Reader comments
Joseph or not? Display of photo raises interest, doubts

Note the purpose of the display is to sell a book. Those that have a problem with those that take advantage of religion to sell books should check their bookcases for any Legacy books or anything about Nephi's sneakers. Maybe ask those Living Scriptures salespeople if they have stopped using ward rosters as contact sheets or setting up sales booths at temple dedications.
It's your money so spend it as you will. Caveat Emptor and all that. Joseph Smith is probably having a good chuckle about all this.

So the rumor that Mark Hofmann has a photo studio at the prison is true.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait until the big meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman to find out for sure. In the mean time, it will be fun to read the range of reactions in this thread. From other threads on other sites, it seems there is a pretty even split between those who think this is Joseph and those who do not. Let the games begin!

I can't beleive the church did not learn anything after the Hofmann fiasco.

What a strange article. Mr. Arave apparently attended the press conference yesteray (or book signing - whatever it was) or at least had access to the author of the book - the man who says he has spent ten years doing what he believes to be extensive historical and forensic research on the photo? Why not one word from Mr. Tracy? Why not one response to the questions of authenticity. The explanations are in the book and I assume Mr. Tracy is willing to talk about them on the record. I myself have many doubts and Mr. Bauman's (and other's) questions are important - but - whether his claims are plausible or not - provable or not - Mr. Tracy does have a response to all of these points - the question of the date of the deguerretype, the age of the person in the photo, the fashion (the colored cravat), the questions of scale. Why not one small quote from the author? It seems like very sloppy journalism to me.

I have seen a lot of deguerretypes. Most of them are of a poor quality. This one appears to be in too good of shape.They were extremely rare in the early 19th century.Also, the individual in the picture might look like a relative or something like that. But I am convinced it is not Joseph Smith.

This particular photo has come up before. Although the paintings we have of Joseph Smith are idealized, which usually happened when individuals were painted, we have an idea of what Joseph looked like. Is this a photo of him? Who can tell. Does it really matter? Not to me.

Charlotte ought to read the article again. What an enormously silly comment to make.

Funny how for all these years nothing then suddenly there may be a photo, very dubious indeed and possibly people should have learned their lesson from previous claims. I have seen portraits of JSmith over the years and gradually he has become this hunk instead of the homely man portrayed in the early days of converting people. Kind of like the paintings of Christ by LDS artist, he looks more like a Scandi than a middle easterner. Very questionable and convenient

Charlotte, how in the world did you reach the conclusion that a picture purported to be Joseph Smith, neither owned nor endorsed by the church, and of high controversy, implies that the church learned nothing from Mark Hofman?

The LDS church does not own the picture, and if you would take the time to read their press release you would find out that they do not endorse the photo as being of J.S. at all.

Get your facts straight before making accusations.

Of course it is Joseph Smith's photograph. Just compare the death mask to the photo. They are identical.

I think the pictures look like Phoenix Suns player Steve Nash.

To Charlotte...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not sponsor this function. That was stated in the beginning of the article.

The dag has the words "Taken in 1853" written on the back of it, but I did not see that noted in the article. Is Tracy explaining that? I have an 1947 reproduction of this image, made in Utah before the Reorganized Church was handed this dag in the 1960s. Mormonism.com

The answer is in the first sentence: "There is no verifide..." and until it is VERIFIDE one should think SCAM.

The church has survived and thrived for 178 years without a photo of Joseph. It makes no difference whether this is the genuine article or not.

The one thing we know for sure is that Joseph Smith looks nothing like the boulderized portrayls of him in church films and literature. People "back then" had bad hair days all the time (if they had hair!). They did not smile because of bad teeth and bad breath. They dressed weird and we would not like what they looked like. Nonetheless, and in keeping with church policy that "some true information is not useful", we'll keep showing the glamorized pictures!

To Former Resident: Thanks for the morning laugh :)
To Derek: Good point, I want to hear what the author of the book has to say in response to the Deg...(however you spell it) experts.
To Lee: Amen
To Ethan: Good observation, I totally see that now.
And to everyone else: I don't think it's him.

I agree.

The church is not an organization, it is the people therefore, the author is the church.
Now I got your attention, what about the picture of Jesus in your living room? When did Jesus ever pose for portrait? I specially object of christian churches displaying picture of Jesus. The only pictures He left are the picture of the cross and the picture of Him in our heart.
I visited the Deseret bookstore once and there was a picture of Joseph Smith fixing Emma's hair; was that really his picture? When claiming the ONLY "True Church" the responsibility to be accurate by in everything is very high.