The following is an old article written by Russell Ashdown in response to an article by Eric Johnson (Bill McKeever's no. 1 at Mormonism "Research" Ministry), "Is It Fair to Compare Joseph Smith with the Prophet Jonah?" (found on archive.org):
My Response to "Is It Fair to Compare Joseph Smith with the Prophet Jonah? By Eric Johnson"
We at Mormonism Research Ministry and other like-minded groups have adamantly maintained that Joseph Smith was a false prophet based on his prophecies which did not take place as he said they would. One common LDS response which we have repeatedly hear is: "If Joseph Smith was a false prophet, then the prophet Jonah must have been a false prophet as well. He predicted the destruction of Nineveh yet the Bible tells us that city was spared."
Having looked at over 70 alleged false propheies of Joseph Smith and examined all aspects, I can declare without any hesitation that Joseph Smith never uttered one legitimate false prophecy. Especially when viewed with the normal standards that apply to Biblical prophets.
Was Jonah a false prophet? The idea that biblical prophets could make errors in their prophecies is contrary to the Bible; it clearly shows that a true prophet will not make errors when giving a message from God.
What I am guessing here is that since Jonah is a biblical prophet, therefore he did not make a false prophecy, therefore any statement that he makes would be seen differenently than a person who is not a biblical prophet. In other words for MRM, if we have to make a double standard, so be it that the biblical prophets are upheld while others are torn down. Well lets see what happens
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor comes to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."
As recorded in the short four-chapter Old Testament book named after him, Jonah was commanded by God to "go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me" (1:2). Instead of going to Nineveh to preach the destruction of the city, Jonah disobeyed and attempted to run away from God.
It took near-death experiences on a ship and inside a fish before Jonah could be persuaded to deliver the ultimatum (3:3). When he finally proclaimed that the Assyrians would be doomed within 40 days, "the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them" including the king of Nineveh. The Ninevites changed their ways hoping to have God "turn away from his fierce anger" (3:4-5,9).
Although God fully intended to inflict destruction upon the city of Nineveh, He relented based upon their God-fearing response. Jonah 3:10 says, "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
The righteous nature of God allows for pardon on the condition of repentance. Jeremiah 18:8 states: "If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
There is little doubt that Nineveh would have been destroyed if its inhabitants had not responded to Jonah's message. Even Jonah himself understood that there was a possibility the destruction of Nineveh might not come to pass when he told God, "I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou are a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil" (4:2).
Ok and we agree with this but there is one problem. Jonah never said that if they repented, that they would not be destroyed. He just said that it would be destroyed. No condtions were made by Jonah. The people repented and the Lord spared them. What does this mean? It means that prophecies often have conditions placed on them even though the prophet who makes the prediction does not mention them. In a number of Joseph Smith prophecies, there are conditions that do exist that may alter or change the prediction or declaration though those conditions are not stated directly in the quotes that Anti-Mormons cite.
So what does this all mean? It means if Jonah predicts something but it does not come to pass because the condtions changed, Jonah is not a false prophet even thought no conditions is stated in the prediction or declaration. If Joseph Smith predicts something but it does not come to pass because the condtions changed, Joseph is a false prophet even thought no conditions is stated in the prediction or declaration. This is called a double standard. MRM changes the rules that fit their purpose. There is no consistency.
Here is a simple fact. If Joseph Smith made a prediction that some town would be destroyed in 65 days and it was not due to the fact that the people in the town changed or did something different than prior, like repenting, it does not matter. MRM would still call Joseph Smith a false prophet because they don't like Joseph whereas they like Jonah because he is in the Bible.
While many Mormons may attempt to use the "Jonah defense" to defend their faith's first prophet, we have been unable to locate this apologetic argument from the many LDS general authorities whose writings we have researched. Instead, we have found numerous statements from LDS leaders which concur with the thought that Jonah was a prophet sent by God to deliver a conditional message.
That is right MRM. We recongnize conditional prophecies even when the conditions are not stated in the "prophecy" itself. Anti-Mormons like MRM have a hard time doing this when it comes to Joseph Smith. They can see they when it comes to issues from the Bible but when it comes to Joseph, all the sudden they become dumb and blind and pretend they don't exist. We bring up Jonah to to disprove Jonah but to expose the hypocracy of Anti-Mormons like MRM.
Speaking of the Ninevites, former LDS Apostle Orson Pratt taught that "...they all turned and repented of their sins, and the Lord had compassion and did not execute the judgment on them because of their repentance" (Journal of Discourses 14:260-1).
Third LDS Prophet John Taylor said in an 1884 sermon: "Jonah was sent to the city of Nineveh, to tell the people to repent and that if they did not repent they would all be destroyed. But they listened to the voice of the Prophet ...The Lord forgave them" (Journal of Discourses 23:36).
Meanwhile, former LDS Apostle John Widtsoe wrote that "there are prophecies which in reality are statements of cause and effect. If certain things are done, certain results will flow therefrom" (Evidences and Reconciliations, pg. 92).
The problem with equating Joseph with Jonah is that many of Smith's prophecies did not come to pass even after all the proper conditions were met. Therefore we have no other alternative than to declare Joseph Smith a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 18:22.
Ah, but the proper conditions were not meet. MRM assumes they were but when one looks at all angles, they see that they were not. Thus I boldly declare after looking at all the angles and information that Anti-Mormons don't look at, Joseph Smith was not a false prophet. All this is found at another section on this website.
Ashdown’s comments (unlike those of Eric Johnson) are exegetically sound (although Johnson spent a few years in a theological seminary [must have missed those classes on exegesis]). Note the following form a competent biblical scholar (something Johnson clearly is not) on the book of Jonah:
Prophecy: Realization versus Compliance. The third reading, which focuses on Jonah’s stubborn refusal to prophesy against Nineveh and his anger at its deliverance, grounds the story on Jonah’s jealous concern for the veracity of prophecy and his apprehension lest his credibility be undermined. The midrash illuminates Jonah’s expectations by recalling his success in Samaria and his forebodings by a hypothetical reconstruction of his failure in Jerusalem:
Why did he run away? The first time, God sent him to restore the territory of Israel and His word was fulfilled, as it is stated: “He [Jeroboam II] restored the territory of Israel from Lebo-hamath [in accordance with the promise that the Lord … made through His servant, … Jonah son of Amittai]” (2 Kings 14:25). The second time, He sent him to Jerusalem to destroy it. Because [its people] repented, the Holy One Blessed be He acted in accordance with His great mercy and repented of His fatal intention and did not destroy it. Thus Israel called him a “false prophet.” The third time, He sent him to Nineveh. Jonah reasoned with himself, saying, “I know that this nation is quick to repent. Now they will repent, and the Holy One Blessed be He will dispatch his anger against Israel. Is it not enough that Israel calls me a false prophet, but idol-worshippers will do so as well! I shall run away instead.…” (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 10)
According to this view—which was adopted by Daniel al-Kumissi the Karaite, Saadiah Gaon (Beliefs and Opinions 3, 5), Rashi, Joseph Kara, and David Kimḥi (who combined it with the second theme reviewed above), Abraham bar Ḥiyya, Abravanel, and many modern scholars—the Book of Jonah seeks to teach us about the educational purpose of prophecies of doom (cf. Ezek. 3:16–21 and 33:1–9) through the medium of a story that criticizes a prophet who viewed announcing future events as his role and full realization of the prophecy as his only test. Jonah runs away because he cannot resolve two contradictions: between the categorization of prophecies that do not come to pass as “false prophecies” (Deut. 18:21–22) and the revocation of the verdict against Nineveh, in response to its repentance; and between the concept of God as unchanging and resolute (cf. Num. 23:19) and His attributes of compassion and forgiveness. Nevertheless the Lord compelled him to prophesy against Nineveh to teach him the paradoxical nature of true prophets, who “foretell punishment to make it unnecessary” (St. Jerome in his commentary on Ezek. 33:1, cited by Bickerman, p. 40).
Such a definition of the prophet’s role is undoubtedly an appropriate and weighty theme for a prophetic narrative, but there is no real sign in the Book of Jonah of the prophet’s anguish that his prediction did not come to pass, nor anything like this elsewhere in the Bible. This is why the author of the midrash quoted above had to assume that Jonah had previously been mocked by the people of Jerusalem, while Bickerman (p. 38) is forced to rely on a strained comparison with Jeremiah’s distress (20:7–8) when he is ridiculed by the sinful inhabitants of Jerusalem, who, seeing that the word of the Lord is slow to be realized, persist in their transgressions. Hence it is not surprising that most commentators who consider contingent prophecy to be the theme of the book combine it with some other theme . . . 9. Who knows An expression of wishing and hoping (like the captain’s “perhaps”; see Comment to 1:6), used by someone who knows clearly that even the most severe self-affliction (such as by David during the illness of Bathsheba’s son [2 Sam. 12:22]) and even absolute and total repentance (like that demanded by the prophet Joel [2:12–14]) are no guarantee that the fatal decree will be revoked. This is because according to strict justice, even sinners who repent still deserve punishment, and the expunging of their transgressions remains an unmerited act of mercy. (Compare the self-abasement through which Ben-hadad’s ministers hoped to attain clemency for their defeated king: “We have heard that the kings of the House of Israel are magnanimous kings. Let us put sackcloth on our loins and ropes on our heads, and surrender to the king of Israel; perhaps he will spare your life” [1 Kings 20:31].)
may turn and repent Change his mind and decision. The concept of measure for measure in the relationship between the purging of sins and God’s repenting is expressed by the use of the root sh-w-v to indicate both what is demanded of the condemned—“Let every person turn back from his evil ways” (3:8)—and what it is hoped the judge will grant: “God may turn and repent, and turn back from His wrath.” For another use of this rhetorical device, cf. “Turn back to me—says the LORD of Hosts—and I will turn back to you—said the LORD of Hosts” (Zech. 1:3).
so that we do not perish The king concludes his decree with a cautious hope that at the same time makes tangible the significance of the city’s overthrow: we have all been condemned to perish.
10. God saw Like the king (see Comment to v. 8), the narrator too refers to the unnamed “God” (ha-Elohim), probably to emphasize that God responds even to those who do not have full knowledge of Him.
what they did In penitence, deeds have greater weight than words (cf. Isa. 1:15–16; Amos 5:14–15). Accordingly it is not written that God heard their prayer but that He saw their deeds. At first sight, the reference is to both physical mortification and the return of ill-gotten gains. Since however, the text does not say “and that they had turned back,” it may be that “how they had turned back from their evil ways” is simply an explanation of “what they had done.” This is how the sages read the verse when they cited the Ninevites’ repentance as an exemplary model for what Jews should do at a public fast called because of prolonged drought: “What is the procedure on the days of fasting?… The eldest among them utters before them words of admonition: ‘Brethren, it is not written of the men of Nineveh that ‘God saw their sackcloth and fasting,’ but that ‘God saw what they did, how they had turned back from their evil ways’ ” (M. Taʿanit 2, 1).
from their evil ways Measure for measure: they “turned back from their evil ways” and correspondingly “God repented the evil” (cf. Jer. 18:8; 26:3); and again, “God saw what they did,” and correspondingly God repented what “He had said to do to them, and did not do it.”
and did not do it The narrator’s concluding words (ve-loʾ ʿasah) echo the end of the king’s order “that we do not perish” (ve-loʾ noʾved) (v. 9), to indicate that the royal decree and the Ninevites’ compliance with it achieved their objective in full (Sasson).
(Uriel Simon, Jonah [Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society, 1999], x-xi, 33-34)