Yes, I’m shouting, right from the title onward.
I’ve deleted my first two drafts of this post, trying to pretend to be respectful of others’ efforts. But the truth is, people who don’t know what they’re doing, who believe in their magic powers to discern truth in flat contradiction of what the rules of historical evidence support, actually make the work of historians harder. They reintroduce falsehood into the public domain, without anything but wishful thinking to support their dirty work.
In this case, it’s the Scannel daguerreotype, that image donated long ago to the Community of Christ, investigated every which way, and left languishing under the verdict that “there is no reason to believe this is an image of Joseph Smith.” Shannon Michael Tracy’s book flaunting his silly and flawed tests and promoting a painting made from the daguerretotype, has been dug from the dustbin. The unsupported – unsupportable – discredited claims are making the rounds again, and naive wannabe historians are saying “Look at this picture! It looks just like Joseph! It must, therefore, be Joseph!”
No.
I’m not going to rehash what was explored in such depth seven and a half years ago. Those enamored of this purported-but-discredited image of Joseph Smith won’t read and learn anyway.
For anybody else who wants a refresher, here are a few posts from way back when, when this image was first circulated and discredited. We should have driven a stake through its heart so it could not surface again.
From Times & Seasons/Keepapitchinin:
Rumor Mongering
The CSI Effect and Mormon History
And Yet Another Joseph Smith Photograph
From Jared T at Juvenile Instructor:
Review, part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
review, postscript
Millions Shall Sue Brother Joseph Again
From Stan at Juvenile Instructor:
”a daguarian likeness of … my uncle Joseph”
And you can, you know, also Google to find other legitimate articles heaping ridicule on the matter. It isn’t like any of this has been hidden in a corner.
I really, really, really want to make a joke about giving Brother Joseph’s purported daguerreotype a break.
But I won’t. 🙂
But, but, but, I have an antique piece of linen with an image of a face on it that I’m really, absolutely positive is the face of Joseph Smith. Don’t you all want to see it, analyze it, and hear about the yard sale where I found it?
And these same people are regularly submitting genealogies to FamilySearch. (Explain to me again how this man fathered a son 37 years after his death.)
Thank you, Ardis. There is little that must be more frustrating to an actual historian who spends considerable effort trying to tease history out of the remaining record than to have those who create pet theories out of thin air (and wrest “historical” support for those theories to the point of ridiculousness) come and trample all over your hard work.
Time will support those like you who do the work because you love the people and want to tell their stories rather than your own.
[edit]
Tracy’s book purported to give evidence of the authenticity of the Scannell daguerreotype.
It failed miserably. See here for the complete review:
http://juvenileinstructor.org/tracy/
Beyond this book, there is nowhere else that gives even a semblance of a solid evidential rational for believing it to be an image of Joseph other than vain supposition.
Stop spreading nonsense. It’s just embarrassing.
I’ve edited this thread to remove evidence of a wannabe historian’s inability to exercise historical reasoning.
Note that this post does not in any way identify or even point to the offending spreader-of-fallacy. S/He outed him/herself.
There ought to be a “Garden of Enid” series about the real person in the Scannell duh-guerrotype wanting to be recognized for who he really was, and objecting to being identified as Joseph Smith over and over again.
I’m not sure if you’re reading from the same wannabe historian that I am–but if you are, the problems are much more extensive (and much messier) than just a false connection between Joseph Smith and a daguerreotype.
If that’s the case, I’d love to hear your response to the messier stuff in another post (although I understand that some topics are just too messy and controversial for your website).
In any case, I do believe that many wannabe historians mean well, even if they create more problems than they solve. Good intentions, and all that.
For the record, there is no subject too controversial for Keepa — we’ve had frank discussions of a number of topics that don’t come up in Sunday School, when they are historical, when participants are willing to be polite, including how they refer to believers, the Church, and its leaders, *and* when it’s a manufactured controversy — I’m not at all interested in rehashing issues that have been answered, but which answers disaffected or ex-Mormons refuse to accept. People who refer to “extensive problems” and “messiness” and “controversies” in Mormon history tend to come from that disaffected class. I don’t know you — does that describe you?
Beause I have no idea what wannabe historian’s controversies you’re referring to, I can’t speak to them. And since my interest in the Scannel daguerreotype begins and ends with an examination of the evidence as to its likely (or unlikely) authenticity, it’s hard to imagine anything particularly “messy” that hasn’t been addressed.
It doesn’t do any good to show the wannabes the many articles which have been written. They think that they have discovered something wonderful that the rest of us historians don’t know. That feeds on the wannabe’s ego so all the proof in the world won’t change his/her mind. I approve of your shouting!!
Ardis,
Thanks for your response. Apparently the daguerreotype discussion I saw was different from the one you saw.
I’m not disaffected. But I also can’t pretend that there are a few major areas of our history that aren’t messy and problematic. I can live with that and still be a believing member.
Sorry for the threadjack. I appreciate your posts and the good work you do here.