Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 1

message: Would it be bad to include the painted portrait of Joseph Smith along with the photograph shown?  Benefits I see include:
*Promote the understanding among JS adherents that the likeness of Joseph Smith is not a matter of mystery.  Having two separate images would bear witness.
*Promote the understanding among Latter Day Saints that the likeness of JS was as shown in the photograh and portrait.
*Give a nod to the fact that in 1840, painted portraits were still the preferred mode of likeness representation.
Would it be worthwhile to have a section in the article on the Likeness or Appearance of Joseph Smith?  I think the subject of the popular loss of the JS likeness is a most interesting one.  Why does the LDS populace, including artists, fail to use his true likeness?  Is it not handsome enough?  Is it too beady-eyed for their tastes?  Is it not enough like the death mask?  I will cc these remarks and questions to the article talk. Tom 18:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the painting was based directly on the photograph. I tend to favor photographs when they are available, but the painting is also very nice, and might be worthy of inclusion. I also think that it could be useful to have a section or even an article on Smith's appearance. There has been a lot of scholarly work on the subject. Except, if it is a separate article, I don't know what it would be called. COGDEN 02:41, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: The "painting" is a copy of the daurregotype that has been chalked (colored in) - pretty common prior to the 1960s. There are only a few painting of smith done during his life with him as a live subject. We should look at linking to them. There is a image of smith in nauvoo legion military uniform that was done by shadow -- one reason why the image is "smooshed" (he seems short and "stubby" and a bit chunky) the image from the side of his face is very much his likeness - may be good to include, since it is his "likeness." I would like a section on his looks (and what changed his appearance - tarring, burns, limps) - chipped tooth, blonde hair, slim(er), deep blue eyes (not beady by any means), scarred face with burn marks, etc. there was a book written about this and a BYU studies (and Ensign article) on this same topic (tons of info). Does not warrant its own article.   -Visorstuff 22:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know, I think the painting looks a lot like the daguerrotype. Just because he's in a "period reminiscent suit" doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate portrait. But if you think it needs to be removed, that's fine, you're a lot more seasoned than I am. Cookiecaper 17:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I put that one in the section "After Smith's Murder". Is that okay? Cookiecaper 03:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: By the way, a little background on my interest in this subject.  I'm a Joseph Smith cousin (isn't everybody?) through Jesse N. Smith.  All my life, various people have told me I look like Joseph Smith.  I initially thought it was because I resemble Stewart Peterson, who played JS in the vintage The First Vision.  Now I don't know.  But I am still interested in the whole idea of why the Joseph Smith likeness is such a mystery to the 11 million LDS.  When we see a picture of Brigham Young, Martin Harris, or David Whitmer, we immediately know whether or not it is a likeness.  But our internal conception of Joseph Smith, like some other early figures, is blurry.  Perhaps it is because our first illustration of some of these figures was via actors in modern films.  When I conceptualize JS, Parley Pratt, and Oliver Cowdery, I tend to see faces from The First Vision, The Restoration of the Priesthood, How Rare a Possesion, The Three Witnesses, etc.  I would like to see the historic likenesses elevated to public consciousness over the substitute likenesses that have prevailed for decades. Tom 16:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Smith image

message: 172.197.34.224's latest edit and the insertion that the article is disputed with absolutely no comment is a procedural error. 172.197.34.224 must first state his issues and generate discussion before styling an article like that. B 02:39, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed edits

message: 216.213.195.188 Vandalized the page, and the "Snizzle" info was removed, and will go unreported this time. Visorstuff 17:00, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism