History is rarely a neutral record of events; more often, it is a battlefield of narratives. To truly understand a historical figure, one must look beyond their own words and examine the “Opposition Press”—the vocal critics, rivals, and media outlets whose primary mission was to dismantle their influence.
The Mirror of Character: Rogan and Smith
There is a striking parallel between Joe Rogan, the modern titan of independent media, and Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both men achieved massive popularity by bypassing traditional gatekeepers and challenging the established orthodoxy of their day. Predictably, both have been relentlessly pursued by a hostile establishment dedicated to painting them as frauds.
In a twist of historical irony, Rogan has previously dismissed Joseph Smith as a “legitimate con-man” with a “shady” background. Yet, Rogan is currently navigating the exact same character-assassination tactics he critiques in Smith.
The Lethal Power of the Narrative
Take the 2021 controversy where legacy media outlets reported that Rogan was taking “horse dewormer” for COVID-19. Despite Rogan having been prescribed a human-grade version of the medication by a board-certified physician, the opposition press broadcast a narrative designed to make him look dangerous and foolish.
In our hyper-polarized climate, this wasn't just "fake news"; it was a digital "Wanted" poster. One could argue that Rogan’s detractors would have cheered had he been cornered by a mask wearing mob riled up on the lie of the "horse-drug"—a mob convinced that Rogan’s influence was a literal threat to Grandma and public safety. The irony is sharp: time has shown that Rogan recovered rapidly, yet the opposition press cared less about the reality of his health and more about the destruction of his reputation.
From Digital Mobs to Liberty Jails
The modern "cancel culture" mob is the direct descendant of the 19th-century frontier mob. Just as modern media tried to "slay" Rogan’s character to protect their monopoly on truth, the opposition press of the 1840s—such as the Nauvoo Expositor—used inflammatory rhetoric to incite physical violence against Joseph Smith.
They painted Joseph as a threat to the nation and a "con-man" to the soul, eventually riling the public into such a frenzy that they felt justified in the extra-legal violence at Carthage Jail. When you threaten a monopoly on information, the opposition press doesn't just argue with you, they try to erase you.
Imagine the world 175 years from now. If the only surviving records of our era were the digital archives of the legacy networks, future historians might conclude that Joe Rogan was nothing more than a "horse-drug peddler" who led millions astray. This is the exact lens through which many view Joseph Smith today.
The 19th-Century "Hit Piece"
Critics often point to Joseph Smith’s 1826 court appearance as the "smoking gun" of his supposed dishonesty. However, a closer look reveals a narrative built on sand:
- The Accuser: Joseph wasn’t sued by a victim; he was targeted by a disgruntled relative of his employer.
- The Defense: The "victim" himself, Josiah Stowell, took the stand to defend Joseph, testifying that he trusted him implicitly.
- The Outcome: Joseph was acquitted. In subsequent cases in 1830, four different judges cleared him, and one arresting sheriff even apologized for the meritless charges.
The "con-man" label wasn't a legal reality; it was the branding created by an opposition press determined to halt the growth of a new movement.
The Silence of the Ancient Critics
A significant double standard exists in how we evaluate history. Many modern critics point a finger at Joseph Smith while ignoring the fact that three fingers are pointing back at the patriarchs they admire.
Why do figures like Noah, Moses, or King David seem "cleaner" than Joseph Smith? It isn't because they were perfect; it is because they had no Opposition Press. We see King David through the lens of those who loved him. We have no record of what the Philistines wrote about his character, or what his political detractors shouted in the streets of Jerusalem.
If a hostile press had existed in 1000 BCE, would they have published "exposés" on the ages of David’s wives? Would they have accused him of being a power-hungry warlord? We don't know, because their critics' writings were lost to the dust of time. We give ancient prophets a "free pass" simply because their versions of "CNN" didn't survive.
The "Bias of the Clock"
Joseph Smith lived at the dawn of the information age. He was perhaps the first religious leader to have his entire life documented by hostile local media.
When critics accept 19th-century "hit pieces" as objective facts while dismissing similar attacks on modern figures as "fake news," they fall for a historical trap. If we only read about the Apostles from their supporters, their image remains polished. Conversely, if an opposition press had survived from the time of Jesus, we would likely find "news reports" claiming He was a wine-bibber and a common criminal.
Conclusion: The Courage of Transparency
The existence of an opposition press doesn't prove a person is a fraud; it proves they are influential enough to be a threat to the status quo.
The fact that we know about Joseph Smith’s struggles and the accusations against him is not evidence of a "shady" past, but proof that he lived a transparent life in the public eye. Recognizing that a prophet can be a man of God while still being a man of his time—facing the same media bias that modern figures navigate—is the first step toward historical honesty. To judge Smith by his enemies while judging the Bible only by its friends is not a search for truth; it is a bias.