of a man not a painting it makes him that much more real. You are looking at him as close the flesh as you can get and he become even more real than before. I would think it would help stregnthen testimonies even more. At least for me anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for picture #2. I've seen it compared to a picture of his son, Joseph III, when

about the same age and there was a very strong resemblance.

In the photo the shoulders are sort of dropped forward, if he had been standing with his shoulders back, they would look much broader, I think.

And I've always read that Joseph Smith looked much younger than his actual age, so this picture fits. And he was a handsome man, according to reports, and picture #2 fits, especially if he had smiled for the photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from comevisit.com regarding photo # 1..... I am leaning toward #3

A PHOTO OF A PAINTED PORTRAIT?

The JSIII photo had been dismissed as a photograph of a painting. Very similar is the likeness referred to by many as the "Majors" painting (the name "Majors" taken from the presumed artist). Computer experts have enhanced sections of the JS III image finding detail disproving the notion that it is a photo of the "Majors" painting. Details such as blood vessels in the eyes, and individual eyelashes are found. Details of button type, clothing style, and specific weave patterns in the jacket are beyond what would be produced by an painter of the time.

The "Majors" painting could not be what the photograph is of - it had to be a living man. The similarities between the two have been explained, according to art experts, by the understanding that the painting was most likely made as a copy of the 1843 daguerreotype.

A PHOTOGRAPH?

The JSIII photograph has been scrutinized by art history specialists at the University of Utah, an expert in early photography from the Smithsonian and others. All agree that this image of Joseph Smith is a retouched photograph; and not artistic, but photographic in it's origin.

There are many reasons behind this conclusion, some of them include:

1. Enlargments of the eyes reveal individual eyelashes and hints of blood vessels.

2. The coat button at the lower right has an out-of-focus, three dimensional and extremely realistic photographic quality to it.

3. An expert in clothing styles and textiles found the weave of the fabric in an enlargement of the area around the left collar and lapel. This weave accurately followed the directions appropriate to the different cuts of this style of clothing. Details of the weave of the fabric would be far to tedious for an artist to paint.

Edited by bytor2112
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