Appendices A-D
The following appendices have been included for those who want a little bit more on the history and rationale for this image being the only surviving photograph of Joseph Smith the Prophet of Restored Christianity, referred in slang as "Mormonism."
Appendix A: The Need to Own the Prophet's memory
When future generations base their beliefs in historic heroes, they often feel the need to understand and control the memory of that hero. If more than one organization has ties to a single historic head, conflict is soon to follow. Both the Arabs and the Jews have need to control Abraham’s homeland. The Christians have need to control Jesus’s memory. The Saints also have need of their history. At the death of the Prophet Joseph, several organizations emerged. Over time, two would grow in prominence, each revering and claiming Joseph Smith as their founder. The biggest group in Utah, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, led by Brigham Young, and the other in Missouri, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or RLDS), led by Joseph Smith’s eldest living son, Joseph Smith III.
(One should note that now, thirty years after this original publication, that the RLDS have changed their name to the Community of Christ and as of 2024 have sold off the majority of their holdings in regards to Joseph Smith the Prophet to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are focusing their dogma less on the uniqueness of their founders' messages and more on a general, main stream Christian message. The Utah-based Saints are grateful for the fine care and preservation that this Christian-based community has shown to these artifacts and are thankful that they have sold them to us where their memory can be cherished as opposed to donating them to some dusty museum collection where they would have been mere curiosities. Thank you! Yours' was a true act of Christian kindness and we are grateful. Thus the following history is a part of the past and the difficult feelings of those times are not reflected by those living today.)
(One should note that now, thirty years after this original publication, that the RLDS have changed their name to the Community of Christ and as of 2024 have sold off the majority of their holdings in regards to Joseph Smith the Prophet to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are focusing their dogma less on the uniqueness of their founders' messages and more on a general, main stream Christian message. The Utah-based Saints are grateful for the fine care and preservation that this Christian-based community has shown to these artifacts and are thankful that they have sold them to us where their memory can be cherished as opposed to donating them to some dusty museum collection where they would have been mere curiosities. Thank you! Yours' was a true act of Christian kindness and we are grateful. Thus the following history is a part of the past and the difficult feelings of those times are not reflected by those living today.)
Utah and Missouri’s Mutual Dislike
It is no secret that the Latter-day Saints in Utah and the Reorganized Church in Missouri did not appreciate the other’s approach. It has only been recently that the two churches have been on civil terms. The Reorganized Church would use many unsuccessful tactics to convert the Utah Saints to their doctrine. Legal means were only one of many. Joseph Smith III was not new to the practice of law. His talented style and ease with words had benefited the RLDS Church in several successful lawsuits.
His mother, Emma, once told him, “I know very well if your father had been acquainted with the laws of the country, he might have avoided a great deal of trouble.” Joseph III would study law from 1853-1856. He never became a certified lawyer but he did understand how the law functioned. In 1860, he gave up all his other ventures and joined the Reorganized Latter-day Saints as their President.
The news of Joseph III’s acceptance in the Reorganized Church was disturbing to LDS President, Brigham Young. Despite Emma’s dislike for him, President Young was always concerned for her safety. He strongly hoped the Prophet’s family would come to Utah and live as friends in the West, but it was not to be. As an example of his feelings towards them, President Young said:
What of Joseph Smith’s Family? What of the boys? I have prayed from the beginning for sister Emma and for the whole family. There is not a man in this Church that has entertained better feelings towards them. Joseph said to me, “God will take care of my children when I am taken.” They are in the hands of God, and when they make their appearance before this people, full of his power, there are none but what will say — Amen! We are ready to receive you.
Soon the scattered Saints would focus around two leaders, the Western Saints, who had followed and sustained Brigham Young, in what would become and Territory of Utah, and the Midwestern splinter-groups around Joseph III in Missouri. With both churches claiming authority, it was not long before harsh words were spoken. Joseph III began a missionary campaign to bring the Utah Mormons under his direction. He widely published his belief that Brigham Young had usurped his rightful position.
In turn, President Young denied the RLDS missionaries use of LDS Tabernacles and meeting houses. He called them apostates and instructed the Saints not to listen to them.
Joseph III’s missions to Utah were largely failures. He did win a handful converts but it was never a large enough percentage to matter in the least. Realizing his failure to reach his objectives, Joseph III turned his energy against plural marriage. He alone, is largely responsible for the success of the Edmunds- Tucker bill that allowed the Federal Government to seize lands owned by the Utah Saints. It became his crusade and in 1890 he thought he realized it when President Woodruff signed the LDS Church’s first official declaration.
Needless to say, the two churches did not care for one another. In part, this mutual dislike began at the Prophet Joseph Smith’s death.
The Desire to Own the Prophet’s Memory
Throughout the Prophet’s life, much of his personal possessions included Church possessions. His journals, church lands, official documents and many other things overlapped, as was the pattern of his life. At his death, the Twelve Apostles, under Brigham Young’s direction, took these items as official church property, while Emma saw their acts as seizure of family property. She gathered what she could and hid it. The most prominent item among these was Joseph’s translation of the Bible, a document that Brigham desperately wanted. Emma was very protective of her husband’s memory and belongings. Even in later years when visitors came to see her, it was not unlike her to refuse their requests for information or permission to view artifacts. It was within her character, at the time, to keep what she had left of Joseph’s property away from the public eye. This was wise on her part, as Joseph’s memory grew, objects associated with him became collector’s items. In 1849, Philo Dibble purchased the death mask casts of Joseph and Hyrum for one hundred dollars, no small amount for the day. Later he would sell a set made from the casts for fifty dollars.
In a real sense, physical ownership of the Prophet’s possessions brought the purchaser closer to his memory. This need to “own” and “control” the Prophet’s memory has only increased with time. The more removed we are from 1844, the higher the price of these items becomes. In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, wealthy men like Wilford C. Wood and Herbert S. Auerbach sought to own anything that the Prophet touched or looked at. The following is an announcement of an exhibition of the Prophet's belongings as collected by Mr. Auerbach:
Mr. Herbert S. Auerbach, of the Auerbach Company, has spent many years searching for furniture, books, pamphlets and relics belonging to the Prophet Joseph Smith, until now his collection is the largest and most complete in the world. In fact, outside of this wonderful collection, there are only a few scattered pieces of relics of the Prophet in existence.
The gathering of this collection took many years of patient effort. Mr. Auerbach stopped at Nauvoo and neighboring towns, visited in the homes of the people to listen to stories that had been handed down of “Nauvoo the Beautiful, City of the Saints,” and hunted out every relic of the Prophet Joseph that he could find trace of. The relics and furniture were collected from many different people... a piece at one home, something else at another. It was often very difficult to persuade the owners to sell these relics and the collection was made at very great expense.
A photograph of Joseph Smith would be worth a small fortune. Emma died in April, 1879. Only three months later, Joseph III copyrighted the daguerreotype of his father. This would secure the image of his father and place it under his control, safe from accidental purchase, or loss. His legal background taught him this was the surest method to protect it. Plus he had plans to use it both in his ministry and for profit.
It is no secret that the Latter-day Saints in Utah and the Reorganized Church in Missouri did not appreciate the other’s approach. It has only been recently that the two churches have been on civil terms. The Reorganized Church would use many unsuccessful tactics to convert the Utah Saints to their doctrine. Legal means were only one of many. Joseph Smith III was not new to the practice of law. His talented style and ease with words had benefited the RLDS Church in several successful lawsuits.
His mother, Emma, once told him, “I know very well if your father had been acquainted with the laws of the country, he might have avoided a great deal of trouble.” Joseph III would study law from 1853-1856. He never became a certified lawyer but he did understand how the law functioned. In 1860, he gave up all his other ventures and joined the Reorganized Latter-day Saints as their President.
The news of Joseph III’s acceptance in the Reorganized Church was disturbing to LDS President, Brigham Young. Despite Emma’s dislike for him, President Young was always concerned for her safety. He strongly hoped the Prophet’s family would come to Utah and live as friends in the West, but it was not to be. As an example of his feelings towards them, President Young said:
What of Joseph Smith’s Family? What of the boys? I have prayed from the beginning for sister Emma and for the whole family. There is not a man in this Church that has entertained better feelings towards them. Joseph said to me, “God will take care of my children when I am taken.” They are in the hands of God, and when they make their appearance before this people, full of his power, there are none but what will say — Amen! We are ready to receive you.
Soon the scattered Saints would focus around two leaders, the Western Saints, who had followed and sustained Brigham Young, in what would become and Territory of Utah, and the Midwestern splinter-groups around Joseph III in Missouri. With both churches claiming authority, it was not long before harsh words were spoken. Joseph III began a missionary campaign to bring the Utah Mormons under his direction. He widely published his belief that Brigham Young had usurped his rightful position.
In turn, President Young denied the RLDS missionaries use of LDS Tabernacles and meeting houses. He called them apostates and instructed the Saints not to listen to them.
Joseph III’s missions to Utah were largely failures. He did win a handful converts but it was never a large enough percentage to matter in the least. Realizing his failure to reach his objectives, Joseph III turned his energy against plural marriage. He alone, is largely responsible for the success of the Edmunds- Tucker bill that allowed the Federal Government to seize lands owned by the Utah Saints. It became his crusade and in 1890 he thought he realized it when President Woodruff signed the LDS Church’s first official declaration.
Needless to say, the two churches did not care for one another. In part, this mutual dislike began at the Prophet Joseph Smith’s death.
The Desire to Own the Prophet’s Memory
Throughout the Prophet’s life, much of his personal possessions included Church possessions. His journals, church lands, official documents and many other things overlapped, as was the pattern of his life. At his death, the Twelve Apostles, under Brigham Young’s direction, took these items as official church property, while Emma saw their acts as seizure of family property. She gathered what she could and hid it. The most prominent item among these was Joseph’s translation of the Bible, a document that Brigham desperately wanted. Emma was very protective of her husband’s memory and belongings. Even in later years when visitors came to see her, it was not unlike her to refuse their requests for information or permission to view artifacts. It was within her character, at the time, to keep what she had left of Joseph’s property away from the public eye. This was wise on her part, as Joseph’s memory grew, objects associated with him became collector’s items. In 1849, Philo Dibble purchased the death mask casts of Joseph and Hyrum for one hundred dollars, no small amount for the day. Later he would sell a set made from the casts for fifty dollars.
In a real sense, physical ownership of the Prophet’s possessions brought the purchaser closer to his memory. This need to “own” and “control” the Prophet’s memory has only increased with time. The more removed we are from 1844, the higher the price of these items becomes. In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, wealthy men like Wilford C. Wood and Herbert S. Auerbach sought to own anything that the Prophet touched or looked at. The following is an announcement of an exhibition of the Prophet's belongings as collected by Mr. Auerbach:
Mr. Herbert S. Auerbach, of the Auerbach Company, has spent many years searching for furniture, books, pamphlets and relics belonging to the Prophet Joseph Smith, until now his collection is the largest and most complete in the world. In fact, outside of this wonderful collection, there are only a few scattered pieces of relics of the Prophet in existence.
The gathering of this collection took many years of patient effort. Mr. Auerbach stopped at Nauvoo and neighboring towns, visited in the homes of the people to listen to stories that had been handed down of “Nauvoo the Beautiful, City of the Saints,” and hunted out every relic of the Prophet Joseph that he could find trace of. The relics and furniture were collected from many different people... a piece at one home, something else at another. It was often very difficult to persuade the owners to sell these relics and the collection was made at very great expense.
A photograph of Joseph Smith would be worth a small fortune. Emma died in April, 1879. Only three months later, Joseph III copyrighted the daguerreotype of his father. This would secure the image of his father and place it under his control, safe from accidental purchase, or loss. His legal background taught him this was the surest method to protect it. Plus he had plans to use it both in his ministry and for profit.
Appendix B - The Carter Confusion
This section has been included for those who ask the question: What does Charles Carter have to do with the this photograph? There has been a great deal of confusion over this issue.
(Thirty years ago, there was great consternation over Charles Carter. He was used by those who wanted to dismiss Joseph Smith III's witness of his father's photograph and even Lucien Foster the photographer. Today this section could probably be removed as the major proponents of Carter, as a possible charlatan, have died. We have decided to include this section with this explanation as a remnant of history.)
(Thirty years ago, there was great consternation over Charles Carter. He was used by those who wanted to dismiss Joseph Smith III's witness of his father's photograph and even Lucien Foster the photographer. Today this section could probably be removed as the major proponents of Carter, as a possible charlatan, have died. We have decided to include this section with this explanation as a remnant of history.)
|
The facts are these: Lucien Foster took the daguerreotype of the Prophet; William Carson made a copy of it; and Joseph III filed it for copyright before Carter ever saw it. Years later Carter would state that he had obtained a copy of the daguerreotype, however, there was a problem. Carter realized that his copy was imperfect. The Deseret News reported: Mr. Carter has taken photographic copies of the daguerreotype, which he proposes to touch up with India ink and have copied again, until pictures as true to nature as possible and in various sizes can be produced. |
For reasons that will be discussed in detail later, Carter understood that his copy needed retouching. (see Fig. 35) Carter would also have drawings done from the daguerreotype which he sold around Salt Lake as images “copied from the original daguerreotype.” Many have associated Carter’s claim of having the daguerreotype with the drawings he produced from it. He would also copy the RLDS painting which created more confusion when later historians assumed that all his images came from it. The ramifications that stem from this confusion are immense. In order to clarify, we will have to start at the beginning.
Charles William Carter (see Fig. 36) was born August 4th, 1832 in London, England. Nothing is known about Carter’s youth in England except that he fought in the Crimean War, where he rose to the rank of sergeant.
The Crimean War (1854-1856), while not really much of a war, did go down in history as the first war: “photographed and reported by war correspondents.” Also at this time a new photographic process was invented. It was called the Wet-Collodion Process, sometimes termed “wet-plate”. It had many advantages: one was a glass negative. This meant that several positive prints could be taken from one negative. Another advantage was a very short exposure time ranging from a few seconds to a few minutes.
The Crimean conflict arose when Russia occupied two Turkish provinces, Moldavia and Walachia. When Turkey declared war, England, France and Sardinia joined in to protect their own interests. The actual fighting consisted of three major battles and “most of the loses on both sides resulted from hunger, exposure, and disease.” This provided many scenes for the camera man to capture. It was during this war that Carter learned photography.
It is not known when Carter joined the Mormon Church but it is believed to have been after the war. He was probably 24-26 years old at the time. Wadsworth pointed out that there is some confusion as to when Carter immigrated to Salt Lake City. There seems to be two possible dates: 1859 or 1863 Either way, the Saints were already well established in the Salt Lake Valley when he arrived.
Carter worked hard at his photography trade and soon prospered among the Saints. Many of Salt Lake’s famous pioneer scenes were captured by Charles Carter and for this we owe him a great debt. During his life, he was favored many times by photographing President Young and other prominent men.
Carter never knew the Prophet Joseph Smith, though he was aware of the greatness of the man. All around him were people who intimately knew and loved the Prophet. What excitement must have thrilled his soul when he first laid eyes on the Foster daguerreotype. The details of how Carter obtained the image, long enough to copy it, are extremely sketchy. It consists of about ten words. He announced, in an article for the Deseret News: “THE ONLY CORRECT PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH... copied from the original daguerreotype taken in 1843, kindly loaned to me by Joseph Smith, jr.”
In regards to the above statement, we have but two conclusions, either Carter was a liar or he told the truth. We will discuss the possible lie first.
If Carter really wanted the Saints to think that Joseph Smith the Prophet, loaned him the daguerreotype, then he was hoping to deceive them. It is absolutely impossible that Joseph Jr., loaned him the daguerreotype. Charles Carter was nowhere near Nauvoo during the Prophet’s lifetime. At the time of the Prophet’s death, he would have been eleven years old. The authors asked Jim Kimball, at the Church History Library about the possibility of Carter being in Nauvoo before 1844. He simply stated, “No way. It did not happen.” The question arises: “Why would Carter call his credibility into question by making such a bold-faced claim?”
If Carter lied, we believe the answer lies in the Copyright Division of the Library of Congress. As a photographer, Carter was interested in copyrights. It is possible that he learned of, or found the albumen prints in the files of the Copyright office and either stole one of the copies — two were deposited and one is missing — or used his knowledge of photography to copy one of them.
In doing so, he broke the copyright law and therefore had to lie about where he obtained it, i.e., “kindly loaned to me by Joseph Smith, jr.” He also would have to alter it somewhat in order to pass it off as a different and unprotected photo. While advertising it he would state:
Portrait of the Prophet- C.W. Carter, photographer, of this city, has in his possession a daguerreotype portrait of the Prophet Joseph Smith, taken in Nauvoo in the year 1843 --probably within a year of his death. The old acquaintances of the illustrious man to whom it has been shown, pronounce it an excellent likeness. We have always been of the opinion that the busts and most of the pictures of him in existence made him appear too effeminate looking and this portrait tends to confirm that opinion. The face as shown in it appears to be stronger and more mature looking and the head broader than generally pictured.
Mr. Carter has taken photographic copies of the daguerreotype, which he proposes to touch up with India ink and have copied again, until pictures as true to nature as possible and in various sizes can be produced.
Daguerreotypes are considered the clearest images man has ever produced. As stated previously, some say their clarity even surpasses modern films. Why would Carter need to “touch up” his copy “until pictures as true as nature” could be produced?
For many years Carter’s copy has been available to the Saints in Utah. It has been called many things: the “squatty” photograph, the “Elvis” photograph, and the “thyroid” photograph. This is due in part to its disproportioned appearance just below the eyes. (see Fig. 35) It has been the subject of much discussion. Wadsworth believed that these two images were one and the same, with the observation that: “[The] Carson picture photo-copied by Carter has a better hair-outlining job.” One of our experts in facial anatomy came to the same conclusion. There can be little doubt that this “squatty” image is the Foster daguerreotype/Carson albumen recopied, and “touched up with india ink.” Over the years its “squatty” appearance has lead many to doubt its authenticity. Carter also seemed concerned about his copy of the daguerreotype, for he made a point of saying he needed to manipulate the image until: “pictures as true to nature as possible and in various sizes can be produced.” Note Carter’s insertion of the collar line running up to the ear on the Prophet’s left-side. This feature is unique to the RLDS Portrait and is missing in the JS photograph. It occurred early on to the authors that Carter’s copy had been keystoned, sometimes shortened to: keyed.
Keystoning is a photographic term that means: an image that is distorted from the original by causing the parallel plains between the Lens of the Camera and the Two-Dimensional object being re-photographed, to become unparalleled. (see Fig. 37) A keyed image is a sign of amateurism. Only a two dimensional object can be keyed. When a photograph is keyed, part of the image stays in focus while the other part goes out of focus. The process naturally expands or contracts part of the image. Comparing the two images together shows this to be a definite possibility.
It is certain that Carter saw a great marketability in this photograph. Perhaps the desire for money got the best of him and he stole the image. If Carter lied to the Saints about where he obtained his image then he would need to find some way around the copyright. He did not want a lawsuit. Altering the image as a second photograph and claiming that Joseph, the Prophet, loaned it to him would certainly accomplish this and explain the differences between the two pictures. However, there is another explanation, equally plausible.
What if Carter told the truth?
What if Carter had told the truth about how he obtained the image. The authors prefer this explanation as it gives Carter the benefit of the doubt. Since it is a fact that Carter stated Joseph Smith Jr., gave him the photograph, perhaps it is we, and not him, that misunderstand. Could it be that Carter meant Joseph Smith III when he referred to Joseph Smith Jr.? Joseph III was at times called Joseph Jr., just as Joseph Jr. was sometimes called Joseph Sr. For example, in an affidavit by Hyrum Smith, used to get the prophet out of the grasp of Joseph H. Reynolds, sheriff from Missouri, the following statement was made. It appears from this affidavit that Missouri had written a warrant for the arrest of Joseph Smith, Junior. Hyrum testified:
Hyrum Smith sworn, said that the defendant now in court is his brother, and that his name is not Joseph Smith, Jun., but Joseph Smith, Sen., and had been for more than two years past.
Joseph Smith, the father of the Prophet, died on September 14th, 1840, and hence at the time these warrants were issued against the Prophet in June 1843, he was no longer Joseph Smith, Junior, but Joseph Smith, Senior. A technicality, it is true, but it worked. A warrant issued for the wrong man is not binding. Joseph Smith III, would officially now be Joseph Junior. In order to differentiate all of the Joseph Smiths both on the LDS and RLDS side, modern historians use Joseph Smith Junior for the Prophet and Joseph Smith III for his son, but for the people of Carter’s day, Joseph III was called, at times, Joseph Smith Jr. Note a news article printed in the Salt Lake Tribune, November 23rd, 1876 a non-Mormon controlled newspaper:
Joseph Smith, Jr., the true head of the Mormon Church, arrived in this city yesterday from the West, and is now stopping with Mr. Peter Reinsimar of the Eighth Ward. We welcome him to Utah, and feel sure for him and his co-laborers. ...The time for Joseph Smith, Jr., to put in the sickle is come, and we trust he will do it vigorously, that the power of Brigham may be broken.
Therefore, it is possible that Carter rightly said that he had obtained a copy of the daguerreotype from Joseph Smith Junior — meaning Joseph III. If this is true, then why would he have need of retouching the image? Daguerreotypes are images upon a highly polished silver plate. They are exactly like a mirror when tilted into the sun. It is somewhat tricky balancing the lighting in order to recapture the image without vast reflection. Perhaps Carter found this difficult and had to tilt the image in order to recapture it. This would explain the keystoning and the need for “touching it up with India ink.” But, why would Joseph Smith III allow Carter to copy his daguerreotype anyway?
Joseph Smith III’s Willingness
Joseph III was very willing to show himself able and equal to the task of being his father’s successor. At the death of the Prophet, Emma hid several church artifacts in order to keep them away from Brigham Young. This is discussed at length in Appendix A, previously.) In 1866, Emma gave the manuscript of the Prophet’s translation of the Bible to the Reorganized Church for publication. Joseph III was ecstatic over its release. It added to his prestige immeasurably. He hoped it would show his leadership ability to the Utah Saints, but Brigham Young refused to acknowledge the release of the translation and forbad its use. It is possible that Joseph III hoped to touch the people’s heart by releasing the JS photograph in the West. His copyright would serve as a means of controlling its use and possibly focus attention on his claims of succession. Joseph III did not have to wait long to act. After Brigham Young died, the Church again pondered who would be best qualified to lead them. Brigham had been the president for so long it was hard to imagine Utah without him. However, John Taylor as head of the Apostles, was called to fill that position. Taylor was only president a short time when Joseph III launched his successful attack against polygamy.
When Carter obtained the image from Joseph Smith III in 1885, President John Taylor had gone into hiding to avoid arrest for practicing polygamy. Joseph III had been waiting for just such an opportunity to gather the Utah Church under his direction. President Taylor was accused of “abandoning the flock,” leaving them to be devoured by hungry wolves. Joseph III hoped the people would see him as “a port in the storm.” Perhaps this picture would serve to remind them once more of the Smith family waiting with open arms to receive the abandoned Saints on the shores of the Mississippi. He was wrong once again; and the Utah Mormons clung to the Twelve Apostles just as Joseph Smith had cautioned them to do prior to his murder.
Whether Carter lied or told the truth about the image is somewhat unimportant. Truth or lie, either is historically possible and each lends itself to interesting possibilities.
Despite how Carter got the image, he would later have several drawings done from it which he re-copyrighted under his own name. Perhaps Joseph Smith III objected to his selling it or the way in which he was marketing it. It is significant to note the similarities between Joseph III’s copy of the daguerreotype and Carter’s drawings. (see Fig. 38) Note how Carter’s drawings do not have the extended collar touching the ear while the retouched image does.
It is certain that Carter saw a great marketability in this photograph. Perhaps the desire for money got the best of him and he stole the image. If Carter lied to the Saints about where he obtained his image then he would need to find some way around the copyright. He did not want a lawsuit. Altering the image as a second photograph and claiming that Joseph, the Prophet, loaned it to him would certainly accomplish this and explain the differences between the two pictures. However, there is another explanation, equally plausible.
What if Carter told the truth?
What if Carter had told the truth about how he obtained the image. The authors prefer this explanation as it gives Carter the benefit of the doubt. Since it is a fact that Carter stated Joseph Smith Jr., gave him the photograph, perhaps it is we, and not him, that misunderstand. Could it be that Carter meant Joseph Smith III when he referred to Joseph Smith Jr.? Joseph III was at times called Joseph Jr., just as Joseph Jr. was sometimes called Joseph Sr. For example, in an affidavit by Hyrum Smith, used to get the prophet out of the grasp of Joseph H. Reynolds, sheriff from Missouri, the following statement was made. It appears from this affidavit that Missouri had written a warrant for the arrest of Joseph Smith, Junior. Hyrum testified:
Hyrum Smith sworn, said that the defendant now in court is his brother, and that his name is not Joseph Smith, Jun., but Joseph Smith, Sen., and had been for more than two years past.
Joseph Smith, the father of the Prophet, died on September 14th, 1840, and hence at the time these warrants were issued against the Prophet in June 1843, he was no longer Joseph Smith, Junior, but Joseph Smith, Senior. A technicality, it is true, but it worked. A warrant issued for the wrong man is not binding. Joseph Smith III, would officially now be Joseph Junior. In order to differentiate all of the Joseph Smiths both on the LDS and RLDS side, modern historians use Joseph Smith Junior for the Prophet and Joseph Smith III for his son, but for the people of Carter’s day, Joseph III was called, at times, Joseph Smith Jr. Note a news article printed in the Salt Lake Tribune, November 23rd, 1876 a non-Mormon controlled newspaper:
Joseph Smith, Jr., the true head of the Mormon Church, arrived in this city yesterday from the West, and is now stopping with Mr. Peter Reinsimar of the Eighth Ward. We welcome him to Utah, and feel sure for him and his co-laborers. ...The time for Joseph Smith, Jr., to put in the sickle is come, and we trust he will do it vigorously, that the power of Brigham may be broken.
Therefore, it is possible that Carter rightly said that he had obtained a copy of the daguerreotype from Joseph Smith Junior — meaning Joseph III. If this is true, then why would he have need of retouching the image? Daguerreotypes are images upon a highly polished silver plate. They are exactly like a mirror when tilted into the sun. It is somewhat tricky balancing the lighting in order to recapture the image without vast reflection. Perhaps Carter found this difficult and had to tilt the image in order to recapture it. This would explain the keystoning and the need for “touching it up with India ink.” But, why would Joseph Smith III allow Carter to copy his daguerreotype anyway?
Joseph Smith III’s Willingness
Joseph III was very willing to show himself able and equal to the task of being his father’s successor. At the death of the Prophet, Emma hid several church artifacts in order to keep them away from Brigham Young. This is discussed at length in Appendix A, previously.) In 1866, Emma gave the manuscript of the Prophet’s translation of the Bible to the Reorganized Church for publication. Joseph III was ecstatic over its release. It added to his prestige immeasurably. He hoped it would show his leadership ability to the Utah Saints, but Brigham Young refused to acknowledge the release of the translation and forbad its use. It is possible that Joseph III hoped to touch the people’s heart by releasing the JS photograph in the West. His copyright would serve as a means of controlling its use and possibly focus attention on his claims of succession. Joseph III did not have to wait long to act. After Brigham Young died, the Church again pondered who would be best qualified to lead them. Brigham had been the president for so long it was hard to imagine Utah without him. However, John Taylor as head of the Apostles, was called to fill that position. Taylor was only president a short time when Joseph III launched his successful attack against polygamy.
When Carter obtained the image from Joseph Smith III in 1885, President John Taylor had gone into hiding to avoid arrest for practicing polygamy. Joseph III had been waiting for just such an opportunity to gather the Utah Church under his direction. President Taylor was accused of “abandoning the flock,” leaving them to be devoured by hungry wolves. Joseph III hoped the people would see him as “a port in the storm.” Perhaps this picture would serve to remind them once more of the Smith family waiting with open arms to receive the abandoned Saints on the shores of the Mississippi. He was wrong once again; and the Utah Mormons clung to the Twelve Apostles just as Joseph Smith had cautioned them to do prior to his murder.
Whether Carter lied or told the truth about the image is somewhat unimportant. Truth or lie, either is historically possible and each lends itself to interesting possibilities.
Despite how Carter got the image, he would later have several drawings done from it which he re-copyrighted under his own name. Perhaps Joseph Smith III objected to his selling it or the way in which he was marketing it. It is significant to note the similarities between Joseph III’s copy of the daguerreotype and Carter’s drawings. (see Fig. 38) Note how Carter’s drawings do not have the extended collar touching the ear while the retouched image does.
The Carter Confusion is Confusing
Carter may be the man responsible for all of the confusion generated in the West over the possibility of a Joseph Smith daguerreotype. Over the years, people have dismissed the idea of Foster’s daguerreotype, due to all the obviously hand-drawn images of the Prophet listed as copies of the photograph. Three of Carter’s hand-drawn copies were filed with the Library of Congress under the dates, August 31st, September 25th, and December 26th, 1885. Carter’s claim that they were copied from the daguerreotype have led many to believe they are photographic copies instead of drawings made from it.
Due to all of this confusion, it has been stated by some that Carter may have been mistaken in his claims. That perhaps he obtained a daguerreotype of some art-work and mistook it for an actual picture of the Prophet. This is unlikely. Had Carter been an amateur of photography, one could believe this argument, but one must remember that Carter was not a novice to his trade. He was an intelligent and able professional photographer.
With the copyright of the original photograph secured, the law forbidding its reproduction, and the Joseph Smith III family in ownership of it, Utah Saints, who either wanted to make a little money off the daguerreotype or possess it for nostalgic reasons, were forced to accept drawings from it.
Their claims of “photograph” and “taken from” a photograph have been misinterpreted by later generations. It must be remembered that “taken from” was a term that originally meant “rendering a copy” and was originally used centuries ago with the “camera obscura”.
When Charles William Carter died, things got even more confusing. His health had been failing for some time before he retired from the photographer’s life. He died on January 27th 1918, at the age of 85.
(Added Note not included in the original 1992 research: Thanks to Carter, many of Marsena Cannon’s daguerreotypes, as well as several taken by Lucien Foster, survive to this day. Carter photo-copied every interesting picture that came his way and filed the negatives for future use. A portion of them can be found in the C.W. Carter Collection maintained by the Mormon Church. Early views of the Beehive House, Main Street, and other pioneer buildings and scenes in this collection obviously pre-date Carter’s arrival in Utah. On March 13, 1906, too old to take any more pictures and too feeble to peddle prints and postcards from his stand, the Englishman sold his entire negative collection to the Bureau of Information on Temple Square. In 1963, museum curator Carl Jones began taking inventory of the museum’s holdings and discovered a wooden box containing three hundred of Carter’s negatives under a pile of dust and junk in the basement. Much of the collection, probably a large share of the individual portraits — has been lost over the years, but many of the valuable historical pictures have been preserved, including the controversial “photograph” of Joseph Smith. Written by S. M. Smith for Find A Grave.)
Without Carter in the flesh to answer questions, his art-work was many times mistaken for the daguerreotype. One would appear as a Frontispiece in the LDS Young Woman’s Journal. The explanation reads: “The Frontispiece is the only full face portrait of the Prophet Joseph known. It was taken by C. W. Carter, pioneer photographer, from an old daguerreotype found at Nauvoo.” This is an incorrect statement.
It is not the “only full face portrait of the Prophet Joseph known.” While no one doubts the intentions of the periodical, it further goes to illustrate the confusion. However, it is only part of it. Harrison Sperry is another example. On the 17th of October, 1921, he copyrighted a drawing of Joseph Smith calling it a photograph. Again it is similar to Joseph III’s daguerreotype but it is obviously a painting. (see Fig. 39)
Carter may be the man responsible for all of the confusion generated in the West over the possibility of a Joseph Smith daguerreotype. Over the years, people have dismissed the idea of Foster’s daguerreotype, due to all the obviously hand-drawn images of the Prophet listed as copies of the photograph. Three of Carter’s hand-drawn copies were filed with the Library of Congress under the dates, August 31st, September 25th, and December 26th, 1885. Carter’s claim that they were copied from the daguerreotype have led many to believe they are photographic copies instead of drawings made from it.
Due to all of this confusion, it has been stated by some that Carter may have been mistaken in his claims. That perhaps he obtained a daguerreotype of some art-work and mistook it for an actual picture of the Prophet. This is unlikely. Had Carter been an amateur of photography, one could believe this argument, but one must remember that Carter was not a novice to his trade. He was an intelligent and able professional photographer.
With the copyright of the original photograph secured, the law forbidding its reproduction, and the Joseph Smith III family in ownership of it, Utah Saints, who either wanted to make a little money off the daguerreotype or possess it for nostalgic reasons, were forced to accept drawings from it.
Their claims of “photograph” and “taken from” a photograph have been misinterpreted by later generations. It must be remembered that “taken from” was a term that originally meant “rendering a copy” and was originally used centuries ago with the “camera obscura”.
When Charles William Carter died, things got even more confusing. His health had been failing for some time before he retired from the photographer’s life. He died on January 27th 1918, at the age of 85.
(Added Note not included in the original 1992 research: Thanks to Carter, many of Marsena Cannon’s daguerreotypes, as well as several taken by Lucien Foster, survive to this day. Carter photo-copied every interesting picture that came his way and filed the negatives for future use. A portion of them can be found in the C.W. Carter Collection maintained by the Mormon Church. Early views of the Beehive House, Main Street, and other pioneer buildings and scenes in this collection obviously pre-date Carter’s arrival in Utah. On March 13, 1906, too old to take any more pictures and too feeble to peddle prints and postcards from his stand, the Englishman sold his entire negative collection to the Bureau of Information on Temple Square. In 1963, museum curator Carl Jones began taking inventory of the museum’s holdings and discovered a wooden box containing three hundred of Carter’s negatives under a pile of dust and junk in the basement. Much of the collection, probably a large share of the individual portraits — has been lost over the years, but many of the valuable historical pictures have been preserved, including the controversial “photograph” of Joseph Smith. Written by S. M. Smith for Find A Grave.)
Without Carter in the flesh to answer questions, his art-work was many times mistaken for the daguerreotype. One would appear as a Frontispiece in the LDS Young Woman’s Journal. The explanation reads: “The Frontispiece is the only full face portrait of the Prophet Joseph known. It was taken by C. W. Carter, pioneer photographer, from an old daguerreotype found at Nauvoo.” This is an incorrect statement.
It is not the “only full face portrait of the Prophet Joseph known.” While no one doubts the intentions of the periodical, it further goes to illustrate the confusion. However, it is only part of it. Harrison Sperry is another example. On the 17th of October, 1921, he copyrighted a drawing of Joseph Smith calling it a photograph. Again it is similar to Joseph III’s daguerreotype but it is obviously a painting. (see Fig. 39)
Five years later the same painting would appear in the Improvement Era with the caption: “A Portrait of the Prophet Joseph Smith. From a painting made in Nauvoo, by W. Major. Art work done by John B. DeHaan, a Salt Lake City, artist.” The explanation accompanying it read:
The face of Joseph Smith had been abused as much as his doctrine. In order to present a truthful portrait of the Prophet, Mr. W. Crawford Anderson has had a reproduction made in plain photo and also hand-colored in oil, of the painting made by Mr. W. Major, in Nauvoo, during the lifetime of the Prophet.
The art work, both in plain and the colored pictures, was done by John B. DeHaan, a leading Salt Lake artist, and is very creditable.
Mr. B. Morris Young, son of Brigham Young, saw this picture in the Mansion House in Nauvoo, when Emma Smith, the Prophet’s wife, was an old lady.
The Picture gives a correct portrait of the Prophet at 35 years of age. At the time he was 6 feet tall and weighed 210 pounds.
Pres. Anthony W. Ivins, of the First Presidency of the L. D. S. Church, believes this to be a true portrait of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
There are many confusing issues here. One is the reference to Joseph being 35 years old when W. Major painted the RLDS painting. For this to be true, Major would have painted Joseph in 1840. According to his obituary, William Major did not come to America until August of 1844. If Major painted the RLDS painting he did not paint it during the Prophet’s lifetime. The RLDS painting has also been credited to David Rogers because the Prophet recorded sitting for a Brother Rogers for four days in September of 1842. Since the LDS Church has the painting that Rogers painted in 1842, this conclusion is inaccurate. (see Fig. 43) We believe that Major did, in fact, paint the RLDS painting and that he used the JS photograph as a “crutch.” (see Appendix C, following.)
Researchers through the years have tried in vain to weed through the myriad of contradicting statements about Joseph Smith imagery. The ones given here as examples, are just a few of many. However, one similarity carries through all the images that resemble the JS photograph. All of them claim to be copies of, retouchings of, or drawings of, an actual photograph of the Prophet that once existed.
Lastly, a third possibility exists. Realizing that there was money to be made from selling his father’s photograph in both Missouri and Utah, Joseph III may have copyrighted the image in order to control sales. A hasty, quickly frisked version was sent off to the Copyright office, while a cleaner, more sellable version was made available to the public. Agents, such as Carter, may have sold the image with the promise of giving Joseph III either credit or some monetary kickback. In order to avoid either, alterations and artistic renderings were done, always “justified” by the statement that the image was valid because the original source was photographic.
Artists use the same rationale today. How many times have you seen a painting which the artist insists is valuable and “worthy of space on your wall” because it was painted from a photograph or is the most accurate image of something? Indeed artists are still at it in regards to Joseph Smith today.
The face of Joseph Smith had been abused as much as his doctrine. In order to present a truthful portrait of the Prophet, Mr. W. Crawford Anderson has had a reproduction made in plain photo and also hand-colored in oil, of the painting made by Mr. W. Major, in Nauvoo, during the lifetime of the Prophet.
The art work, both in plain and the colored pictures, was done by John B. DeHaan, a leading Salt Lake artist, and is very creditable.
Mr. B. Morris Young, son of Brigham Young, saw this picture in the Mansion House in Nauvoo, when Emma Smith, the Prophet’s wife, was an old lady.
The Picture gives a correct portrait of the Prophet at 35 years of age. At the time he was 6 feet tall and weighed 210 pounds.
Pres. Anthony W. Ivins, of the First Presidency of the L. D. S. Church, believes this to be a true portrait of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
There are many confusing issues here. One is the reference to Joseph being 35 years old when W. Major painted the RLDS painting. For this to be true, Major would have painted Joseph in 1840. According to his obituary, William Major did not come to America until August of 1844. If Major painted the RLDS painting he did not paint it during the Prophet’s lifetime. The RLDS painting has also been credited to David Rogers because the Prophet recorded sitting for a Brother Rogers for four days in September of 1842. Since the LDS Church has the painting that Rogers painted in 1842, this conclusion is inaccurate. (see Fig. 43) We believe that Major did, in fact, paint the RLDS painting and that he used the JS photograph as a “crutch.” (see Appendix C, following.)
Researchers through the years have tried in vain to weed through the myriad of contradicting statements about Joseph Smith imagery. The ones given here as examples, are just a few of many. However, one similarity carries through all the images that resemble the JS photograph. All of them claim to be copies of, retouchings of, or drawings of, an actual photograph of the Prophet that once existed.
Lastly, a third possibility exists. Realizing that there was money to be made from selling his father’s photograph in both Missouri and Utah, Joseph III may have copyrighted the image in order to control sales. A hasty, quickly frisked version was sent off to the Copyright office, while a cleaner, more sellable version was made available to the public. Agents, such as Carter, may have sold the image with the promise of giving Joseph III either credit or some monetary kickback. In order to avoid either, alterations and artistic renderings were done, always “justified” by the statement that the image was valid because the original source was photographic.
Artists use the same rationale today. How many times have you seen a painting which the artist insists is valuable and “worthy of space on your wall” because it was painted from a photograph or is the most accurate image of something? Indeed artists are still at it in regards to Joseph Smith today.
From time to time, images with photographic properties emerge. Here is an old one on card stock. (see Figure 40) Exactly how they fit into the whole story is currently unknown but the authors suspect that they are either cleaned up photographs once for sale or that they are photo retouchings. If a sharp, unfaded version surfaces, it will likely lead to the conclusion that Joseph Smith III’s haste in submitting a poorly touched up copy to the Library of Congress was done to guarantee his claim to any profits derived from the sales of more carefully executed reprints or to control the same.
Unfortunately, the copies which have surfaced to date are so faded that it is difficult to tell for certain. More research is needed and perhaps a higher quality copy will yet surface for analyzation.
Adding further confusion, at various times, postcard reproductions of the RLDS Painting were also for sale. The major difference here has been that instead of claiming photographic accuracy as a selling point, these images were clearly labeled as being taken “from the oil painting.” (see Fig. 40a)
Unfortunately, the copies which have surfaced to date are so faded that it is difficult to tell for certain. More research is needed and perhaps a higher quality copy will yet surface for analyzation.
Adding further confusion, at various times, postcard reproductions of the RLDS Painting were also for sale. The major difference here has been that instead of claiming photographic accuracy as a selling point, these images were clearly labeled as being taken “from the oil painting.” (see Fig. 40a)
Appendix C - The Major Question
The authors agree with Nelson Wadsworth that the most likely candidate for the painter of the RLDS painting is William Major. Major was baptized in London in 1842. In August of 1844, he emigrated to Nauvoo, Illinois, where he “soon became acquainted with the Authorities of the Church, and was extensively employed by them in his profession, that of an artist.” It was during this same month that Lucien Foster advertised his daguerreotype rooms and mentioned that samples of his work could be seen at the Nauvoo Mansion. Major could have easily viewed the Prophet’s photograph at that time. Major was interested in painting Joseph Smith. He is listed as painting another portrait of the Prophet in the History of the Church. Brigham Young recorded on April 4th, 1845: “Brother William W. Major exhibited a painting of the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith by the mob at Carthage.”
It is known that Major used photography to as means of creating art. Wadsworth found evidence that Major used a daguerreotype of Brigham Young to paint a portrait of him. While the original daguerreotype of Young has been lost, we have an engraving that was taken from it. (see Fig. 41) By overlaying the engraving, on top of the painting, Wadsworth showed that — while the images were not exactly the same — the major facial lines were precise. (see Fig. 42)
It is known that Major used photography to as means of creating art. Wadsworth found evidence that Major used a daguerreotype of Brigham Young to paint a portrait of him. While the original daguerreotype of Young has been lost, we have an engraving that was taken from it. (see Fig. 41) By overlaying the engraving, on top of the painting, Wadsworth showed that — while the images were not exactly the same — the major facial lines were precise. (see Fig. 42)
The Smith Children’s favorite painting of their father. Most likely painted by William Major from a photograph as was custom at the time. This is the one that Joseph Smith III said was most correct and that he had a protograph of his father to prove it! In 2024 this painting and one of Emma Smith were purchased by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah. |
Using the same technique, we overlaid the JS photograph and the RLDS painting. We observed the same phenomenon with the exception that the facial lines are not as precise. (see Fig. 43)
In order to paint such accurate lines, Major would have used a device like the “portable camera obscura” or the “camera lucida.” Note that there are some interesting changes Major made between the Brigham Young painting and the engraving he used to produce it. This can also be seen in the Joseph Smith images. This circumstantial evidence suggests Major did paint the RLDS painting from the JS photograph.
These similarities are:
1 - Both original images have a blank background while the paintings have an elaborate background setting.
2 - Both paintings turn the subject slightly to his right. 80
3 - Both paintings downplay the more “casual stance” found in the originals.
4 - Both paintings lengthen the collar on the subject’s left side, giving the portrait a “statelier” appearance.
5 - Both paintings reposition the hands. (There are no hands in the JS photo, while one is introduced in the RLDS painting.)
6 - Both paintings introduce a ring on the subject’s hand where none appears in the original. (There is no hand in the JS photo, while a hand with a ring on it is introduced in the RLDS painting.)
Given similarities in artistic technique, the historical association of Major to the painting, and the historical evidence of a Mormon painter named William Major living in Nauvoo, we believe that William Major did paint the RLDS painting. We also believe that he used the JS Photograph as his “crutch”.
Further evidence of this can be seen from a known painting by William Major in the LDS Church’s collection, known as: In Nauvoo 1843 - 1844, Joseph and Friends. (reproduced herein as Fig. 18A) It contains many prominent LDS figures seated while being addressed by Joseph Smith. What immediately strikes one about this painting is that every figure included is posed as if they alone make up their own painting. None of the figures seem even interested in Joseph’s speech, nor are they looking at him.
t quickly becomes apparent that each figure was painted using a separate photograph. Now you know his technique, go back and look at William Major’s painting. The painting clearly illustrates his use of photographs and other previously conceived sketches to create art. Many of the figures portrayed have known corresponding photographs. One critic pointed out that if Major had used photographs, why did he paint this particular Joseph Smith in profile? One can only speculate but it seems obvious that Major was intending to illustrate Joseph lecturing to the crowd. Portraying him frontally here would have defeated his purpose. Even so, Joseph in profile here is so reminiscent of Maudsley’s work that it begs the question, “Did Major borrow Maudsley in this instance?” The point is speculative but consistent with historical knowledge and illustrates our contention perfectly.
Lastly, there is conclusive evidence from within the Prophet’s family at Nauvoo that the practice of using photographs to paint portraits was indeed done. During the 1950’s while refurbishing Joseph Smith’s Mansion House in Nauvoo, Sidney Moore, an antique dealer and artist discovered a deteriorating oil painting in the attic (see Fig. 44).
These similarities are:
1 - Both original images have a blank background while the paintings have an elaborate background setting.
2 - Both paintings turn the subject slightly to his right. 80
3 - Both paintings downplay the more “casual stance” found in the originals.
4 - Both paintings lengthen the collar on the subject’s left side, giving the portrait a “statelier” appearance.
5 - Both paintings reposition the hands. (There are no hands in the JS photo, while one is introduced in the RLDS painting.)
6 - Both paintings introduce a ring on the subject’s hand where none appears in the original. (There is no hand in the JS photo, while a hand with a ring on it is introduced in the RLDS painting.)
Given similarities in artistic technique, the historical association of Major to the painting, and the historical evidence of a Mormon painter named William Major living in Nauvoo, we believe that William Major did paint the RLDS painting. We also believe that he used the JS Photograph as his “crutch”.
Further evidence of this can be seen from a known painting by William Major in the LDS Church’s collection, known as: In Nauvoo 1843 - 1844, Joseph and Friends. (reproduced herein as Fig. 18A) It contains many prominent LDS figures seated while being addressed by Joseph Smith. What immediately strikes one about this painting is that every figure included is posed as if they alone make up their own painting. None of the figures seem even interested in Joseph’s speech, nor are they looking at him.
t quickly becomes apparent that each figure was painted using a separate photograph. Now you know his technique, go back and look at William Major’s painting. The painting clearly illustrates his use of photographs and other previously conceived sketches to create art. Many of the figures portrayed have known corresponding photographs. One critic pointed out that if Major had used photographs, why did he paint this particular Joseph Smith in profile? One can only speculate but it seems obvious that Major was intending to illustrate Joseph lecturing to the crowd. Portraying him frontally here would have defeated his purpose. Even so, Joseph in profile here is so reminiscent of Maudsley’s work that it begs the question, “Did Major borrow Maudsley in this instance?” The point is speculative but consistent with historical knowledge and illustrates our contention perfectly.
Lastly, there is conclusive evidence from within the Prophet’s family at Nauvoo that the practice of using photographs to paint portraits was indeed done. During the 1950’s while refurbishing Joseph Smith’s Mansion House in Nauvoo, Sidney Moore, an antique dealer and artist discovered a deteriorating oil painting in the attic (see Fig. 44).
Little to nothing was known of the woman in the painting until 1992 when at the death of the Prophet’s great-grandson, another member of the Smith family, Lachlan MacKay, was sorting through family archifacts in the attic. There he found a packet of old photographs labeled, “Mother Smith’s Pictures.” Lachlan was very surprised to discover that one of the photographs resembled the rotting painting to a stunning degree (see Fig. 45).
Together with RLDS Archivist Ronald Romig, they were able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they had discovered the only known photograph of Joseph and Hyrum’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith. The authors met with Lachlan and Ron Romig shortly after their discovery. They were very kind in showing us high quality reproductions of both the painting and the photograph. Figure 44 is the copy we were given at that time. While we were extremely interested in this new find, our excitement was anchored in a different port. We believed at the time that this new discovery added significant weight to our contention that some artist, likely William Major, used Joseph Smith’s photograph to paint the RDLS painting of him. The fact that a painting had been found in the attic of Joseph Smith’s residence which was clearly done from a photograph seemed to us to be the final nail in a perfect coffin! We asked the RLDS for permission to include this data in our forth-coming document. Ronald asked us not to, and so out of respect to him, Lachlan, and the christian kindness with which we were treated by the RLDS, we left all mention of this out of our documents at the time. In the Fall of 2005, Romig and Lachlan released these images and their findings publicly. (See Lucy’s Image: A Recently Discovered Photograph of Lucy Mack Smith by Ronald E. Romig and Lachlan Mackay, Journal of Mormon History V. 31, No. 27 (Fall 2005). pp. 61-77.)
Using the same technique as Wadsworth’s Brigham Young imagery comparison (see Figs. 41-42, previous) and our similar study of the JS Photograph to the RLDS Painting (see Fig. 43, previous) we made a similar comparison of these new images. Once again the findings strongly suggest that an artist commissioned (or merely willing) to portray prominent Nauvoo Smiths, used photography as templates for their work. This was not only an advantage to the artist, who had a consistently precise model, it was also nice for the subject who could hand a photograph to the painter and walk away.4 Our comparison illustrates the likelihood that the artist set his focal plane on Lucy’s nose and radiated outward (see Fig. 46). The painting appears to differ more and more in concentric circles away from the center of her face. We also believe based on the comparison that the painting was not finished although as to the reason we could only speculate.
Using the same technique as Wadsworth’s Brigham Young imagery comparison (see Figs. 41-42, previous) and our similar study of the JS Photograph to the RLDS Painting (see Fig. 43, previous) we made a similar comparison of these new images. Once again the findings strongly suggest that an artist commissioned (or merely willing) to portray prominent Nauvoo Smiths, used photography as templates for their work. This was not only an advantage to the artist, who had a consistently precise model, it was also nice for the subject who could hand a photograph to the painter and walk away.4 Our comparison illustrates the likelihood that the artist set his focal plane on Lucy’s nose and radiated outward (see Fig. 46). The painting appears to differ more and more in concentric circles away from the center of her face. We also believe based on the comparison that the painting was not finished although as to the reason we could only speculate.
The fact the Lucy spent her final years living at the Mansion House with her daughter-in-law Emma, combined with the discovery of the painting in the attic, further makes our case for the RLDS painting being exactly what Joseph Smith III said it was: the most accurate painting of his father and based on a photograph. We consider Lucy’s photograph and subsequent painting to be vindication of his statement.
Appendix D - Other Daguerreotypes
Little could we have guessed in 1992 the turn of events that our research would set in motion. Scholars and interested parties both inside and outside of the LDS and RLDS Church have begun to re-open the topic: “What did Joseph Smith really look like?” Church museums, tourist sights and archival libraries have been inundated with questions. In order to help answer these inquires, many new and interesting research projects have been initiated, including the examination of previously unimportant and questionable photographs. Also in 2001, the RLDS Church changed its name to the Community of Christ.
(Added Note: Prior to 2001 most of the discussion beleaguering RLDS membership was in how it differed from LDS or Mormon doctrine based in Salt Lake City. In a rather wise move, they chose to lead out with their own philosophies and doctrine and change the discussion from “why we aren’t them” to “why we are who we are.” As Joseph Smith Jr’s role changed in their doctrine from head- prophet of a dispensation to more of inspired visionary-christian, the need to continue the church name he said was divinely given became more a matter of history and opinion. In 2001 they decided to change their name to the Community of Christ, but they also decided to continue to own their former name for “historical and legal reasons.” Thus it is still appropriate to refer to them as RLDS although CoC or Community of Christ is considered preferred.)
Since our research, RLDS historians in Independence Missouri have renewed their interest in an old daguerreotype that has been in their collection since 1969. It was labeled: Joseph Smith Junior? They decided to follow our scientific lead and have their image studied. Due to the numerous requests that we comment on that image, it is hoped that the following explanation will shed light on our conclusion that their image is not a photograph of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.
The picture they are studying is being taunted as a previously unexamined image, however this is misleading. Prominent Joseph Smith scholars including Ephraim Hatch and Buddy Youngreen (who do not necessarily agree with our findings either) examined the image years ago and stated that they did not believe it to be the Prophet. The authors have had a copy of this picture since March of 1992, but out of respect for our RLDS friends, who desire to unveil the image themselves at a future date, we did not reproduce it. It is referred to as the “Scannell Image” since that is its providence. It is badly deteriorated. Prior to any scientific or historical analysis, the number one problem with this picture is that it does not resemble the Prophet. It will also have to be heavily reconstructed, which raises numerous concerns to historians. How do you accurately reconstruct missing facial features, and what do you use as an un- biased guide? Since the authors have received an inordinate amount of questions about this image and since it has been in public circulation now for many years (as of this reprinting) we have decided to include it here citing the Fair Use Clause of the United States Copyright Law.
(Added Note: Prior to 2001 most of the discussion beleaguering RLDS membership was in how it differed from LDS or Mormon doctrine based in Salt Lake City. In a rather wise move, they chose to lead out with their own philosophies and doctrine and change the discussion from “why we aren’t them” to “why we are who we are.” As Joseph Smith Jr’s role changed in their doctrine from head- prophet of a dispensation to more of inspired visionary-christian, the need to continue the church name he said was divinely given became more a matter of history and opinion. In 2001 they decided to change their name to the Community of Christ, but they also decided to continue to own their former name for “historical and legal reasons.” Thus it is still appropriate to refer to them as RLDS although CoC or Community of Christ is considered preferred.)
Since our research, RLDS historians in Independence Missouri have renewed their interest in an old daguerreotype that has been in their collection since 1969. It was labeled: Joseph Smith Junior? They decided to follow our scientific lead and have their image studied. Due to the numerous requests that we comment on that image, it is hoped that the following explanation will shed light on our conclusion that their image is not a photograph of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.
The picture they are studying is being taunted as a previously unexamined image, however this is misleading. Prominent Joseph Smith scholars including Ephraim Hatch and Buddy Youngreen (who do not necessarily agree with our findings either) examined the image years ago and stated that they did not believe it to be the Prophet. The authors have had a copy of this picture since March of 1992, but out of respect for our RLDS friends, who desire to unveil the image themselves at a future date, we did not reproduce it. It is referred to as the “Scannell Image” since that is its providence. It is badly deteriorated. Prior to any scientific or historical analysis, the number one problem with this picture is that it does not resemble the Prophet. It will also have to be heavily reconstructed, which raises numerous concerns to historians. How do you accurately reconstruct missing facial features, and what do you use as an un- biased guide? Since the authors have received an inordinate amount of questions about this image and since it has been in public circulation now for many years (as of this reprinting) we have decided to include it here citing the Fair Use Clause of the United States Copyright Law.
The point could be raised, how do we know what the Prophet Joseph really looked like? For those that agree with the findings of this research, the answer is simple. Those who knew the Prophet (like his own wife and eldest son) said that he looked like the JS Photograph and the RLDS Painting both cherished by them and in their documented possession. For those uncertain, the numerous paintings and sketches from the Prophet’s lifetime paint a reasonable picture of the man. It’s a little like playing the game, “Which of these images belong together.”
If you were to show the average American fourth grader two or three pictures of George Washington and then an additional picture of some old patriot, he could rather quickly point out the picture that does not match. Now the example is a little juvenile, but it is nevertheless valid. Why we are so quick to dismiss what we do know and perceive, with what we want to know and perceive? Try it out on the previous page. Can you tell which one is not George? How can you be sure?
If you were to show the average American fourth grader two or three pictures of George Washington and then an additional picture of some old patriot, he could rather quickly point out the picture that does not match. Now the example is a little juvenile, but it is nevertheless valid. Why we are so quick to dismiss what we do know and perceive, with what we want to know and perceive? Try it out on the previous page. Can you tell which one is not George? How can you be sure?
In terms of Joseph Smith imagery, the pictures and word descriptions we have say that the Prophet was handsome and enthusiastic. He had eyes that could penetrate the souls of men. The image presented by the RLDS researchers contains, in our opinion, none of these attributes. While it is true to a limited degree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, other scientific evidences show that their image could not be the Prophet. Before proceeding, we wish to state that in voicing our opinion that we do not believe the Scannell image to be Joseph Smith the Prophet, we do not want anyone to think that we do not want the image studied. Here are the facts about their image.
The RLDS photo was sent to the George Eastman House and to Mr. Grant Romer an eminent photographic expert. Mr. Romer stated that the materials used to make the daguerreotype clearly dated it as an image from the 1850s. Upon removing the metal frame, Mr. Romer found the words, “Taken in 1854” written beneath the picture. Joseph Smith was killed in 1844 therefore this picture, taken ten years later, could not be a photograph of him. One would suspect then, that the case would have been closed, but the RLDS pondered the question, could not this 1854 photograph be a photographic copy from an earlier 1840’s photograph of the Prophet? It was proposed that the lack of props and simple background behind the figure might be a technique of 1840’s photography. Which is not necessarily so. We believe that these points are weak and highly speculative at best.
In order to help explain our rationale in regards to the date they discovered, we will use the following story: Suppose that your daughter wanted to have a copy of an old photograph dated 1888 of your great-grandfather to put in her Book of Remembrance. Let’s call him Jedidiah Henry Scandell. You take the image to a photographer and have it duplicated. What would you write on it when you got it home? Would you write on the back: “Taken in 1994”? Of course not. Why wouldn’t you do that?
The answer is obvious. The photograph of your great- grandfather was not taken in 1994, it was taken in 1888. It would only make sense that instead of writing, “Taken in 1994” you would write something like: “This is a photograph of Jedidah Henry Scandell taken in 1888 at the age of 65.” While this seems so logical it is the exact opposite that we are told to believe when the RLDS researchers claim that their picture is an 1840’s image rephotographed in 1854. The message “Taken in 1854” is so simple and unmistakable that it should end the debate but it has not.
Of further interest is a recent facial comparison between this image and the death mask. It has been concluded by some that this image is 85% similar to the death mask. It is important to remember that 85% is not 100% percent. Anyone can think of a person that looks 85% like someone else. Hollywood and politicians have capitalized on this phenomenon with the use of “doubles” and “look-a-likes” to replace famous people in dangerous situations. It has been theorized in the news that Saddam Hussein had over 50 look-a-likes in Baghdad. Our British friends say that Heir Prince William has a double that does all the “real heavy lifting” whenever the prince needs to make a public appearance cleaning out gutters or laboring among the people. What does all this mean? Simply that many people resemble other people.
To illustrate this point, a true story: In the summer of 1994, we traveled to Nauvoo. While in the City of Joseph, not more than 30 feet from the Temple Site, in an old antique store, we found a 1860’s photograph that sort of resembled the Prophet Joseph Smith. (see Fig. 47)
The RLDS photo was sent to the George Eastman House and to Mr. Grant Romer an eminent photographic expert. Mr. Romer stated that the materials used to make the daguerreotype clearly dated it as an image from the 1850s. Upon removing the metal frame, Mr. Romer found the words, “Taken in 1854” written beneath the picture. Joseph Smith was killed in 1844 therefore this picture, taken ten years later, could not be a photograph of him. One would suspect then, that the case would have been closed, but the RLDS pondered the question, could not this 1854 photograph be a photographic copy from an earlier 1840’s photograph of the Prophet? It was proposed that the lack of props and simple background behind the figure might be a technique of 1840’s photography. Which is not necessarily so. We believe that these points are weak and highly speculative at best.
In order to help explain our rationale in regards to the date they discovered, we will use the following story: Suppose that your daughter wanted to have a copy of an old photograph dated 1888 of your great-grandfather to put in her Book of Remembrance. Let’s call him Jedidiah Henry Scandell. You take the image to a photographer and have it duplicated. What would you write on it when you got it home? Would you write on the back: “Taken in 1994”? Of course not. Why wouldn’t you do that?
The answer is obvious. The photograph of your great- grandfather was not taken in 1994, it was taken in 1888. It would only make sense that instead of writing, “Taken in 1994” you would write something like: “This is a photograph of Jedidah Henry Scandell taken in 1888 at the age of 65.” While this seems so logical it is the exact opposite that we are told to believe when the RLDS researchers claim that their picture is an 1840’s image rephotographed in 1854. The message “Taken in 1854” is so simple and unmistakable that it should end the debate but it has not.
Of further interest is a recent facial comparison between this image and the death mask. It has been concluded by some that this image is 85% similar to the death mask. It is important to remember that 85% is not 100% percent. Anyone can think of a person that looks 85% like someone else. Hollywood and politicians have capitalized on this phenomenon with the use of “doubles” and “look-a-likes” to replace famous people in dangerous situations. It has been theorized in the news that Saddam Hussein had over 50 look-a-likes in Baghdad. Our British friends say that Heir Prince William has a double that does all the “real heavy lifting” whenever the prince needs to make a public appearance cleaning out gutters or laboring among the people. What does all this mean? Simply that many people resemble other people.
To illustrate this point, a true story: In the summer of 1994, we traveled to Nauvoo. While in the City of Joseph, not more than 30 feet from the Temple Site, in an old antique store, we found a 1860’s photograph that sort of resembled the Prophet Joseph Smith. (see Fig. 47)
Is this a photograph of Joseph Smith, Jr? It can be argued that the man in our discovered Nauvoo daguerreotype looks, say 85.5% like the Prophet, but is it him? NO, it is not. The photograph may 87% resemble the Prophet posed with a lack of props in front of a plain background somewhere in the Nauvoo Area, but it cannot be him. Why not? Because the photograph was taken in the 1860’s. Joseph was not a time traveler and respectfully, we know that he was still dead in 1928, when he was dug up and reburied by his grandson Frederick M. Smith.
Also, a study of the man in the RLDS daguerreotype reveals a man in a coat and tie more reminiscent of the 1850’s than the 1840’s. While this point is not cast in stone. It takes on deeper importance when one remembers the date written on the image — 1854!
Joseph Smith had several sets of impeccable clothes. The many skilled tailors and seamstresses who converted to the Church from England made him various handsome outfits. The Prophet had many beautiful suits including one made of white linen and also a blue coat that the ladies said made him look especially handsome. The Prophet always kept at least one black ministerial suit in his collection to wear at official occasions or for serious preaching. It was common for a minister in Joseph’s time (and considered dignified for such) to wear a white tie with a black suit. White silk ties were also expensive. We have many examples of the Prophet dressed up with a white tie.
This is not to say that the Prophet didn’t own, or ever wear a black tie; however, the authors have been unable to locate a single drawing or image from the Prophet’s life that dresses him in a black tie. Black ties came into fashion for preachers and higher classmen in the 1850’s. By itself this is not very important but when it is coupled with the fact that the proposed Scannell photo of Joseph Smith is dated 1854, it adds weight to the fact that the picture does indeed come from the 1850’s, after the death of the Prophet.
In hopes of explaining away the dating problem, RLDS researchers have arranged for the University of Illinois to compare their image to the death mask and photographs of the Prophet’s exhumed skull (see Figs. 27 & 28). They hope that by using a computerized proportionality test on these three images they can “prove” that their image is really Joseph. Readers of this document should immediately see a problem with such a comparison. (Please revisit the section on the Skulls and Facial Fractures for detailed information: The Skull - The Missing Link).
We have shown that the death mask is not a reliable source for exact comparisons. Further, anyone who takes the time to examine the skull photographs of the Prophet can see that there is not enough bone structure remaining to accurately make a computerized study.
If you program a computer with incorrect information from the start — regardless of the findings — the results will be inaccurate. In order to get around this problem, the RLDS researchers have proposed that Hyrum’s skull be used instead of Joseph’s. They base this on an invented notion that the skulls of the two men might have been accidentally switched at exhumation. They have no factual or historical evidence to make such a claim. They rationalize that the missing bone structure seen in Joseph’s skull (see Fig. 27) is actually the result of a musket ball to the face. Since Hyrum’s death mask and historical accounts clearly show that he was shot in the face, they believe that Joseph’s skull is actually Hyrum’s. This is very convenient, since more of Hyrum’s skull remains for analyzing.
Forensic experts have tried to understand the scientific rationale behind such an assumption. As previously stated, Joseph’s skull shows the classic signs of facial fractures while Hyrum’s skull shows the classic signs of death by penetration (i.e. a bullet). Hyrum’s skull has both an entrance point, an exit wound, as well as pressure release damage. We know that Hyrum was shot in the face near the nose when he was using his head and shoulders as leverage to secure the bedroom door from the mob outside shooting at them. His wounds correspond with his known death mask (see Fig. 48.) which further perfectly matches the damage to his skull.
Also, a study of the man in the RLDS daguerreotype reveals a man in a coat and tie more reminiscent of the 1850’s than the 1840’s. While this point is not cast in stone. It takes on deeper importance when one remembers the date written on the image — 1854!
Joseph Smith had several sets of impeccable clothes. The many skilled tailors and seamstresses who converted to the Church from England made him various handsome outfits. The Prophet had many beautiful suits including one made of white linen and also a blue coat that the ladies said made him look especially handsome. The Prophet always kept at least one black ministerial suit in his collection to wear at official occasions or for serious preaching. It was common for a minister in Joseph’s time (and considered dignified for such) to wear a white tie with a black suit. White silk ties were also expensive. We have many examples of the Prophet dressed up with a white tie.
This is not to say that the Prophet didn’t own, or ever wear a black tie; however, the authors have been unable to locate a single drawing or image from the Prophet’s life that dresses him in a black tie. Black ties came into fashion for preachers and higher classmen in the 1850’s. By itself this is not very important but when it is coupled with the fact that the proposed Scannell photo of Joseph Smith is dated 1854, it adds weight to the fact that the picture does indeed come from the 1850’s, after the death of the Prophet.
In hopes of explaining away the dating problem, RLDS researchers have arranged for the University of Illinois to compare their image to the death mask and photographs of the Prophet’s exhumed skull (see Figs. 27 & 28). They hope that by using a computerized proportionality test on these three images they can “prove” that their image is really Joseph. Readers of this document should immediately see a problem with such a comparison. (Please revisit the section on the Skulls and Facial Fractures for detailed information: The Skull - The Missing Link).
We have shown that the death mask is not a reliable source for exact comparisons. Further, anyone who takes the time to examine the skull photographs of the Prophet can see that there is not enough bone structure remaining to accurately make a computerized study.
If you program a computer with incorrect information from the start — regardless of the findings — the results will be inaccurate. In order to get around this problem, the RLDS researchers have proposed that Hyrum’s skull be used instead of Joseph’s. They base this on an invented notion that the skulls of the two men might have been accidentally switched at exhumation. They have no factual or historical evidence to make such a claim. They rationalize that the missing bone structure seen in Joseph’s skull (see Fig. 27) is actually the result of a musket ball to the face. Since Hyrum’s death mask and historical accounts clearly show that he was shot in the face, they believe that Joseph’s skull is actually Hyrum’s. This is very convenient, since more of Hyrum’s skull remains for analyzing.
Forensic experts have tried to understand the scientific rationale behind such an assumption. As previously stated, Joseph’s skull shows the classic signs of facial fractures while Hyrum’s skull shows the classic signs of death by penetration (i.e. a bullet). Hyrum’s skull has both an entrance point, an exit wound, as well as pressure release damage. We know that Hyrum was shot in the face near the nose when he was using his head and shoulders as leverage to secure the bedroom door from the mob outside shooting at them. His wounds correspond with his known death mask (see Fig. 48.) which further perfectly matches the damage to his skull.
In order to believe that the skulls of the martyred brothers were switched in the grave, one has to explain when Joseph was shot in the face, on the right side of his nose. No evidence of this exists on his death mask. Further, they have to explain when Hyrum received blunt trauma along his Le Forte lines but had no exit nor pressure wounds from a bullet strong enough to blast out his facial bones. It just doesn’t fit with the facts.
Summary
We believe that the following reasons shed enormous doubt on the accuracy of the Scannell Image being a true image of Joseph Smith the Prophet:
We believe that the following reasons shed enormous doubt on the accuracy of any computerized proportionality test being used by RLDS researchers in connection with the Scannell image:
1 - Researchers have NOTHING solid to make their comparison. The death mask is unreliable as a template of the Prophet’s exact measurements or appearance due to the inescapable evidence that the Prophet received facial fractures at the time of his death. The Prophet’s skull is missing the bone structure necessary to make an accurate comparison.
2 - RLDS researchers are using Hyrum’s skull instead of Joseph’s for making their comparisons. This will guarantee inaccurate results regardless of their findings. Unless they want to argue that the Scannell photo is Hyrum, (which it is also not.)
We predict — as strange as it seems now — that if this crazy series of logic takes hold, future generations will be faced with the problem of switching the markers on the Prophet and the Patriarch’s graves in Nauvoo. Is not this the logical conclusion one must draw? If the Scannell photograph is pushed into being Joseph Smith, based on Hyrum’s skull, then the result is inescapable. One must conclude that Joseph Smith is buried in Hyrum’s grave and Hyrum is buried in Joseph’s. When one considers the life and trials of Joseph and Hyrum Smith; their unwavering testimony to the cause of the Restoration; their persecutions and finally of their martyrdom; only to be buried in hidden graves and then exhumed; to at last be rested with honor in the family graveyard in peace: only to have their head stones switched on the speculation of a bad photograph! It is unbelievable! We would hope that both the Joseph and Hyrum Smith families would stop and think about this. How sad and how stupid it would be as a final note.
That would indeed be a “Scandell.”
There are a handful of other daguerreotypes that have made headlines in the release of Photograph Found post-1993. The providences of these images are so ridiculous that it wastes paper to mention them here. The following closing thoughts will give you but a small taste of what we mean.
Summary
We believe that the following reasons shed enormous doubt on the accuracy of the Scannell Image being a true image of Joseph Smith the Prophet:
- 1 - The Scannell Image does not resemble any of the historically provable images of the Prophet which were held up as resembling him by those who knew him during his lifetime.
- 2 - The Scannell image is dated as “Taken in 1854.” Joseph Smith died in 1844, ten years earlier. It is very difficult to take a photo of a living man after he has died.
- 3 - Photographic experts have concluded that materials used to construct the daguerreotype date from the 1850’s.
- 4 - The clothing in the picture is more consistent with 1850’s attire, greatly strengthening an 1850’s date for the subject.
- 5 - There is no adequate historical reason to associate the image with Joseph Smith.
We believe that the following reasons shed enormous doubt on the accuracy of any computerized proportionality test being used by RLDS researchers in connection with the Scannell image:
1 - Researchers have NOTHING solid to make their comparison. The death mask is unreliable as a template of the Prophet’s exact measurements or appearance due to the inescapable evidence that the Prophet received facial fractures at the time of his death. The Prophet’s skull is missing the bone structure necessary to make an accurate comparison.
2 - RLDS researchers are using Hyrum’s skull instead of Joseph’s for making their comparisons. This will guarantee inaccurate results regardless of their findings. Unless they want to argue that the Scannell photo is Hyrum, (which it is also not.)
We predict — as strange as it seems now — that if this crazy series of logic takes hold, future generations will be faced with the problem of switching the markers on the Prophet and the Patriarch’s graves in Nauvoo. Is not this the logical conclusion one must draw? If the Scannell photograph is pushed into being Joseph Smith, based on Hyrum’s skull, then the result is inescapable. One must conclude that Joseph Smith is buried in Hyrum’s grave and Hyrum is buried in Joseph’s. When one considers the life and trials of Joseph and Hyrum Smith; their unwavering testimony to the cause of the Restoration; their persecutions and finally of their martyrdom; only to be buried in hidden graves and then exhumed; to at last be rested with honor in the family graveyard in peace: only to have their head stones switched on the speculation of a bad photograph! It is unbelievable! We would hope that both the Joseph and Hyrum Smith families would stop and think about this. How sad and how stupid it would be as a final note.
That would indeed be a “Scandell.”
There are a handful of other daguerreotypes that have made headlines in the release of Photograph Found post-1993. The providences of these images are so ridiculous that it wastes paper to mention them here. The following closing thoughts will give you but a small taste of what we mean.
