volgadon Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 It's because Joseph Smith didn't really exist. Come on guys.Who let the cat out of the bag?
cesc101 Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 It's because Joseph Smith didn't really exist. Come on guys.Thank goodness the name existed (or at least was coined out for us to inherit).
Cobalt-70 Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 This YouTube video shows the proof that there are actually two photos of Joseph Smith: The end of the video announces a discovery about Joseph Smith, based on these photos, that will totally blow your mind. You can't argue with the impeccable forensic science.
Garden Girl Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I've seen one photo of Joseph Smith that someone claims is him. I will link later if needed. In it JS has dark hair. Is there a reason there are no legit photos of him? How come we have photos of everyone else in the same time frame. The conspiracy theorist in me says it's because there are no photos of JC, and not having one of JS puts him in the same league. Anybody else wonder about this? Or thoughts?Really Tacenda...This is so far "out there" that it makes me worried for you... I don't think you can possibly be serious. Surely you are just putting us on to stir the pot...Someone mentioned that we have a death mask for both Joseph and Hyrum, made just a few hours after their deaths. And I've seen them... Gracia Jones (gr-gr-gr-grandaughter of Joseph) had both of them, along with other artifacts from the Smith family, when she was lecturing during Education Week at BYU several years ago.GG 1
sheilauk Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I've seen one photo of Joseph Smith that someone claims is him. I will link later if needed. In it JS has dark hair. Is there a reason there are no legit photos of him? How come we have photos of everyone else in the same time frame. The conspiracy theorist in me says it's because there are no photos of JC, and not having one of JS puts him in the same league. Anybody else wonder about this? Or thoughts?I can't say I've ever wondered about it, no. I've never wondered why we don't have photographs of people in the early 1800's due to the fact that photography as we know it only really began in 1834 and Daguerre's process was developed in 1837! Obviously, wealthy early adopters of modern technology would have been using it by 1844 and journalists quickly adopted it, and it was very popular but it was also hugely expensive and not used in any way like we do today. Taking a photo was a thoughtful, considered thing. Many people had only one taken in their lives by a portrait photographer, often on their wedding day. In addition, though early photographs were carefully preserved by the sitters/family because of the allure of new technology and the expense (and photography did open up portraiture to the masses rather than a painting by an artist which was even more expensive), they are still delicate things - the chemicals in them decompose over time, especially when in sunlight and the paper gets brittle and many have faded or been lost. So, no conspiracy - just a lack of photographers or preserved photographs! And I think you'll find that the majority of photographs of people who knew Joseph Smith, such as Brigham Young are taken in the 1860's and 1870's, when it had become much more accessible and widely available, with photographers in many frontier towns - selling portraits.
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 I can't say I've ever wondered about it, no. I've never wondered why we don't have photographs of people in the early 1800's due to the fact that photography as we know it only really began in 1834 and Daguerre's process was developed in 1837! Obviously, wealthy early adopters of modern technology would have been using it by 1844 and journalists quickly adopted it, and it was very popular but it was also hugely expensive and not used in any way like we do today. Taking a photo was a thoughtful, considered thing. Many people had only one taken in their lives by a portrait photographer, often on their wedding day. In addition, though early photographs were carefully preserved by the sitters/family because of the allure of new technology and the expense (and photography did open up portraiture to the masses rather than a painting by an artist which was even more expensive), they are still delicate things - the chemicals in them decompose over time, especially when in sunlight and the paper gets brittle and many have faded or been lost. So, no conspiracy - just a lack of photographers or preserved photographs! And I think you'll find that the majority of photographs of people who knew Joseph Smith, such as Brigham Young are taken in the 1860's and 1870's, when it had become much more accessible and widely available, with photographers in many frontier towns - selling portraits.Thank you for this answer it makes alot of sense. Possibly the photos of others in JS time were taken after his death.
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 Really Tacenda...This is so far "out there" that it makes me worried for you... I don't think you can possibly be serious. Surely you are just putting us on to stir the pot...Someone mentioned that we have a death mask for both Joseph and Hyrum, made just a few hours after their deaths. And I've seen them... Gracia Jones (gr-gr-gr-grandaughter of Joseph) had both of them, along with other artifacts from the Smith family, when she was lecturing during Education Week at BYU several years ago.GGI know about the death masks. But in my wild imagination could not fathom JS's photo not being taken while those around him did unless they got them taken well after his death, that would explain alot.
BlueDreams Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) I know about the death masks. But in my wild imagination could not fathom JS's photo not being taken while those around him did unless they got them taken well after his death, that would explain alot.It was probably because he looked fat in them. Bad PR that would be.Honestly Tacenda, this is going a little far in seeking balance by looking for negatives (excuse the pun) under every tiny pebble.With luv,BD Edited October 9, 2012 by BlueDreams 2
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 It was probably because he looked fat in them. Bad PR that would be.Honestly Tacenda, this is going a little far in seeking balance by looking for negatives (excuse the pun) under every tiny pebble.With luv,BDI would or could have wondered about this in the days when I had full faith. It doesn't seem to me to be such a bad question. But I may be at the far end now, since so many think it's way out there.
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) This YouTube video shows the proof that there are actually two photos of Joseph Smith:[media=] The end of the video announces a discovery about Joseph Smith, based on these photos, that will totally blow your mind. You can't argue with the impeccable forensic science.You about had me, I am a sponge. Edited October 9, 2012 by Tacenda
ERayR Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I would or could have wondered about this in the days when I had full faith. It doesn't seem to me to be such a bad question. But I may be at the far end now, since so many think it's way out there.You always seem to look for problems where none exist. 1
MormonMason Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 This is a reprint of the one submitted by Joseph Smith III to the Library of Congress, stated to have been taken of his father in 1843:
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 This is a reprint of the one submitted by Joseph Smith III to the Library of Congress, stated to have been taken of his father in 1843:If this is it, I'd like the church to use one and one only. Is that asking to much?
Calm Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 If this is it, I'd like the church to use one and one only. Is that asking to much?Why?Have you looked identical in all of your pictures over your lifetime? Why assume JS did, instead of allowing a variety of artists' representations?
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 Why?Have you looked identical in all of your pictures over your lifetime? Why assume JS did, instead of allowing a variety of artists' representations?To each his own, I guess the blond rendition sort of bothers me for some odd reason.
Calm Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Btw, there is nothing wrong with asking why there aren't photos of JS, you are not the first to do so....but you are the first in my experience that felt the need to negatively speculate. Why that need, I wonder? 2
Calm Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) To each his own, I guess the blond rendition sort of bothers me for some odd reason.My hair was tons lighter when I was younger and would have been even lighter if I wasn't obsessive about wearing hats (skin cancer runs in my family both sides).In his photo, his eyebrows look quite light in comparison, I wonder if that portrait darkened his hair at all (I seen some that have been treated like that iirc). Edited October 9, 2012 by calmoriah
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) That JSIII donated portrait could be a photo of the painting below or it could be that a photo was the model for the painting. It is recognized as a fairly accurate portrayal of Joseph either way and is the one used by the LDS Church in the Lobby of the Carthage Jail museum. The original is still owned by the RLDS Church. Edited October 9, 2012 by KevinG
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 Btw, there is nothing wrong with asking why there aren't photos of JS, you are not the first to do so....but you are the first in my experience that felt the need to negatively speculate. Why that need, I wonder?How did I negatively speculate? Sorry I don't want to sound combative here.
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 How did I negatively speculate? Sorry I don't want to sound combative here."The conspiracy theorist in me says it's because there are no photos of JC, and not having one of JS puts him in the same league."
Garden Girl Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 How did I negatively speculate? Sorry I don't want to sound combative here.You negatively speculated that Joseph never allowed photos of himself because JC never had photos and so that put him in the same league as JC... if I read your speculation correctly (since I was gasping that you could seriously make such a statement). I wasn't concerned that you asked the question as to why there weren't more photos of Joseph (aptly answered about photography being such a new process).GG
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 "The conspiracy theorist in me says it's because there are no photos of JC, and not having one of JS puts him in the same league."Ok, but I think they could have put him near that pedestal don't you think?
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 You negatively speculated that Joseph never allowed photos of himself because JC never had photos and so that put him in the same league as JC... if I read your speculation correctly (since I was gasping that you could seriously make such a statement).I wasn't concerned that you asked the question as to why there weren't more photos of Joseph (aptly answered about photography being such a new process).GGNo, no I think I've been misunderstood. I think hypothetically maybe some after his death could have hidden the photo or photos, not JS himself.
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Ok, but I think they could have put him near that pedestal don't you think?No. Not those who knew Brother Joseph face to face and worked along side him. He was reported to be a rather jovial and in touch fellow. Even wrestling with local men whenever he had a chance.The Latter-day Saints have no confusion over who our Savior Jesus Christ is and who our Prophets are. Any confusion comes from steeping yourself in the lies of the anti-Mormons. 3
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 No. Not those who knew Brother Joseph face to face and worked along side him. He was reported to be a rather jovial and in touch fellow. Even wrestling with local men whenever he had a chance.The Latter-day Saints have no confusion over who our Savior Jesus Christ is and who our Prophets are. Any confusion comes from steeping yourself in the lies of the anti-Mormons.Again you are taking my observation so far out of the ball park. Do you think I got this from some anti site? Nope, just started wondering why no photo, and this occurred to me. Is that ok? Since he is the second most important man in the universe? Atleast most LDS think this is so. Can you deny that?
Recommended Posts