Brigham Young stated this painting was done by David Rogers, Rogers Painted Joseph Smith in September 1842.
|
Carter Image, stated to be a photograph of the RLDS Paintings, modern Scholars believe is also done by David Rogers, giving it a date of September 1842 creation date. -
|
There are two artists whom Joseph Smith mentioned in his journals, as having painted him: David Rogers in September 1842, and Maudsley in June 1842, three months earlier. Above are technically photographs of paintings, BOTH believed to be THE September 1842 painting done by David Rogers. I will believe the top left painting is the September 1842 painting as the earlier reference to that painting, 11 years after Joseph Smith died, credits Rogers, whereas the oft dubbed "RLDS Painting" is referenced decades LATER. The top right image is of the Painting the Community of Christ still owns today. Joseph Smith III talks about this painting below:
In a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune, in 1910, the eldest son of Joseph Smith and Emma, Joseph Smith III (born in 1832) states:
"...if your artist... should ever visit the capitol of Iowa he will find a duplicate oil painting of Joseph Smith in one of the halls placed there by myself..."
"...there is an authentic oil painting now in the possession of my son..[in] Independence, Mo. painted by the same artist that painted one [Hyrum Smith]...this portrait painted in 1843...
"...I am enclosing a photograph taken from the oil painting referred to..." " (Joseph Smith III in a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune, March 10, 1910)..." Salt Lake Tribune Letter, page 29: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=5922&context=etd
Joseph Smith III states there are TWO oil paintings of his father, a "duplicate" in Iowa and an "authentic" painting in Independence, Mo. that he says was painting when Joseph Smith Jr. was alive, around 1843, based on a Daguerreotype (he was 10 at the time)- which he doesn't know for sure if it was taken in 1843, or earlier, but as the hairline of the RLDS painting is much more full than in the sketches done in 1842. Upon further research, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints attributes the RLDS painting to David Rogers, in September 1842, which is still AFTER the Maudsley drawings of Joseph (receding hairline) June 1842, three months earlier, no one grows back their hairline in three months, not in 1842.
The linked Scholarly Article's scholar attributes the daguerreotype directly to the RLDS painting, when Joseph Smith III never states that painting was based on the daguerreotype he allegedly has (in 1910 of his Father Joseph Smith Jr.). He states,
"...this portrait painted in 1843 is sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by the daguerreotype in our possession..."
The word "sustain" is not to imply that the painting is exactly anything like the daguerreotype, but that the daguerreotype is used to update, or even alter the old painting, which in 1910- would have been 68 years old. Obviously, Rogers took artistic liberties in giving Joseph Smith a better hairline... or Rogers didn't paint it, and Joseph Smith III being so young at the time of the painting, 10 going on 11 years old, it could have been done in Kirtland, Ohio, as the forward facing painting of Hyrum Smith that I could find, is from the Kirtland, seen below. Joseph Smith left Kirtland in 1838, for Missouri, then after escaping Jail in Liberty, MO- Joseph joined the Expulsed Saints in Quincy, Illinois in April, 1839. So, if the below right painting, that has been duplicated and repeatedly photographed (and likely "Duplicate Oil Painting" in Iowa was photographed as well, finding photographs of oil paintings that look similar, but not exact to the "RLDS Painting"- makes sense!). Both men below look younger than Joseph and Hyrum were in Illinois, my comparing them to Maudsley's work.
Links:
1833 Painting of Hyrum Smith: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/hyrum-smith
In a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune, in 1910, the eldest son of Joseph Smith and Emma, Joseph Smith III (born in 1832) states:
"...if your artist... should ever visit the capitol of Iowa he will find a duplicate oil painting of Joseph Smith in one of the halls placed there by myself..."
"...there is an authentic oil painting now in the possession of my son..[in] Independence, Mo. painted by the same artist that painted one [Hyrum Smith]...this portrait painted in 1843...
"...I am enclosing a photograph taken from the oil painting referred to..." " (Joseph Smith III in a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune, March 10, 1910)..." Salt Lake Tribune Letter, page 29: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=5922&context=etd
Joseph Smith III states there are TWO oil paintings of his father, a "duplicate" in Iowa and an "authentic" painting in Independence, Mo. that he says was painting when Joseph Smith Jr. was alive, around 1843, based on a Daguerreotype (he was 10 at the time)- which he doesn't know for sure if it was taken in 1843, or earlier, but as the hairline of the RLDS painting is much more full than in the sketches done in 1842. Upon further research, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints attributes the RLDS painting to David Rogers, in September 1842, which is still AFTER the Maudsley drawings of Joseph (receding hairline) June 1842, three months earlier, no one grows back their hairline in three months, not in 1842.
The linked Scholarly Article's scholar attributes the daguerreotype directly to the RLDS painting, when Joseph Smith III never states that painting was based on the daguerreotype he allegedly has (in 1910 of his Father Joseph Smith Jr.). He states,
"...this portrait painted in 1843 is sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by the daguerreotype in our possession..."
The word "sustain" is not to imply that the painting is exactly anything like the daguerreotype, but that the daguerreotype is used to update, or even alter the old painting, which in 1910- would have been 68 years old. Obviously, Rogers took artistic liberties in giving Joseph Smith a better hairline... or Rogers didn't paint it, and Joseph Smith III being so young at the time of the painting, 10 going on 11 years old, it could have been done in Kirtland, Ohio, as the forward facing painting of Hyrum Smith that I could find, is from the Kirtland, seen below. Joseph Smith left Kirtland in 1838, for Missouri, then after escaping Jail in Liberty, MO- Joseph joined the Expulsed Saints in Quincy, Illinois in April, 1839. So, if the below right painting, that has been duplicated and repeatedly photographed (and likely "Duplicate Oil Painting" in Iowa was photographed as well, finding photographs of oil paintings that look similar, but not exact to the "RLDS Painting"- makes sense!). Both men below look younger than Joseph and Hyrum were in Illinois, my comparing them to Maudsley's work.
Links:
1833 Painting of Hyrum Smith: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/hyrum-smith
Kirtland Era Painting of Hyrum Smith, per the Joseph Smith Papers.
Painting, by Sutcliffe Maudsley, of Hyrum Smith.
|
Painting by Sutcliffe Maudsley, of Joseph Smith.
|
The two paintings above have been verified to be done by Sutcliffe Maudsley, in 1842 (note: these are small paintings). Joseph Smith has LESS hair in the above right painting, which was noted to have been done in June 1842, and appears to have a consistent hairstyle AND hairline as the painting Brigham Young had hanging in his office, and stated to have been done by specifically David Rogers. I will quote from the Scholarly Article, on page 54:
"... Deseret News offered the following to its readers of Tuesday, November 29, 1855, appearing under the headline "Returned Missionaries Party in the Social Hall":
'...the hall was beautifully lighted by two large chandeliers hung from the ceiling. On the west walls were suspended two profile likenesses, life size, executed in oil of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, they were painted in nauvoo by David Rogers of New York, in the year 1842, are the property of President B. Young, and are the truest delineations of the features of those distinguished individuals in existence. '
Brigham young identified the artist of his profiles as david rogers of new york..."
history.churchofjesuschrist.org/exhibit/sutcliffe-and-elizabeth-foxcroft-maudsley?lang=eng
Sutcliffe Maudsley, per the Journal Entry of June 25th, 1842, did Joseph Smith's Profile. Joseph Smith either repeatedly sat for Maudsley, or Maudsley looked at one painting and redid many, I think Joseph Smith stood/sat for paintings by Sutcliffe Maudsley many times, and each time he gets more "raw", less hair, showing a receding hairline, which is more apparent in some more than other paintings done Maudsley, especially the "Joseph Smith in Black Suit and Top Hat".
Journal Entry of June 25th 1842: www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1841-december-1842/30
Journal Entry of September 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th (Rogers spent days on Joseph Smith's painting, it could not have been based on a Daguerreotype): www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1841-december-1842/82
LDS Church Historians seem to lean and sometimes proclaiming online- as "fact" that David Rogers painted the RLDS painting, making it an 1842 painting, which would make Rogers either very creative with Joseph Smith's hairline (clearly not the same style as the Profile Painting owned by Brigham Young, or the small Paintings done by Maudsley). Church Historians also argued against my image because it was not a daguerreotype, and he was "too bald".
"... Deseret News offered the following to its readers of Tuesday, November 29, 1855, appearing under the headline "Returned Missionaries Party in the Social Hall":
'...the hall was beautifully lighted by two large chandeliers hung from the ceiling. On the west walls were suspended two profile likenesses, life size, executed in oil of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, they were painted in nauvoo by David Rogers of New York, in the year 1842, are the property of President B. Young, and are the truest delineations of the features of those distinguished individuals in existence. '
Brigham young identified the artist of his profiles as david rogers of new york..."
history.churchofjesuschrist.org/exhibit/sutcliffe-and-elizabeth-foxcroft-maudsley?lang=eng
Sutcliffe Maudsley, per the Journal Entry of June 25th, 1842, did Joseph Smith's Profile. Joseph Smith either repeatedly sat for Maudsley, or Maudsley looked at one painting and redid many, I think Joseph Smith stood/sat for paintings by Sutcliffe Maudsley many times, and each time he gets more "raw", less hair, showing a receding hairline, which is more apparent in some more than other paintings done Maudsley, especially the "Joseph Smith in Black Suit and Top Hat".
Journal Entry of June 25th 1842: www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1841-december-1842/30
Journal Entry of September 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th (Rogers spent days on Joseph Smith's painting, it could not have been based on a Daguerreotype): www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1841-december-1842/82
LDS Church Historians seem to lean and sometimes proclaiming online- as "fact" that David Rogers painted the RLDS painting, making it an 1842 painting, which would make Rogers either very creative with Joseph Smith's hairline (clearly not the same style as the Profile Painting owned by Brigham Young, or the small Paintings done by Maudsley). Church Historians also argued against my image because it was not a daguerreotype, and he was "too bald".
Did Joseph Smith have a receding hairline? Say it ain't so!
Photograph of the top of Joseph Smith's death Mask, showing just how receded his hairline was in 1844.
|
1840s Illinois Man's receding hairline, maybe a last minute paper photograph in 1844.
|
Zoomed in shot of the Death mask of Joseph Smith, showing an near exact hairline.
|
Joseph Smith Junior's hairline IS receded, brushed straight forward, and looks as though he has just had the hair on the top of his head bluntly cut right at the hairline; in both the death mask of JS Jr and my 1840's Illinois Man's photograph... There does appear to be hair strands, before that thicker blunt cut- that is smoothed down, in both photos as well...
|
Drawing of Joseph Smith Jr.. by Benjamin West, in 1843. Notice the side part and the receded hairline.
|
Above, on the left, is a painting that was in Brigham Young’s Office, in 1855, per the Deseret, News; this painting was a life painting, done by David Rogers. Notice the great detail to the hair, you can see the hair follicles sprouting out of his head, but stopping right at his ears, from there the hair seems to rest on his forehead, covering his receding hairline. If this is the September 1842 painting, done by Rogers, it would be more consistent with reality, that Joseph had already begun to lose his hair. Above right, is a caricature drawing, that was replicated a lot, by Benjamin West, a non-member (not trying to impress Joseph Smith), also showing Joseph Smith with a comb-over, covering a receding hairline.
If two years passed, and Joseph got tired of the “comb-forward”, as seen in the Rogers- Profile painting, cut off the hair that was often resting on half of his head- during the Spring/Summer 1844, as I theorize was when Lucian Foster took a daguerreotype of Joe, wouldn’t seem to be above just cutting the extra hair off because the sweat, working on his farm, and finding his long pieces of hair in disarray would cause him to get tired of trying to style it... that is my opinion, not much different than 99% of 30 something Utah men that shave their heads, once hairlines begin to recede (buzz cuts just were never a thing back then...).
Read page 54-55 of the BYU Scholarly article, to the find 1855 Deseret News quote, verifying that this too, could have been done by Rogers and is an accurate representation of Joseph, in Fall 1842. :
scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5922&context=etd
If two years passed, and Joseph got tired of the “comb-forward”, as seen in the Rogers- Profile painting, cut off the hair that was often resting on half of his head- during the Spring/Summer 1844, as I theorize was when Lucian Foster took a daguerreotype of Joe, wouldn’t seem to be above just cutting the extra hair off because the sweat, working on his farm, and finding his long pieces of hair in disarray would cause him to get tired of trying to style it... that is my opinion, not much different than 99% of 30 something Utah men that shave their heads, once hairlines begin to recede (buzz cuts just were never a thing back then...).
Read page 54-55 of the BYU Scholarly article, to the find 1855 Deseret News quote, verifying that this too, could have been done by Rogers and is an accurate representation of Joseph, in Fall 1842. :
scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5922&context=etd
How dark was Joseph's hair?...
Me, 2017, color, bright lighting as I could to show how light my hair is, just as light as the lock of Joseph Smith's lock of hair...
|
Alleged lock of Joseph Smith's hair.
|
This 1840s Man is clearly sitting next to a window with natural. Joseph was known to use pomade in his hair as well, so his "light brown hair" photographed a little darker than it would in bright lighting)
|
Me, 2017, not so great lighting (bedroom light and just light from my computer screen) and you can see how my hair looks just as dark as my 1840s Guy...
|
scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5922&context=etd
Joseph Smith is stated by people who knew him, as having "brown hair", in the scholarly article I was sent to argue against my image, just click on the link and "control- F"+"Brown hair", it will surprise you how often they say Joseph Smith had "brown hair".
Just look at the paintings, my 1840s Illinois Man's hair is just as dark.
Levi Hancock’s Testimony Joseph Smith had Bald Spot
"...the Prophet Joseph Smith sent for me. I went and saw him again and had a conversation with him. Heard him tell about him being mobbed in Hiram and how they pulled the hair out of his head then he showed me the place where they had pulled the hair out of..." (link source above)
A Church Historian mentioned to me that Levi Hancock said that Joseph Smith brushed his hair straight forward, to cover the hair that was pulled from his head. This is likely what intrigued my roommate, one year ago, when she said, looking at 1840s Illinois Man ,
“Does He have MORE hair on one side of his head?!"
See below, I have flipped the perspective and maybe it will show better how this is TRUE, the side that this man has brushed much more of his hair over to (having parted it on the right side), his hair IS brushed forward... believing this to BE Joseph Smith, THIS MAN has MUCH less hair on the LEFT side of his head:
A Church Historian mentioned to me that Levi Hancock said that Joseph Smith brushed his hair straight forward, to cover the hair that was pulled from his head. This is likely what intrigued my roommate, one year ago, when she said, looking at 1840s Illinois Man ,
“Does He have MORE hair on one side of his head?!"
See below, I have flipped the perspective and maybe it will show better how this is TRUE, the side that this man has brushed much more of his hair over to (having parted it on the right side), his hair IS brushed forward... believing this to BE Joseph Smith, THIS MAN has MUCH less hair on the LEFT side of his head:
Arrow pointing to the side of 1840s Illinois Man's head, which shows considerably LESS hair on the LEFT side of his head, which he has brushed forward, over his big ears.