volgadon Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 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!Does anyone recall a sci-fi story about an historian of the future arguing that WWII was a myth, and the allied leaders names all allegorical: Man of Steel, the Church on the Hill, the Red Plain, etc.?
Kenngo1969 Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) I can't figure out where you come up with this stuff...Anti-Mormon sites. (Right, Tacenda? I'm right, aren't I, huh, huh, huh?! ) To each, his or her own, but I'll never understand (with due respect) why some people feel the need to try to "build" their testimonies by seeking out and attempting, definitively, to answer every single criticism that has ever been leveled against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in its history, rather than cultivating the bounteous good fruit to be had therein.If, on the other hand, a (perhaps perceived) paucity of good fruit within the Church of Jesus Christ spurs one to look elsewhere, that's one thing. As much as such a circumstance seems, to me, as though someone is invited to a lavish feast, and, when presented with an array of sumptuous options (Dang, now I'm hungry! ), says, "I'll just have a roll and a glass of water, thanks," I suppose it's possible.Maybe I was simply blessed with an especially naive, gullible, believing heart. Edited October 9, 2012 by Kenngo1969 1
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 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.GGGG, this topic had nothing to do with my faith challenges. Picture this coming from any active believing member, would you have reacted the same with them? If it's true that JS was able to have his photo taken, I was only trying to come up with reasons why we had no clear cut image. In the history of the church there were many that believed JS was going to become a God and they were part of his kingdom. So would they possibly want to make it more closely representative of a God? But now I think I can put it to rest since we now have the pic from the Library of Congress. Thanks to Mormon Mason posting it.
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Does anyone recall a sci-fi story about an historian of the future arguing that WWII was a myth, and the allied leaders names all allegorical: Man of Steel, the Church on the Hill, the Red Plain, etc.?Holy Cow what a great idea!!
volgadon Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Holy Cow what a great idea!!Found it. "Letter from a Higher Critic" by Stewart Robb. A scholar from the future debunking another scholar's claims that WWII really happened.
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Anti-Mormon sites. (Right, Tacenda? I'm right, aren't I, huh, huh, huh?! ) To each, his or her own, but I'll never understand (with due respect) why some people feel the need to try to "build" their testimonies by seeking out and attempting, definitively, to answer every single criticism that has ever been leveled against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in its history, rather than cultivating the bounteous good fruit to be had therein.If, on the other hand, a (perhaps perceived) paucity of good fruit within the Church of Jesus Christ spurs one to look elsewhere, that's one thing. As much as such a circumstance seems, to me, as though someone is invited to a lavish feast, and, when presented with an array of sumptuous options (Dang, now I'm hungry! ), says, "I'll just have a roll and a glass of water, thanks," I suppose it's possible.Maybe I was simply blessed with an especially naive, gullible, believing heart. Like I stated before, this topic has nothing to do with anti sites. Find an anti site that even discusses this. Edited October 9, 2012 by Tacenda
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I agree that it looks like the photo is a model for the painting. Interesting how the injury to Josephs face (teeth) and other imperfections show up more in the portrait than the photo (less resolution). I wonder if the artist know brother Joseph and was able to take details from memory to paint the details of his face?
altersteve Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Like I stated before, this topic has nothing to do with anti sites. Find an anti site that even discusses this.I bet there's at least one out there.
Thunderfire Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 We have a death mask, way better than a photo.I don't know if it is WAY better, but the death mask does show a three dimensional view of what Joseph looked like (he had a huge nose). The death mask and original oil painting of Joseph are on display at the Community of Christ temple museum.
SamIam Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Like I stated before, this topic has nothing to do with anti sites. Find an anti site that even discusses this.For myself, I'm not saying you got this from an anti site. Simply that how you word things and construct your observations always seems to be based from a perspective of distrust. There is always some sense that you feel as if there is an effort to deceive in everything you see in the church. It is actually more telling that this is not an influenced question but comes from you only, as it appears to reflect how you view life. The scriptures speak of those who have a believing heart as if that is a characteristic of worth. You do not manifest a believing heart it seems but more of a doubtful heart. I do think we can choose which of these types of heart we cultivate and yours does show movement from not as doubtful as it was a few months back. Still keep moving away from doubting so much and perhaps you can cultivate that believing heart more fully. I have often said that it is perfectly fine to ask questions of the Lord but it is completely inappropriate to question the Lord. You tend towards the latter in my opinion. 3
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Like I stated before, this topic has nothing to do with anti sites. Find an anti site that even discusses this.I never thought your statement came from an anti-site. I do think the time you spend on critical sources colors your perception of the LDS Church. If you steep yourself in critiques you may spend an inordinate amount of time looking for the catch or the lie. Eventually everything can look suspicious or appear to have a hidden motive.I don't know what the ultimate answer is for your search. After a while I lost faith in the critics ability to see things from a balanced perspective and now try to rely on more source materials where they can be found. This is why I loved Bushman's approach to Joseph in Rough Stone Rolling. On the other hand I'm not completely satisfied to say Joseph or the church are perfect. They are human and a human run institution (with a divine commission and guidance).Somewhere along the line I got enough questions answered that I'm comfortable that my testimony is on firm ground (from God) and that the history of the church is an inspired although not perfect one. Its not a conspiracy either.
volgadon Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Like I stated before, this topic has nothing to do with anti sites. Find an anti site that even discusses this.I would hope there aren't any, as the argument is a poor one.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) 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.Not in the 1840s. Daguerreotypes were considered to be a cheap and inferior version of a portrait, for those who could not afford a portrait. Portraits were always superior, and I don't know of any examples of early portraits based on photos. Any serious portraitist (and the RLDS painter has been described as "a very proficient primitive artist") would have required a live sitting.I think it is pretty clear that the photo is of the portrait, and not the other way around. For one thing, you can see brush strokes in the photo. Also, the photo and the portrait match too perfectly. Further, the sharp hair-to-background transition in the photo indicates that the background has been matted away. Also, although some of the details match what is known about Smith, neither the photo nor the portrait quite matches the proportions of Joseph Smith's death mask. Examples of some of the differences are given in the link I provided above, which include the fact that for both the portrait and the photo, the mouth is too high and too narrow, the nose is too thin at the base, and the eyes are too close together. Finally, Smith's journal indicated that he sat for a portrait, and it was probably that one.There have been at least one book (by Ephraim Hatch) and several articles that discuss the RLDS portrait, (here's another one). and I am not aware of any publication that gives any credence to the idea that the similar photo was a live photo of Joseph Smith. Edited October 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70 2
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Thanks for the additional info Cobalt. Now I'm back to being not sure which came first.
BlueDreams Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 GG, this topic had nothing to do with my faith challenges. Picture this coming from any active believing member, would you have reacted the same with them? If it's true that JS was able to have his photo taken, I was only trying to come up with reasons why we had no clear cut image. In the history of the church there were many that believed JS was going to become a God and they were part of his kingdom. So would they possibly want to make it more closely representative of a God? But now I think I can put it to rest since we now have the pic from the Library of Congress. Thanks to Mormon Mason posting it.I think the main point is that we can't think og any active believing member speculating on whether the lack of pictures are a sign of somehow followers putting JS on a JC sized pedestal post-mortem. There are plenty who wonder why we don't have many pics of JS floating about. But very very few who would go to such an extreme in speculation. That's what GG/others are pointing to. It's indicative of how you've come to view things period. It will be difficult to develop faith or strength in belief when what you are constantly are honing in on are the possible negatives that may exist. That's not balanced. It's extremely dilipitating. I agree with GG. Try looking for the positive more rigorously (or give it at least equal time and study as you've given a number of more critical sites) and I think a number of your current problems with faith would be so much less prominent in your life.With luv,BD
SamIam Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Also, although some of the details match what is known about Smith, neither the photo nor the portrait quite matches the proportions of Joseph Smith's death mask. Examples of some of the differences are given in the link I provided above, which include the fact that for both the portrait and the photo, the mouth is too high and too narrow, the nose is too thin at the base, and the eyes are too close together. Finally, Smith's journal indicated that he sat for a portrait, and it was probably that one.If someone still owns a copy of the Tracy book, perhaps they can confirm, but I believe that after this portrait was completed that when Joseph asked Emma what she thought, she replied that it did not look anything like him. She might have been summarizing your list of objections... Edited October 9, 2012 by SamIam
ERayR Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 GG, this topic had nothing to do with my faith challenges. Picture this coming from any active believing member, would you have reacted the same with them? If it's true that JS was able to have his photo taken, I was only trying to come up with reasons why we had no clear cut image. In the history of the church there were many that believed JS was going to become a God and they were part of his kingdom. So would they possibly want to make it more closely representative of a God? But now I think I can put it to rest since we now have the pic from the Library of Congress. Thanks to Mormon Mason posting it.There are several legitimate reasons one would have difficulty or fail to find one. First photography was not nearly as prevalent as today so it is likely that there were very few photos taken. Second with the persecutions and westward trek things like photos were lost.Now as to believing members reacting the same way you did, well I honestly do not know of a single one who would have come up with the same scenario as you did. Your thoughts do betray the influence of negative sites.
volgadon Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Not in the 1840s. Daguerreotypes were considered to be a cheap and inferior version of a portrait, for those who could not afford a portrait. Portraits were always superior, and I don't know of any examples of early portraits based on photos. Any serious portraitist (and the RLDS painter has been described as "a very proficient primitive artist") would have required a live sitting.Try this. Page 78. http://books.google.com/books?id=Gp0fPG7UcXwC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=daguerreotype+early+reception+america&source=bl&ots=RcYKpzYG-6&sig=aFHn5J4Ro71ai94dDmNLCSQ0lw0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1nN0UPv_OOXsiwKt9YGIDw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=despised&f=falseIt is better to say that reactions were mixed. Some artists despised daguerrotypes, others conceded some merit but still expressed concerns, while still others were quick to sieze upon the daguerrotype as a means for painting a subject who was unable to sit in person. While you may be right about the RLDS painting, indeed, probably are, the case is not quite as clear-cut as it might seem. 1
Cobalt-70 Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Try this. Page 78. http://books.google....espised&f=falseIt is better to say that reactions were mixed. Some artists despised daguerrotypes, others conceded some merit but still expressed concerns, while still others were quick to sieze upon the daguerrotype as a means for painting a subject who was unable to sit in person. While you may be right about the RLDS painting, indeed, probably are, the case is not quite as clear-cut as it might seem.Maybe so. But in Smith's case, we already know from his journal that he sat for a portrait. It is pretty inconceivable that somebody would have just discarded an expensive and valuable portrait of Joseph Smith, and it makes sense that it would have been kept in the family. So there is every reason to believe that the RLDS portrait is the one he sat for. If the photo were an actual photo of Smith, rather than a photo of the portrait, then there would not be differences with Smith's death mask in both the photo and the portrait. Also, the portrait contains skin and eye details that are washed out in the photograph, which would probably have required Smith to actually be present. I think the biggest giveaway is in the details of the shirt and tie, which are crudely done in the portrait, and these crude details carry over into the photo.
Calm Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Does anyone recall a sci-fi story about an historian of the future arguing that WWII was a myth, and the allied leaders names all allegorical: Man of Steel, the Church on the Hill, the Red Plain, etc.?I believe someone has mentioned this before.
Pahoran Posted October 9, 2012 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. Anybody else wonder about this? Or thoughts?You know, there ought to be a prize for "The dumbest original anti-Mormon criticism of the year." This one would be a shoo-in.Regards,Pahoran 1
Hestia Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Looks like speculation has gone downhill. Time to close.
Recommended Posts