Deseret News | LDS Church seeks to quell photo buzz

Reader comments
LDS Church seeks to quell photo buzz

161 comments | Read story

Karen | 6:00 p.m. March 20, 2008

Bottom Line... who really cares? Is this going to make any diffrence in the way we live?... No so let's just get on with life.

Ryan | 6:09 p.m. March 20, 2008

Where Can I find the Picture?

Tom | 6:18 p.m. March 20, 2008

Right, what happened to the photo? It was on this web site this morning and now I can't find it anywhere. Hum?

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 6:27 p.m. March 20, 2008

Are you guys all certain that you are all members of the LDS church? What's with all the bad attitudes on here? Like who cares! and with the statement--- Get on with your life?---- What's that?

I think the picture is that of Joseph Smith. I am pretty good with faces and I think it is him!

Anonymous | 9:44 p.m. March 20, 2008

people will find any reason to bicker ,CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG ...

JOHN TAYLOR'S COMMENTS | 11:05 p.m. March 20, 2008

IN TEACHINGS OF JOHN TAYLOR, JOHN TAYLOR SAYS

THAT PLACED IN EITHER THE CAPSTONE OR THE

CORNERSTONE OF THE SALT LAKE TEMPLE, (I DO

RECALL WHICH) THAT A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE

PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH WAS PLACE THEREIN.

I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED, SINCE HE KNEW JOSEPH,

WHY THE CHURCH HAS NOT RETRIEVED THAT PHOTO?

ANY ANSWERS? I THINK JOHN TAYLOR KNEW WHAT

JOSEPH LOOKED LIKE. NO DOUBT, EH? GET THE

PHOTO OUT, COPY IT, THEN PUT IT BACK!

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS!!!!!

Evidence Schmevidence | 6:13 a.m. March 21, 2008

Anonymous: "I think the picture is that of Joseph Smith. I am pretty good with faces and I think it is him!"

Oh good! Proof positive that it IS him! Now that we've got that out of the way ...

Actually, you really have just applied one of scholarship's most popular tools: creatio indicii ex nihilo.

Member | 9:06 a.m. March 21, 2008

Personally, I would like to see the photo. I think it would be nice if it was a photo of the prophet. I don't believe that they can prove it either way tho.

GOTH P. | 10:49 a.m. March 21, 2008

I think it definitely is a Smith. Why else would it be saved in RLDS archives? Which Smith, is a mystery. JSIII was darker in complexion than JSII due to his mother. So I donï¿½t think it is JSIII unless it is a photo of him at 20 or so. It is more likely a photo of William or Samuel Smith, younger brothers of JSII.
The problem of available technology is also an issue. Was the photographic technology available at the time of JSII to make this photo an option? Possible but highly improbable, unless JSII traveled to Chicago or Washington at some point and had the photo taken there. Even if he did, then the photo is of remarkable clarity for its time. Itï¿½s fun to conjecture that is The Prophet, especially in light of the somewhat incredible gaze of the individual (apart for the normally stoic gaze of a early photographed subject). His gaze is incredible. It definitely is the gaze of one who has seen incredible things which wants me so much to believe that it is Joseph Smith Junior in my heart, but my head tells me it is not. Hope I am proved wrong.

CougarKeith | 10:57 a.m. March 21, 2008

Re:Evidence?, there is plenty of evidence about the BOM, and that Joseph Smith Jr. was a Prophet of God. I suppose it is all how you want to see it, with an open or a closed mind. I am a convert because I see the "Evidence" with an open mind, you are a "Skeptic" because you view it with a "Closed" mind, or you got your info from the opposite side I did, or you chose to believe the nay-sayers over the Yeah-sayers. Dear "IL Resident", true, photography was invented after the death of the Prophet, but there was the very early beginnings of "reflections" taken from light reflections onto metal and glass plates. There were no negatives at the time. The name of it was in some of the early comments.

David Canuck | 11:17 a.m. March 21, 2008

Ken Baguley: I believe David O McKay's response to the reporter was: "You tell me I'm not a prophet!" I don't know that he said "Look into my eyes!" Find me the quote, and I'll be happy.

CougarKeith | 11:18 a.m. March 21, 2008

Dear Ill resident... Closest thing to it was "daguerreotype", a light reflecting primitive photography of chemicals burnt on a metal plate by light from a hole in a box exposed. It was then treated by chemicals. This was the earliest of Photography known. In 1827 the first fixed immage was taken with 8 hours of exposure in FRANCE. In 1839 the time was cut to less than 30 minutes in FRANCE. In 1840 the first American Camera Patent issued to Alexander Wolcott. Then we skip to 1850 where there were over 70 daguerreotype studios in NYC alone, so photography was spreading fast. So there could be a picture of Joseph Smith, chances are if there were one it wouldn't be high quality even for the time, so being able to see the finger nails is probably proof enough for me this is Joseph Smith III very young. Those are not very broad shoulders nor do the hands fit the description of the Prophet. Draw in a beard and compare a picture to Joseph Smith III, and guess what, it looks much more like him than does it the Prophet Joseph Smith. It prays that way too.

Oren | 1:32 p.m. March 21, 2008

So?

Someone has a dagguerrotype of an individual. Good luck in verifying it.

My Opinion | 2:22 p.m. March 21, 2008

It could be Joseph although many in here argue he does not look athletic enough. Please remember that people didn't start taking steroids until this century.

Compare pics of Dale Murphy to Jose Conseco to see what I mean.

Seek the truth & know | 2:25 p.m. March 21, 2008

PEOPLE! This is definitly the Prophet Joseph Smith's Photograph rather anyone of you has enough brilliance within your minds and spirits to recognize this? Many of you just like to criticize, condemn and find fault with everything and everyone... NO spirituality needed for your conditions. I wish you all MUCH LUCK while you contend with the devil, that somehow in the end you will find God.

Rich | 4:58 p.m. March 21, 2008

I'm waiting for more evidence to decide whether this could be a picture of Joseph Smith Jr. If there were proof, I would accept the photo as genuince. Otherwise, I tend to believe it is not Joseph Smith Jr. because it doesn't look much like the portraits of him during his life or shortly after his death. If those portraits were not realistic, I think people who knew the prophet would have said so.

Quell | 5:08 p.m. March 21, 2008

This headline and lead was written by an editor and a reporter at the DN and did not accurately reflect the true story. The church wasn't trying to quell anything; it was just trying to emphasize its position that it has no proof whether the photo shows Joseph Smith Jr. or somebody else. Reporters and editors have a hard time reporting the truth when they can come up with something more dramatic and sensational. I used to work as a news reporter, and it didn't take me long to see what the editors really wanted. They like verbs such as "skyrocket" even when "increase" or "rose" might be more accurate. The result is poor reporting and poor editing. The public wants the truth, at least in newspapers.

Answers | 5:22 p.m. March 21, 2008

For Stewart, and others: A daguerotype photographer showed up in Nauvoo in the spring of 1844 and lived for a time in the Mansion House with the Joseph Smith family. He opened up a studio in Nauvoo and many of you have seen his photo of the Nauvoo Temple from downtown Nauvoo. He also took a very nice daguerotype of Willard Richards, wife and son in November of 1844. Joseph Smith, and later his son, said the Prophet sat for a photo. All of this tells us there was daguerotype photography in Nauvoo in 1844 and that there is one of Joseph Smith.

The RLDS church received this one from a family in the 1960's, who also had an original LDS hymn book put together by Emma Smith. They thought this was Joseph and the Community of Christ's historian, Ron Romig, thinks it very well could be. Many in our church think it is, others do not. It probably cannot be proven.

However, Wilford Woodruff (I don't know about John Taylor, mentioned by someone else)is documented as saying that photos of Joseph and Hyrum were put in a box at the base of Moroni in the SLC temple spire.

idolatry | 8:12 p.m. March 21, 2008

article further convinces me that LD$ practices idolatry

Fanatical Anti-Mormons | 5:52 a.m. March 22, 2008

What?! (insert sarcasm here) A church that actually is trying to set a deceptive rumor?

Contrast this honest, ethical practice of setting the facts strait by the LDS church, with the Catholic Church intentionally keeping quiet, or fanning every rumored "relic found" or story of: "this just in! image of Mary found in a man's baseball"

I'll take ethical, sound honesty, over gimmicks any day.

Bryan | 6:00 a.m. March 22, 2008

RE QUELL: "The definition of "quell" is, "suppress" or "quiet." Why does the church have to seek to quiet and/or suppress people?"

You seriously can't see why? Because to KEEP QUIET, and not quell a brewing falsehood among the public who don't have all the facts, when inside, you DO know the facts, quite frankly, is the same as lying. Sometimes there is great dishonesty in keeping your mouth shut. Good for the LDS Church for setting the record and facts straight. Honorable.

Re: idolatry | 6:23 a.m. March 22, 2008

Please define "idolatry." Don't leave us hanging.

This isn't one of those vague Evangelical buzzwords (e.g. the word "cult") that some Evangelicals use to assault and persecute non-Evangelicals, is it?

I hope not.

I don't believe anyone here has suggested prostrating themselves before any photographs. Please clarify.

@idolatry 8:12pm | 7:31 a.m. March 22, 2008

How and in what world does this article 'prove' the LDS church practices idolatry??

To everyone else who thinks this is a picture of Joseph Smith and says they prayed about it, well, unless the First Presidency says it is...It is not!

Anonymous | 8:16 a.m. March 22, 2008

won't we just see him when we die?

dayel | 9:24 a.m. March 22, 2008

Thank you for shring your artical about joseph smith jr. I think it is really cool that we might have a picture of him.And I was wondering how much shooling you have to get to become a writer.

dayel | 9:49 a.m. March 22, 2008

Dear editor
thank you for shring your article about joseph smith jr I think it is relly awsome that we might have a picture of him. I was wondering how do you match a picture to a death mask or a skull

OldWolf | 10:49 a.m. March 22, 2008

In the news article I saw some small images of forensic work that had been done, overlaying images of the death mask, Josephs skull structure from when he was exhumed, and the photograph. I did some of these things myself, and I have to say it's darn close, especially if you take Photoshop and give the photo a faint smile. It seems to match up point for point. The more I look at the picture, the more I think it could be genuine. Sadly, as everyone has pointed out, there is no way of proving it without a corroborating paper trail.

It would be very exciting to have a confirmed image of the prophet, but I wouldn't be overly disappointed if it turned out to be someone else. The images we do have, along with the historical descriptions, are sufficient to transmit the measure of the man, and the same man's name is held for both good and evil around the world, depending on who is doing the looking.

Fred | 11:45 a.m. March 22, 2008

WHO CARES?

Fred | 1:52 p.m. March 22, 2008

>>Whoever this person is, there is something strangely compelling about an individual staring out at you over so much time and space.<<

That's not Smith. That's my great-great-great uncle. He was a horse thief. Died a pauper.

dallin | 3:16 p.m. March 22, 2008

i love you

QUELL... | 7:14 p.m. March 22, 2008

... was a miserable choice of words. please invest in a decent copyeditor to write headlines (see "Utahns getting over Mitt" also), and at least change the headlines online when they blow up in your face. please.

Fred.... | 7:16 p.m. March 22, 2008

evidently your great-great-great uncle also sired a moron.

Roger | 10:28 p.m. March 22, 2008

The bloggers at Times and Seasons have had some good posts about this picture, explaining the missing provenance and pointing out many other reasons why this picture is not likely to be Joseph.

Where is it | 5:58 a.m. March 23, 2008

Where is the photo? Why did'nt the dnews show it?

Roger Cambridgeshire | 9:23 a.m. March 23, 2008

It is what Joseph was and did which in the grand scale of things matters. What he looked like is irrelevant although most all of us would wish to see and meet him. I guess we will all have to wait until that time comes and then as with our Saviour we will know them as we see them with little uncertainty.

Mark | 10:33 a.m. March 23, 2008

I happen to know a little bit about this daguerreotype. I am aware that there has been a thorough investigation which included a matching of this daguerreotype superimposed over the skull bones of the prophet as well as the death mask. The features matched perfectly, cheek bones, orbital bones, jaw and chin. This is authentic. You may notice the very receding hairline which appears on the left side of the scalp and this is the result of having recently been tarred and feathered.

This is a picture of the Prophet!

russ | 11:53 a.m. March 23, 2008

wow... people believe what they want to believe, and disregard the rest. As a non-Mormon, e.g. a Christian, I find this blog on the photo to be fascinating. What arguments, for and con. What belief, for and con. It is obvious to a neutral party that:

People believe what they want to believe, and disregard the rest.

Jason | 2:24 p.m. March 23, 2008

Mark,

If you are going to invoke scientific arguments, then let's be very scientific about it.

Instead of saying, "This is a picture of the Prophet!" it would be more accurate to say, "This is very likely a picture of Joseph Smith, who claimed to be a prophet!"

Mixing statements of faith and statements of reason is inappropriate.

John | 2:38 p.m. March 23, 2008

The "article" is a little off on details. Community of Christ has had the picture in their archives since 1969, when it was donated, according to an article co-written by Community of Christ Archivist in 1994. See the Saints Herald December 1994, page 8-10,12 for the article. Which includes a discussion about various images and the research done regarding the image in question. The article is a bit dates so a few things are probably different today (such as the artist for the oil paintings has been identified in the last year or so)

Ronald A. Young | 7:07 p.m. March 23, 2008

I am going to stay out of this one. I think this serves to devide not Unite.

Jim | 7:40 p.m. March 23, 2008

Well Fredd my boy,
We all care just a bit because Joseph Smith is the founder of our church, and it is nice to have a true likeness of him to look at and view. So I care a lot.
And for those of you who have NO faith. I ask you to pray and you will know if it is Joseph or not.... It's quite simple.

JS lll | 11:47 p.m. March 23, 2008

It could be of the Prophet Joseph Smith lll, the true and only sucessor to Joseph Smith Jr., but it would be nice to see some forensic data of the photo.

The only thing we know... | 9:17 a.m. March 24, 2008

The only thing we can know is that whatever Joseph Smith looked like, he did NOT look like the "glamorized", "majestic" paintings of him on church pamphlets. He probably looked very different. It is faily common for organizations to "boulderize" their leaders history and physical appearance. We see that with the founding fathers of our nation. The paintings simply would not match the way they really looked. REAL life, REAL history is usually very inspiring in and of itself, but often, in the case of people who are "revered, very boulderized. That is certainly the case with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The way they really were, the things they really said and did have been sanitized for our consumption and "faith".

Re: The only thing we know ... | 12:58 p.m. March 24, 2008

Actually we don't know that "he did NOT look like" the paintings of him on church pamphlets. You even tweak your initial assertion to say he "probably" looked very different.

Your tautologies about organizations "boulderizing" leaders prove nothing.

You haven't met the man. You don't know if the "official" paintings are accurate or not.

The Photo | 1:01 p.m. March 24, 2008

It is funny that people hate the church so much that they will spen their time criticizing anything they can about the church, even a statement that this might be a picture of the prophet. What a sad life for these bigots.

sheila | 4:23 p.m. March 24, 2008

I haven't seen the picture that being talk about but Joseph Smith's Mother is in my Families Line. I'm distressed by people talking like this I didn't find the Church until 1985.I know without a doubt that the Book of Morman is true.The history of Joseph Smith by his mother is True ...............

A Utah Bighot | 4:17 p.m. March 24, 2008

I am happy you finally have a photo so people can be sad fighting over it!

Rose peddle | 6:51 p.m. March 24, 2008

O come on Sheila, You cannot be that naive to think this wouldn't start some talk with the LDS members of the past week 1/2. People are always the same on these blogs...Bla bla bla! I also have ancestry the runs into Joseph Smith's grandparents, who are my direct line....bla bla bla! Who cares!

Andrea | 11:33 p.m. March 24, 2008

Incidentally, there have been copies made of Joseph's and Hyrum's death masks that you can view at different museums and visitors' centers. The originals are at the Church History Museum.

David | 5:40 a.m. March 25, 2008

The Church keeping quiet about this is an excellent idea. The Salamander letters/Mark Hoffman should have taught us all something. Apparently, we all don't have the same learning curve. I noted Anti-mormon stated that the church should make a statement while some active members appear to affirm by the "spirit" that the daguerreotype is of Joseph. Qualified experts are best for this task of determining information and not a religion. What happens to your faith when that "spirit" which "affirmed" the "facts" is found to be dead wrong? You are then forced to doubt the "spirit" on every other facet.

I am ex-mo, but the church is dead right about this one and I sustain the leadership the came to the conclusion to effectively say "no comment."

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.