Comments on: Rumor-Mongering: Joseph Smith Daguerreotype http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/ Truth Will Prevail Fri, 25 May 2012 00:34:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ivan Wolfe http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-255316 Ivan Wolfe Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:08:11 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4449#comment-255316 Ray - I know. Ray -

I know.

]]> By: Ray http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-255264 Ray Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:13:24 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4449#comment-255264 Ivan, That's a post in and of itself. Ivan, That’s a post in and of itself.

]]> By: Ray http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-255263 Ray Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:12:22 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4449#comment-255263 #105 - "Smith carried his weight in his lower torso." Source? #105 – “Smith carried his weight in his lower torso.”

Source?

]]> By: Ivan Wolfe http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-255257 Ivan Wolfe Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:19:54 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4449#comment-255257 Ray - considering that I know people with less than 10 percent body fat who are classified as "morbidly obese" by the medical comunity (due to the idiotic reliance on Height/Weight charts to determine obesity), sure - 230 can be very fat. Doesn't matter if Jospeh was solid muscle - by today's height/weight charts, 230 is considered obese for a 6 foot tall male. Ray -

considering that I know people with less than 10 percent body fat who are classified as “morbidly obese” by the medical comunity (due to the idiotic reliance on Height/Weight charts to determine obesity), sure – 230 can be very fat. Doesn’t matter if Jospeh was solid muscle – by today’s height/weight charts, 230 is considered obese for a 6 foot tall male.

]]> By: Ray http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-255256 Ray Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:14:57 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4449#comment-255256 "Both men were very fat." Joseph was very active and known as a strong, athletic man. 6'0" and 230 (if accurate) is "very fat"? “Both men were very fat.”

Joseph was very active and known as a strong, athletic man. 6’0″ and 230 (if accurate) is “very fat”?

]]> By: Fred Starkey http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-255250 Fred Starkey Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:38:50 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4449#comment-255250 I don\'t about the picture; but when Smith died they weighed him at 230 lbs. He was 6 feet, 0 inches tall. Rigdon weighed approx. 260 lbs. He became sick and went down to 160 lbs. Both men were very fat. Smith carried his weight in his lower torso. That is why a full picture of Smith and Rigdon is needed. How much did Brigham Young weigh and how tall was he? From his picture he looks very heavy. I don\’t about the picture; but when Smith died they weighed him at 230 lbs. He was 6 feet, 0 inches tall. Rigdon weighed approx. 260 lbs. He became sick and went down to 160 lbs. Both men were very fat. Smith carried his weight in his lower torso. That is why a full picture of Smith and Rigdon is needed.

How much did Brigham Young weigh and how tall was he? From his picture he looks very heavy.

]]> By: Justin http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-255173 Justin Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:35:24 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4449#comment-255173 There are also later photographs of Katharine and Lucy. There are also later photographs of Katharine and Lucy.

]]> By: Ardis Parshall http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-255149 Ardis Parshall Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:48:01 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4449#comment-255149 100: No. There is a photograph of William very late in life, but I *think* (am open to correction) that otherwise there are no known photographs of anyone in that Smith generation. 100: No. There is a photograph of William very late in life, but I *think* (am open to correction) that otherwise there are no known photographs of anyone in that Smith generation.

]]> By: Ardis Parshall http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-255144 Ardis Parshall Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:00:27 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4449#comment-255144 Thanks, Alex, that's a real contribution to the discussion. Happy to oblige with the number 101, too. Thanks, Alex, that’s a real contribution to the discussion.

Happy to oblige with the number 101, too.

]]> By: Alex http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/rumor-mongering-joseph-smith-daguerreotype/#comment-255139 Alex Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:15:58 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4449#comment-255139 I just posted this same comment to JI (am I breaking blog conventions by reposting here?), and I am aware that Jared on JI and J. Stapley here have already beat me to the punch, but at the very least I thought it might be interesting to note the two references that we do have to Joseph sitting for portraits in his journal. My real hope is that I manage to be the hundred-and-first poster on any thread. The JI comment ensues: I am not sure why some people believe that there should be a “missing” daguerreotype of JS. Among other places it has cropped up in recent days, an article on KSL.com by John Hollenhorst (cached version from a few days ago) says “In his journals, Joseph Smith wrote he once had his picture taken by a daguerreotype camera. But the picture has never turned up.” Someone made a change, and today the article reads, “In his journals, Joseph Smith wrote he once had his image taken. But a daguerreotype-camera image has never turned up.” Clearly an attempt to correct the mistake, but still it falls short. There are two situations that I can think of in JS’s journals in which mention is made of a likeness being made of the prophet. Both are in Nauvoo, both in 1842. His journal entry of 25 June 1842 states (I will refrain from quoting so as not to favor one transcription over another) that a profile image was made for the Nauvoo city chart. This we know to be the image of Joseph made by Sutcliffe Maudsley on the familiar chart today. The second situation is recorded in the journal entries of 16, 17, and 19/20 September 1842, which simply say that JS was at home “painting” with a brother Rogers. The identification of this painting (and the artist for that matter) has been the subject of recent research by both Glen Leonard and Richard Anderson, and we should leave the explanation to them, but it is safe to say the journal text was not lying. This was a portrait painting, not a daguerreotype. Dean Jessee’s Papers vol. 2 and Scott Faulring’s American Prophet’s Record, combined, present the text of JS’s journals. At risk of sounding confrontational, I welcome a reference to JS having a daguerreotype made. I just posted this same comment to JI (am I breaking blog conventions by reposting here?), and I am aware that Jared on JI and J. Stapley here have already beat me to the punch, but at the very least I thought it might be interesting to note the two references that we do have to Joseph sitting for portraits in his journal. My real hope is that I manage to be the hundred-and-first poster on any thread. The JI comment ensues:

I am not sure why some people believe that there should be a “missing” daguerreotype of JS.

Among other places it has cropped up in recent days, an article on KSL.com by John Hollenhorst (cached version from a few days ago) says “In his journals, Joseph Smith wrote he once had his picture taken by a daguerreotype camera. But the picture has never turned up.” Someone made a change, and today the article reads, “In his journals, Joseph Smith wrote he once had his image taken. But a daguerreotype-camera image has never turned up.” Clearly an attempt to correct the mistake, but still it falls short.

There are two situations that I can think of in JS’s journals in which mention is made of a likeness being made of the prophet. Both are in Nauvoo, both in 1842. His journal entry of 25 June 1842 states (I will refrain from quoting so as not to favor one transcription over another) that a profile image was made for the Nauvoo city chart. This we know to be the image of Joseph made by Sutcliffe Maudsley on the familiar chart today.

The second situation is recorded in the journal entries of 16, 17, and 19/20 September 1842, which simply say that JS was at home “painting” with a brother Rogers. The identification of this painting (and the artist for that matter) has been the subject of recent research by both Glen Leonard and Richard Anderson, and we should leave the explanation to them, but it is safe to say the journal text was not lying. This was a portrait painting, not a daguerreotype.

Dean Jessee’s Papers vol. 2 and Scott Faulring’s American Prophet’s Record, combined, present the text of JS’s journals. At risk of sounding confrontational, I welcome a reference to JS having a daguerreotype made.

]]>