Comments on: Press Release: The Much Rumored Joseph Smith Daguerreotype

By: Photographs of the Prophet Joseph Smith? « Seth Adam Smith

Photographs of the Prophet Joseph Smith? « Seth Adam Smith — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:04:05 +0000

[...] The Much Rumored Joseph Smith Daguerreotype Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Is This Joseph Smith? Part IIJoseph Smith – The Seer – LDS ( Mormon ) ProphetPraise to the ManSmith’s days in jail provide sobering experience [...]

By: Jared T

Jared T — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:49:48 +0000

Ron, it must not be, because there isn't anything I'd call "science" that seems to back up the claims in that book. See my review here or in the latest issue of the Journal of Mormon History. You're certainly entitled to your own "revelations" regarding the image, though.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:24:15 +0000

Thanks, Ron, for the input. A “dear friend”, though? Are you Ron Whitmer or John Whitmer?

By: Ron Whitmer

Ron Whitmer — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:19:20 +0000

Science is NOT the only way to find truth.
I beleive this is a picture of a dear friend and Prophet of the Restoration Brother Joseph.

By: Juvenile Instructor » Millions Shall Sue Brother Joseph Again or, That Book Again!

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:41:19 +0000

[...] brewing over Tracy’s use of the image. The JI posted a statement by the Community of Christ here that read: The recently publicized image some people believe to be a picture of Joseph Smith is [...]

By: Juvenile Instructor » Book Review: Shall Millions Now Know Brother Joseph Again? (Post Script)

Sat, 03 May 2008 16:32:09 +0000

[...] difficulties, and so, I was reserving judgment until I could get the chance to read it. I wrote this over a month ago. “It’s not looking good…” Yea, really strong emotional [...]

By: Juvenile Instructor » Book Review: Shall Millions Now Know Brother Joseph Again? (Part 1)

Fri, 02 May 2008 01:21:24 +0000

[...] at the possibility of a true image of the prophet Joseph Smith. When I found out there would be a book about it, I looked forward with anxious anticipation to its publication, which would lay out all the [...]

By: Jared T

Jared T — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:03:42 +0000

No apologies necessary, I was not offended. Thanks.

Well, I think this discussion has run its course. I started it and now I’m going to end it.

Let’s say that I’m sure we’ll revisit this once the presentation and book release has happened. There are weightier matters to pursue in the interim.

Until then, stay tuned to the JI.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:50:47 +0000

Sorry for my typo’s by the way.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:46:36 +0000

When stating “If you couldn’t tell this blog has a great deal of academics on it that require proof on many claims” I was not meaning to do so with the idea that it was bad or wrong to do so. If you read I agreed with the need to do that. As a matter of fact I went on to say that I think he did need more proof and that I was unwilling to concede that he his photo was him after what he presented.

I am sorry if I did misunderstand the above comments in relation to finding proof of a picture through Joseph’s journals. It was my impression at the time of reading them that the comments relating to that were being used to disprove the existence of a photo period. So to Jared T. I am sorry if I offended you. I simply misread your comments and I am sorry.

To David G. I was unaware that there were restrictions to length on comments. As far as them being redundant… you’re right, we are never redundant in the gospel. I should repent.