What Did Joseph Smith Really Look Like? The Case for the Lucien Foster Daguerreotype

This video presents a detailed historical and visual investigation into the question, “What did Joseph Smith really look like?” It argues that the familiar image long associated with Joseph Smith was not simply copied from a later painting, but ultimately derives from an authentic daguerreotype photograph taken by Lucien Foster in Nauvoo in 1844, shortly before Joseph Smith’s death.

The video also examines the recently publicized locket photograph sometimes claimed to show Joseph Smith and argues instead that the man in that image is much more likely Hyrum Smith. By comparing photographs, paintings, death masks, family testimony, clothing details, facial features, and the known history of early photography, the presentation builds a cumulative case that Joseph Smith’s true photographic likeness has actually been known for generations.

TL;DR: Was Joseph Smith Ever Photographed?

According to the evidence presented in the video, yes, Joseph Smith was photographed. The most likely photograph was a daguerreotype taken by photographer Lucien Foster in Nauvoo during May or early June 1844. Joseph Smith’s sons later identified and preserved copies of that image, including one submitted to the Library of Congress in 1879. The video argues that the well-known Mansion House painting was actually created from this earlier photograph rather than the photograph being copied from the painting. It also argues that the more recently discovered locket daguerreotype is not Joseph, but Hyrum Smith.

Watch the Video About the Real Photograph of Joseph Smith

What Did Joseph Smith Really Look Like?

The video begins by challenging the idea that Joseph Smith’s appearance is a mystery. Over the years, a number of old photographs have been proposed as possible images of Joseph Smith, especially as digitized archives and the internet have made nineteenth-century photographs easier to discover.

But the presenter argues that the historical evidence points consistently to one established image tradition. Joseph Smith’s family, people who knew him personally, early photographers, and later descendants all treated a particular image as his authentic likeness.

The central argument of the video is that this image ultimately came from a real daguerreotype photograph of Joseph Smith, not merely from an artist’s imagination.

Nauvoo Artists and Early Images of Joseph Smith

Before examining photography, the video reviews the kinds of art available in Nauvoo during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.

One important figure was Sutcliffe Maudsley, a folk artist who created profile drawings of Joseph Smith, Emma Smith, Hyrum Smith, Mary Fielding Smith, and other early Latter-day Saints.

Maudsley was not formally trained in fine art, but his profile drawings are considered useful because he likely used a shadow-tracing technique to capture the outlines of faces and bodies.

This matters because his drawings provide independent visual evidence about the facial profiles, clothing styles, collars, and other physical characteristics of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

Could Joseph Smith Have Been Photographed in 1839?

The video next reviews the history of photography.

The daguerreotype process was publicly introduced by Louis Daguerre in 1839. Early exposure times were extremely long, often requiring subjects to remain still for many minutes in bright light.

Some have speculated that Joseph Smith might have been photographed during his 1839 trip to Washington, D.C. However, the video argues that this is extremely unlikely.

Joseph arrived in Washington in late November 1839, at a time when photographic portraiture was still barely practical. The earliest known American photographic portraits of living people were produced only afterward, in early 1840.

For that reason, the video rejects the idea that Joseph Smith was photographed in Washington in 1839.

Lucien Foster Arrives in Nauvoo in 1844

The key development occurred in April 1844, when photographer Lucien Foster arrived in Nauvoo from New York.

Foster had learned the art of daguerreotype photography and came to Nauvoo shortly before Joseph Smith’s death.

This created a narrow but historically plausible window in which Joseph could have had his photograph taken.

The video places the most likely session in May or early June 1844, only weeks before Joseph and Hyrum were killed at Carthage Jail.

Joseph Smith III Said Lucien Foster Photographed His Father

One of the most important pieces of evidence comes from Joseph Smith III, Joseph’s son.

He later stated that his family possessed a daguerreotype of his father taken by an artist named Lucien Foster.

In 1879, Joseph Smith III and his brother Alexander Hale Smith submitted a photographic copy of their father to the Library of Congress.

The video emphasizes the significance of this family identification. Joseph Smith III had known his father personally as a child and was nearly twelve years old when Lucien Foster came to Nauvoo.

His testimony therefore directly connects:

• Joseph Smith
• Lucien Foster
• a daguerreotype portrait
• and the surviving image later preserved by the family

Joseph Smith’s Family Said They Possessed His Daguerreotype

Other Smith family members also referred to possessing photographic images of Joseph and Emma Smith.

Joseph’s grandson Israel Smith later stated that the family had daguerreotypes of both his grandfather and grandmother.

The video argues that this family testimony is especially important because these were not twentieth-century researchers trying to reconstruct Joseph’s appearance. These were direct descendants preserving family heirlooms and identifying the people depicted in them.

Was the Famous Joseph Smith Photograph Really Just a Photograph of a Painting?

A common assumption has been that the familiar image of Joseph Smith is simply a photographic reproduction of the portrait displayed in the Mansion House in Nauvoo.

The video spends considerable time challenging that assumption.

The Mansion House portrait is unsigned and undated. Its artist is not definitively known.

Joseph Smith’s journal does record that he sat for a portrait by David Rogers over several days in September 1842. However, the video argues that the surviving Rogers portrait looks stylistically very different from the Mansion House painting.

It also argues that the Mansion House portrait does not resemble the known artistic styles of Sutcliffe Maudsley or William Major.

Was Selah Van Sickle the Artist Behind the Mansion House Painting?

The video proposes Selah Van Sickle as a likely artist for the Mansion House portrait.

A surviving Van Sickle painting of Brigham Young shows a painting style that the presenter believes is very similar to the Joseph Smith portrait, particularly in:

• realistic facial coloration
• soft treatment of hair and clothing
• skin tones
• less realistic treatment of the hands

The problem is that Van Sickle did not arrive in Nauvoo until 1845, after Joseph Smith had died.

If Van Sickle painted the portrait, he therefore could not have painted Joseph from life.

The video proposes that he instead used a daguerreotype photograph as his source.

The Video Argues the Photograph Came Before the Painting

This is one of the central claims of the presentation.

The presenter argues that the Mansion House painting was produced from a photograph of Joseph rather than the surviving photograph being taken from the painting.

Several visual differences are highlighted.

The photographed image allegedly contains details that are absent or different in the painting, including:

• details within the eyes and irises
• differences in the eyebrows
• clothing details
• coat weave
• a stitched buttonhole

The argument is straightforward: a photograph of a painting cannot contain authentic physical detail that does not exist in the painting itself.

Therefore, if the photograph preserves fine clothing and facial details missing from the painting, the photograph must represent an actual person rather than merely a painted surface.

BYU Research on Joseph Smith’s Coat

The video cites research involving historic clothing expert Karma Deong Anderson.

Enhanced copies of the supposed Joseph Smith daguerreotype revealed details in his coat.

According to the video, Anderson found that the fabric grain corresponded accurately with the way a nineteenth-century coat would actually have been constructed.

The collar grain, lapel grain, buttonhole placement, and other details were described as too precise to have simply originated in the Mansion House painting.

The video therefore presents this clothing evidence as another indication that the underlying image was a photograph of a real person.

Why Do Different Copies of Joseph Smith’s Photograph Look Different?

The original daguerreotype is not currently available publicly, so what survives are later photographic copies.

The video explains why those copies can look noticeably different from one another.

A daguerreotype did not produce a negative. Its highly reflective surface made it difficult to photograph directly.

To copy one, a photographer often had to angle the daguerreotype slightly. That tilt could distort:

• the length of the face
• the width of the face
• the hairline
• other facial proportions

Later photographers sometimes also masked backgrounds, retouched flaws, or altered negatives.

According to the video, many apparent differences between surviving Joseph Smith images can therefore be explained as distortions introduced during the copying process.

The Marshall Photograph May Be the Best Surviving Copy

The video highlights a version of the image reportedly discovered through Kim Marshall.

This photograph is considered particularly significant because it appears less retouched than other copies.

Unlike versions with completely white masked backgrounds, the Marshall copy reportedly preserves:

• the original light-colored backdrop
• blurred edges around the hair and coat
• part of the sleeve
• the top of Joseph’s hand

The video argues that these additional details show that the Marshall image cannot simply be another copy derived from the familiar heavily retouched versions.

Why the Original Joseph Smith Daguerreotype May Have Cropped His Hands

The video also attempts to explain the unusual composition of the portrait.

There is considerable space above Joseph’s head while his hands are mostly cropped out.

The presenter proposes that the daguerreotype plate may have shifted inside the early camera after focusing.

Because the image inside the camera would have appeared upside down and reversed, even a small plate movement could have resulted in extra space above the head while cutting off more of the lower body and hands.

The video presents this as a plausible explanation for the unusual framing of the surviving image.

What Can Joseph Smith’s Death Mask Tell Us?

The presentation then considers the death masks of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

Death masks preserve important facial structure, but the video cautions against treating them as perfect representations of how either man looked while alive.

Joseph and Hyrum had suffered traumatic deaths, and their bodies were exposed to summer heat before the masks were made.

Materials were also reportedly placed into wounds and nostrils, potentially altering some facial features.

For those reasons, the video argues that a death mask should be one piece of evidence rather than the sole method used to authenticate a photograph.

Is the Recently Discovered Locket Photograph Joseph Smith?

The video then examines the small daguerreotype in a locket that has received significant attention as a possible photograph of Joseph Smith.

The presenter argues that it does not depict Joseph.

Several facial characteristics are emphasized:

• forehead furrows
• shorter, downward-sloping eyebrows
• deep-set eyes
• a longer nose with a noticeable bump
• sunken cheeks
• strong creases around the mouth

The video argues that these characteristics do not fit other documented depictions of Joseph Smith.

The Locket Photograph May Actually Show Hyrum Smith

When the locket image is compared with drawings and the death mask of Hyrum Smith, the presenter argues that the features fit much more closely.

The video compares:

• forehead lines
• eyebrow shape
• deep-set eyes
• nose shape
• cheeks
• mouth creases

The conclusion presented is that the famous locket photograph is very likely not Joseph Smith at all, but instead the only known photograph of Hyrum Smith.

Why Would a Photograph of Hyrum Smith Be Found With Joseph’s Descendants?

The strongest argument against identifying the locket as Hyrum has been its provenance: it was found among descendants of Joseph Smith.

The video offers a historical explanation.

It cites accounts from William Clayton and Brigham Young claiming that after Joseph and Hyrum’s deaths, Emma Smith obtained personal objects belonging to Hyrum, including what was described as a valuable portrait of Hyrum.

The presenter suggests that an expensive daguerreotype mounted in a locket would fit the description of a valuable portrait and would also have been small enough to carry.

If that account is accurate, it could explain why an authentic photograph of Hyrum later remained among Joseph and Emma’s descendants.

Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith Had Different Clothing Styles

The video also compares clothing in Maudsley’s drawings with the disputed photographs.

It argues that Joseph Smith consistently wore a very high collar, rising above the chin and toward his cheeks.

Hyrum’s collar, by contrast, was generally depicted below his chin.

The supposed Lucien Foster photograph of Joseph shows the higher collar, while the locket photograph shows the lower style associated with Hyrum.

The presenter treats this repeated clothing pattern as additional supporting evidence.

Joseph Smith’s White Minister’s Tie

The video makes another clothing comparison involving neckties.

Ministers in the nineteenth century sometimes wore distinctive white neckwear, and Joseph Smith is repeatedly shown wearing a white tie in early artwork.

Among the various photographs proposed as Joseph Smith, the image associated with the Lucien Foster daguerreotype is emphasized as matching this clothing tradition.

Joseph Smith’s Son David Also Resembles the Foster Image

The video adds another comparison with Joseph Smith’s son David Hyrum Smith, who was born after Joseph’s death.

It points particularly to:

• broad, level eyebrows
• the spacing between the eyebrows
• the width of the bridge of the nose

The presenter argues that David’s facial characteristics resemble the established Foster image of Joseph more closely than the locket photograph.

Where Is the Original Joseph Smith Daguerreotype Today?

The location of the original daguerreotype remains uncertain.

Joseph Smith III referred to possessing it in the early twentieth century, and his son Israel also reportedly spoke of the family having it.

The original would likely have been quite small and protected inside a case.

What survives publicly today are photographic copies derived from that original image.

Was There Really Only One Photograph of Joseph Smith?

The video ultimately argues that the surviving evidence points to one photographic sitting rather than numerous lost Joseph Smith photographs.

The timeline is central to this conclusion.

Photographic technology became practical for portraiture only shortly before Joseph’s death, and Lucien Foster was in Nauvoo with the necessary equipment during a very limited period in 1844.

The presenter argues that the various familiar photographs of Joseph all descend from that single original daguerreotype.

Why the Lucien Foster Daguerreotype Matters

The most important part of the argument is not simply facial comparison.

The video presents a cumulative historical case involving:

• the development of photography
• Lucien Foster’s documented arrival in Nauvoo
• Joseph Smith III’s personal recollection
• family possession of the daguerreotype
• submission of an image to the Library of Congress
• early photographer Charles W. Carter’s identification
• clothing analysis
• independent artwork from Joseph’s lifetime
• the likely relationship between the photograph and Mansion House painting
• comparison with Joseph and Hyrum’s death masks
• and family resemblance among Joseph’s descendants

Taken together, the presenter concludes that the traditional photographic image associated with Joseph Smith is not a later invention.

Conclusion: We May Already Have the True Photograph of Joseph Smith

The central message of the video is that the search for the “real photograph of Joseph Smith” may be looking for something that was never actually lost.

The people who knew Joseph Smith personally—including his own family—preserved an image they understood to be his likeness. His sons submitted it for historical preservation, later photographers identified it as originating with an original daguerreotype, and the visual evidence presented in the video is argued to be consistent with other contemporary portrayals of Joseph.

At the same time, the video offers a fascinating alternative interpretation of the controversial locket daguerreotype: rather than showing Joseph Smith, it may provide something equally historically important—a genuine photograph of Hyrum Smith.

The presentation concludes that the best-supported image of Joseph Smith remains the one associated with Lucien Foster’s 1844 daguerreotype, taken in Nauvoo only weeks before the Prophet’s martyrdom.