<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Even Newer Proposed Daguerreotype of Joseph</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bryce Haymond</title>
		<link>http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/comment-page-1/#comment-616</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryce Haymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/#comment-616</guid>
		<description>Here’s some more information (with references):

&lt;blockquote&gt;We have no direct evidence that Joseph Smith was ever photographed. It would have been possible for him to have obtained a daguerreotype of himself, since the art was practiced in Philadelphia when he visited there in 1839. In 1844 a daguerreotype studio was established in Nauvoo. Lucian R. Foster first advertised in the Nauvoo Neighbor just forty-eight days after the martyrdom, but it is not known whether his studio had been established prior to the Prophet’s death. (Hatch, Joseph Smith Portraits, 57)&lt;/blockquote&gt;

There are daguerreotypes extant, but they are most likely copies of an RLDS oil painting, and not of the prophet from life.

&lt;blockquote&gt;The Library of Congress also has several photographs of Joseph Smith on file. Information with the Library of Congress photographs asserts that they are retouched photographs of a daguerreotype taken of the Prophet in 1842 or 1843. (Hatch, Joseph Smith Portraits, 57)&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;Reed Simonsen and Chad Fugate have recently proposed that a retouched daguerreotype copy (fig. 7.10), recorded [in 1879] in the Library of Congress by W. B. Carson of Piano, Illinois, at the request of Joseph Smith III, is of the Prophet Joseph Smith taken when he was alive and is the most correct visual image we have of him. They maintain that the original daguerreotype from which the Carson retouched copy was made is lost…. I have concluded that the RLDS daguerreotype (fig. 7.1), which is central to this discussion, is the original from which the W. B. Carson image was photographed, as it is also the original from which the Charles W. Carter image (fig. 7.5) was made. It, in turn, is a photograph of the RLDS painting (fig. 6.22) located in Independence, Missouri. It follows that the original RLDS daguerreotype of the painting, and all retouched photographic copies of it, are derived from the RLDS oil painting and reproduce its inaccuracies. (Hatch, Joseph Smith Portraits, 63-65)&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Hatch’s analysis of the existing daguerreotypes of Joseph Smith concludes that all of them are copies of the RLDS oil painting. So, if there was a daguerreotype made directly of the prophet in life, which we don’t have direct evidence for but would have been possible given the availability of the technology at the time, it hasn’t been found yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here’s some more information (with references):</p>
<blockquote><p>We have no direct evidence that Joseph Smith was ever photographed. It would have been possible for him to have obtained a daguerreotype of himself, since the art was practiced in Philadelphia when he visited there in 1839. In 1844 a daguerreotype studio was established in Nauvoo. Lucian R. Foster first advertised in the Nauvoo Neighbor just forty-eight days after the martyrdom, but it is not known whether his studio had been established prior to the Prophet’s death. (Hatch, Joseph Smith Portraits, 57)</p></blockquote>
<p>There are daguerreotypes extant, but they are most likely copies of an RLDS oil painting, and not of the prophet from life.</p>
<blockquote><p>The Library of Congress also has several photographs of Joseph Smith on file. Information with the Library of Congress photographs asserts that they are retouched photographs of a daguerreotype taken of the Prophet in 1842 or 1843. (Hatch, Joseph Smith Portraits, 57)</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Reed Simonsen and Chad Fugate have recently proposed that a retouched daguerreotype copy (fig. 7.10), recorded [in 1879] in the Library of Congress by W. B. Carson of Piano, Illinois, at the request of Joseph Smith III, is of the Prophet Joseph Smith taken when he was alive and is the most correct visual image we have of him. They maintain that the original daguerreotype from which the Carson retouched copy was made is lost…. I have concluded that the RLDS daguerreotype (fig. 7.1), which is central to this discussion, is the original from which the W. B. Carson image was photographed, as it is also the original from which the Charles W. Carter image (fig. 7.5) was made. It, in turn, is a photograph of the RLDS painting (fig. 6.22) located in Independence, Missouri. It follows that the original RLDS daguerreotype of the painting, and all retouched photographic copies of it, are derived from the RLDS oil painting and reproduce its inaccuracies. (Hatch, Joseph Smith Portraits, 63-65)</p></blockquote>
<p>Hatch’s analysis of the existing daguerreotypes of Joseph Smith concludes that all of them are copies of the RLDS oil painting. So, if there was a daguerreotype made directly of the prophet in life, which we don’t have direct evidence for but would have been possible given the availability of the technology at the time, it hasn’t been found yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryce Haymond</title>
		<link>http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/comment-page-1/#comment-611</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryce Haymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:46:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/#comment-611</guid>
		<description>Point well taken.  I think that there's a &lt;i&gt;very&lt;/i&gt; slim possibility that it is Joseph, given the evidence.  What interested me the most about this daguerreotype was how closely it resembles the artwork and other extant depictions of Joseph, not that it might actually be him, but especially in light of the "other" daguerreotype that's been floating around, which looks nothing like him at all.  If it is not Joseph, then this man resembled him closely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Point well taken.  I think that there&#8217;s a <i>very</i> slim possibility that it is Joseph, given the evidence.  What interested me the most about this daguerreotype was how closely it resembles the artwork and other extant depictions of Joseph, not that it might actually be him, but especially in light of the &#8220;other&#8221; daguerreotype that&#8217;s been floating around, which looks nothing like him at all.  If it is not Joseph, then this man resembled him closely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/comment-page-1/#comment-610</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/#comment-610</guid>
		<description>You might want to check out the following thread, particularly comments 44-54, to see that this photo does not hold any credence.
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/press-release-the-much-rumored-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-4258</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might want to check out the following thread, particularly comments 44-54, to see that this photo does not hold any credence.<br />
<a href="http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/press-release-the-much-rumored-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-4258" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/comment/www.juvenileinstructor.org');" rel="nofollow">http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/press-release-the-much-rumored-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-4258</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryce Haymond</title>
		<link>http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/comment-page-1/#comment-607</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryce Haymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:58:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/#comment-607</guid>
		<description>A reader asked,

&lt;blockquote&gt;I'm a bit puzzled at this new photo from the book of Joseph Smith.  Does the book itself claim that the photo is of Joseph smith?  Does the photo the guy found that came out of "New York" say anything on it that says "Joseph Smith"?  What is it that leads anyone to suppose that this partuclar photo is of Joseph Smith?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Thanks for your questions.  There is nothing as of yet that confirms that this might be a photo of Joseph Smith.  Nothing in the book says that it is (it only says it is of an anonymous person).  There is no marking on the photo (that we know of), that mentions who it might be.  The only evidence that suggests that it might be Joseph is:

*     Joseph Smith, or his son Joseph Smith III, may have &lt;a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=137" rel="nofollow"&gt;mentioned&lt;/a&gt; that a daguerreotype photo was taken of Joseph near the end of his life.  Such a daguerreotype has never been found.

*     The daguerreotype is said to have come out of New York in 1845, and went to Brazil, which is shortly after the death of Joseph, and which could explain why it has been lost.

*     The last thing is, considering what the death mask and artwork that has depicted Joseph, this daguerreotype looks very much how we might imagine Joseph looking like, with all the features of his description mentioned above.

It is a stretch, but I'm willing to give it the possibility.  The evidence is very slim, right now, but I'm keeping my hopes up.  We are taught to "doubt not, but be believing" (Mormon 9:27).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A reader asked,</p>
<blockquote><p>I&#8217;m a bit puzzled at this new photo from the book of Joseph Smith.  Does the book itself claim that the photo is of Joseph smith?  Does the photo the guy found that came out of &#8220;New York&#8221; say anything on it that says &#8220;Joseph Smith&#8221;?  What is it that leads anyone to suppose that this partuclar photo is of Joseph Smith?</p></blockquote>
<p>Thanks for your questions.  There is nothing as of yet that confirms that this might be a photo of Joseph Smith.  Nothing in the book says that it is (it only says it is of an anonymous person).  There is no marking on the photo (that we know of), that mentions who it might be.  The only evidence that suggests that it might be Joseph is:</p>
<p>*     Joseph Smith, or his son Joseph Smith III, may have <a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=137" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/comment/www.timesandseasons.org');" rel="nofollow">mentioned</a> that a daguerreotype photo was taken of Joseph near the end of his life.  Such a daguerreotype has never been found.</p>
<p>*     The daguerreotype is said to have come out of New York in 1845, and went to Brazil, which is shortly after the death of Joseph, and which could explain why it has been lost.</p>
<p>*     The last thing is, considering what the death mask and artwork that has depicted Joseph, this daguerreotype looks very much how we might imagine Joseph looking like, with all the features of his description mentioned above.</p>
<p>It is a stretch, but I&#8217;m willing to give it the possibility.  The evidence is very slim, right now, but I&#8217;m keeping my hopes up.  We are taught to &#8220;doubt not, but be believing&#8221; (<a class="snap_noshots" href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/morm/9/27#27" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/comment/scriptures.lds.org');" title="LDS Scriptures Internet Edition: Mormon 9:27">Mormon 9:27</a>).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryce Haymond</title>
		<link>http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/comment-page-1/#comment-596</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryce Haymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:00:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/#comment-596</guid>
		<description>Perhaps Bagley was referring to Joseph's son, Joseph Smith III, &lt;a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=137" rel="nofollow"&gt;who claimed he had a daguerreotype made in Nauvoo&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps Bagley was referring to Joseph&#8217;s son, Joseph Smith III, <a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=137" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/comment/www.timesandseasons.org');" rel="nofollow">who claimed he had a daguerreotype made in Nauvoo</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jared</title>
		<link>http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/comment-page-1/#comment-595</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:44:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/27/an-even-newer-proposed-daguerreotype-of-joseph/#comment-595</guid>
		<description>I think the esteem-ed Bagley is in error about Joseph recording that he had a photo taken. I'm pretty sure there is no record of that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the esteem-ed Bagley is in error about Joseph recording that he had a photo taken. I&#8217;m pretty sure there is no record of that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
