KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Smiling cat: "Hey guys I have another question!"Background cat: "Oh noes... another conspiracy theory." 1
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 Smiling cat: "Hey guys I have another question!"Background cat: "Oh noes... another conspiracy theory."Atleast we both have animals as our avatars. One thing in common.
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 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?I was responding that I disagreed with your assessment that anyone could have wanted to hide a photo because they thought it would put Joseph in the Same ballpark as Jesus. I quoted you directly and didn't take anything from the ballpark that wasn't already pitched across the mound. Wow.
Calm Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Honestly I think if anyone was that far gone in idol worship of JS they would be more likely to want a photo of JS to show off, make a little shrine to, etc, like those who collect replicas of his belongings not because they like the objects themselves, but solely for their alleged connection with JS. Edited October 9, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Calm Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Also the church itself has worked hard to collect records etc since almost its beginning, I don't see anyone in leadership destroying or hiding photos...quite the contrary so it would only be family members who might have done it and I doubt any of them would have done so if you read about them and their own writings.
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 I was responding that I disagreed with your assessment that anyone could have wanted to hide a photo because they thought it would put Joseph in the Same ballpark as Jesus. I quoted you directly and didn't take anything from the ballpark that wasn't already pitched across the mound. Wow.You said I steeped myself in the lies of the anti-Mormons. As if I got the information from them. I'm a little on the defensive side sometimes.
sheilauk Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 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.As an aside, I'd say the painting is taken from the photo, mainly because of the background to them and the detail or lack of it in the face. It's also the more likely way about and, of course, is common now, for paintings to be done from photos.
sheilauk Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 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?Not sure about second most important man in the universe, but, yes, he is highly revered. As revered as the Christ? I doubt that there very many, if any, who think that. As KevinG indicated, I don't see any convergence by members of Christ and the prophets, including Joseph Smith. I do think that he should be highly thought of by members, whatever his shortcomings, as he did a most amazing thing despite great personal sacrifice and pain. In my view, he was (is?) a great prophet. But, of course, should not be idolised. Maybe photos were destroyed to prevent that - people making little idolatrous shrines? But then, why so many paintings - they can be idolised just as much, as in the orthodox icons. So no, there just probably weren't any taken.
USU78 Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 To each his own, I guess the blond rendition sort of bothers me for some odd reason.I grew up blond . . . by my '40s my hair was pretty dark in comparison, but my driver's license still listed blond. Now my hair is pretty grey, yet my driver's license still says blond.Does this bother you, too? 1
USU78 Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Ok, but I think they could have put him near that pedestal don't you think?Martyrs have that effect on people. Lobbies of churches in my youth (still coal-heated with no air conditioning) had twin prints of JSJr and the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood in them. You don't see them any more. I was able to find a copy of the JSJr print in a nice oak frame in a barn near Montpelier years ago. It's one of my treasures.The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that the lack of these prints in modern-day chapel lobbies indicate a de-emphasis on JSJr and an eschewal of the Melchizedek Priesthood claims of earlier generations.
ERayR Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 You said I steeped myself in the lies of the anti-Mormons. As if I got the information from them. I'm a little on the defensive side sometimes.Your posts and expressed thoughts certainly show evidence of being influenced by the anti sites you consult on a regular basis.
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 Your posts and expressed thoughts certainly show evidence of being influenced by the anti sites you consult on a regular basis.Could you tell me which type of sites are anti sites? The topic I posted had nothing to do with anti sites. In fact you probably won't find this topic on any anti site. So why bring up such things.
ERayR Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Could you tell me which type of sites are anti sites? The topic I posted had nothing to do with anti sites. In fact you probably won't find this topic on any anti site. So why bring up such things.I don't know that I said this came from an anti site. What comes from those sites is the perspective that engenders this type of thinking. Have you ever noticed that your first reaction to things pertaining to the church is a negative one? Edited October 9, 2012 by ERayR
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Atleast we both have animals as our avatars. One thing in common. Thanks for taking that in a humorous spirit. You are welcome to make a cartoon of my puppy pic! 1
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I don't know that I said this came from an anti site. What comes from those sites is the perspective that engenders this type of thinking. Have you ever noticed that your first reaction to things pertaining to the church is a negative one? In fairness to Tacenda, who I have taken to task for this... Perhaps a better word than negative is "suspicious". Tacenda is not necessarily negative towards the Church she just appears to question the motives and intent of the organization and its members often. I think this does come from a great deal of exposure to "recovery" or "opposition" discussions.When one is doubting or of a mind to have something proven to them (true or false) innocent shadows can look like monsters under the bed. Trust takes time.
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Back on topic... I'd love for one of our local photoshop or church history experts to weigh in on this question. Is this a portrait of a photo or a photo of a portrait? How can we tell?
Judd Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Has anyone given consideration to the idea that Joseph Smith was only allegorical? 1
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Has anyone given consideration to the idea that Joseph Smith was only allegorical?Not the guy whose leg he broke wrestling. (But then there was Jacob and the Angel?) Oh never mind.
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) In fairness to Tacenda, who I have taken to task for this... Perhaps a better word than negative is "suspicious". Tacenda is not necessarily negative towards the Church she just appears to question the motives and intent of the organization and its members often. I think this does come from a great deal of exposure to "recovery" or "opposition" discussions.When one is doubting or of a mind to have something proven to them (true or false) innocent shadows can look like monsters under the bed. Trust takes time.Thank you for your insight into my soul. I waver and go in circles. But some on here, take heart that I'm not a monster. I may be slowly going insane possibly, because I'm enveloped in a very TBM family, neighborhood and set of good friends that are true believers. So the possibility of my going south on the church is like the thought of ending my life. I'm definitely just getting things off my chest as they come and usually go, thank goodness, so I appreciate the ones on here that still have patience with me. The strength that so many of you have on here amazes me. Your testimonies are incredible with the knowledge of the "not so nice" history of the church. Most don't know the warts of the church. I do remember the church urging members to know the history of the church, but until I started doubting, had no interest in the history, just plain weird huh. Now I can't get enough of it. Is that Satan urging me on or God or just insanity? Edited October 9, 2012 by Tacenda
volgadon Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Back on topic... I'd love for one of our local photoshop or church history experts to weigh in on this question. Is this a portrait of a photo or a photo of a portrait? How can we tell?Looking at the jacket, I would say painting from photo.
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Back on topic... I'd love for one of our local photoshop or church history experts to weigh in on this question. Is this a portrait of a photo or a photo of a portrait? How can we tell? I am none of the above, but have training in art history and I have seen this image referred to as a painting from a photograph.I think it is fairly clear that the photo came first, and they trimmed out the background on the photo- the hair is weirdly squared off- hair doesn't look like that naturally- and then the artist copied the photo and put in the brown background which makes the hair look a lot more natural with the background and hair being close to the same color. Whoever did the painting did a great job.
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I'm surprised no one has mentioned this one yet- it was recently found and is believed to be of Joseph Smith- I think that this was the original which was obviously re-touched for the book cover mentioned earlier. I tried to post the image and it didn't work so I will post the link insteadhttp://hopeofzion55953.yuku.com/topic/2784#.UHRae65VCfI
Garden Girl Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 No, 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.And why would you even think that? Then you went on to speculate further that "because there are no photos of JC..." with its negative implication of members trying to elevate Joseph to equality with JC...I'd like to challenge you, Tacenda... one week... one week of trying to find something positive each day about the Church, instead of wallowing in the anti soundbites, or the negative ones of your own making like his family, or "some", hiding his pictures so he would be considered on the same level of JC.GG 4
Garden Girl Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 No, 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.And why would you even think that? Then you went on to speculate further that "because there are no photos of JC..." with its negative implication of members trying to elevate Joseph to equality with JC...I'd like to challenge you, Tacenda... one week... one week of trying to find something positive each day about the Church, instead of wallowing in the anti soundbites, or the negative ones of your own making like his family, or "some", hiding his pictures so he would be considered on the same level of JC.GG 2
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Has anyone given consideration to the idea that Joseph Smith was only allegorical?I think he was Everyman and indeed since Al Legorical was also a man then clearly he was also Al. The name Jospeh Smith is obviously a title more than a name, since no one can prove he existed.But good old Al. I remember him well!
Recommended Posts