Back to Mormonism Researched Page

The Character of Joseph Smith Compared With Bible Prophets

Research by D. Charles Pyle

Edited by Kerry A. Shirts

The character of Smith is such a peripheral issue in comparison to so many others. I do not consider the allegations against the Prophet to be true; absolute proof is lacking, in my opinion. But, let us assume that the allegations are all true for the sake of argument. There are those (apparently, John Farkas and Neville Christensen are among them) who are of the opinion that if a person who proclaims himself as a prophet lies, commits adultery, errs on certain aspects of the nature of God, etc., that person cannot have been a true prophet of God.

How would that be so, when we compare the actions of Biblical prophets with what our detractors have said is the character of Joseph Smith? If Joseph Smith has done all of the things that he said to have done, what does this really prove? Do his actions really discredit what he taught? If so, how? If so, why then do not these same actions discredit Biblical prophets who have done similar or identical things?

Why do the critics desire to force us to dispense with the teachings of Joseph Smith for the errant actions which his detractors accuse him of perpetrating, when we are also told by them that it really does not matter that Biblical prophets have done the same things--what they said is still true regardless of what they have done. Is this not at the height of inconsistency!?!

Do we deny the truthfulness of and scrap all the writings of David the prophet (Acts 2:29-30) because he committed adultery and then, in an effort to cover it up, contracted the murder of Uriah, Bath-Sheba's husband (2 Samuel 11:1-27)?

Do we tear the wisdom writings of Solomon from the midst of our Bibles because he failed to heed his own wisdom, married women of other nations that God forbid him to take, finally ending in his worship of the false gods of Israel's neighboring nations (1 Kings 11:1-10)?

Do we reject the writings of Peter and all his teachings in the Bible because he denied knowing the Son of God in a pathetic attempt to save his own skin (Matthew 26:69-74)? I mean, if he lied about something so important as this, how do we not know that he might lie again? How do we know that what he taught and wrote is the truth?

Do we reject Elisha's prophetic status because he used the power that God gave him to curse children for poking fun at his balding head (2 Kings 2:22-24)? How about when he was on his death bed instructing a king to engage in Belomancy, an ancient form of Arab and Babylonian arrow divination used to foretell the future (2 Kings 13:15-19)?

Do we throw out the Book of Daniel because he accepted a position of leadership among soothsayers, diviners, magicians, and astrologers (Daniel 5:11)?

Do we reject the prophetic status of Micaiah because he first said that he would only tell what God spoke to him and then lied about it, only revealing the truth of the matter because he was pressed into it (1 Kings 22:8-23)?

Do we reject Jeremiah because he apparently did not have much faith in God's ability to tell the truth or keep promises (Jeremiah 4:10; 15:18; 20:7, etc.), notwithstanding the fact that he must have been aware that God does not lie (Numbers 23:19)?

Would the critics have us abandon Paul because neither he nor Luke could tell Paul's First Vision story the same way twice, even going so far as to completely contradict certain aspects of his telling of the story (Acts 9, 22, 26; go to http://www.linkline.com/personal/dcpyle/reading/mckeever.htm to see a parallel column rendition of Paul's Vision with further commentary)? Certainly, if I had seen what he had, I would never have forgotten any of the details of such an important happening (this was the recent claim of a certain individual on this list during an exchange concerning Joseph Smith).

Or do we reject Paul for his obvious lie when confronted about something he said (Acts 23:2-5)? How could he have NOT known that the person who hit him was the high priest?

When Paul completely disregarded the context of a passage that clearly speaks of many individuals, teaching that it specifically referred to Christ alone (Galatians 3:16 compared with Genesis 17:7-8), did we have need to question his apostolic status at that time?

I could go further, but why? What is important is that even if Joseph Smith really did do all that his detractors maintain he did, his character was really no worse than that of the Biblical prophets and apostles. What is really important is not so much what he was as a person, but what did he accomplish as a whole? Is not the real issue that lies before us whether or not he was a prophet of God?

I could care less whether or not he actually wore the same underwear for months on end, belched in public, or whether or not he sometimes went against what God commanded him (there are plenty of examples of Biblical prophets and apostles who have done the same type of thing).

Was Joseph Smith really a prophet? That is the true issue here, NOT whether he kept all the commandments to perfection every day of his life, NOT whether or not he occasionally skewed the truth to keep certain principles under wraps under certain circumstances, and NOT whether he did or did not practice polygamy correctly!

Of course, you critics are certainly welcome to continue dealing out information about peripheral issues to those of us who are here, but what do you *really* hope to accomplish in doing so? It is completely fruitless to dwell upon such peripherals rather than upon essentials. Why then do you continue to do so?