Critics often charge Joseph Smith of being a false prophet due to having uttered allegedly false prophecies. Much has been written on the topic of the prophecies of Joseph Smith, including the following article I helped research:
This post will address the two most commonly-cited "false prophecies" of Joseph Smith.
In an article entitled, "False Prophecy in the Doctrine and Covenants" by James K. Walker, we read the following:
Prophecy: Close-dated and Unconditional
The fourth type of prediction is the close-dated unconditional prophecy. Although relatively few of Joseph Smith's prophecies are of this type they are extremely important because they make it possible to put Joseph Smith to the biblical test of a prophet.
Example: Temple in Independence
Last month's Watchman Expositor reviewed an example of a close-dated unconditional prophecy preserved in Doctrine and Covenants Section 84.
In this revelation given on September 22 and 23, 1832, Joseph Smith foretold of an LDS temple to be built in Independence, Missouri.
The prophecy specifies that the city of "New Jerusalem" including the temple was to be constructed, "beginning at the temple lot which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri" (verse 3).
Verses four and five add that the "temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away" before the temple will be built.
One hundred and sixty years later, in 1992, there is still no LDS Temple in the entire state of Missouri much less on the "temple lot" specified in the revelation. (Note: An LDS temple is currently under construction across the state in St. Louis).
As mentioned last month, early Mormon leaders made it quite clear that the word "generation" meant those that were alive when the revelation was given in 1832. Before they all died, the Independence temple was to be.
Example: David W. Patten
A second example of a close-dated unconditional prophecy is found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 114.
This two-verse prophecy given April 17, 1838 are instructions to David W. Patten, one of the LDS twelve Apostles. He was to prepare to go on a mission with the other eleven (Apostles) into "all the world."
According to the revelation, the mission was to take place "next spring" which would give the prophecy a "closed-date" somewhere around April or May of 1839.
Less than three months later, the "twelve" were given a specific date to leave (April 26, 1839) and one of the apostles, Thomas Marsh, was instructed to stay behind to "publish my word" (Doctrine and Covenants Section 118).
The date of April 26, 1839 came and as History of the Church, written by Joseph Smith, records, "The Brethren arrived at Far West, and proceeded to transact the business of their mission" (Vol. 3 p.336).
However, David W. Patten was not part of that mission. David Patten was not present because he had died in October of 1838.
History of the Church reports: "Captain Patten was carried some of the way in a litter, but it caused so much distress that he begged to be left by the way side...he died that night" (Vol. 3, p. 171).
Rather than going on a mission with the Twelve next spring, as Joseph Smith had prophesied in 1838, Patten died before the next year even came.
This could not be a reference to a "mission" in the spirit world after death because Joseph Smith was specific that he was to go "unto all the world" (not the "spirit" world) and he was to be with the other eleven (Doctrine and Covenants 114).
Some Mormons have suggested that David Patten could have apostatized from his calling. In other words God called him to go on the mission but because of sin or faithlessness he fell from the calling.
There are two problems with this explanation. The God of the Bible is all-knowing and He knew that Patten was going to die. Also, Patten did not fall away from the Church.
After Patten's death, Joseph Smith wrote, "Brother David Patten was a very worthy man, beloved by all good men who know him. He was one of the Twelve Apostles, and died as he had lived, a man of God, and strong in the faith of a glorious resurrection" (History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 171).
When objectively examining the prophecies of Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants it must be concluded that he made false prophecies.
One should not expect a prophet to be perfect as they are human. When they speak in the name of the Lord, however, Deuteronomy 18 demands 100 percent accuracy.
This is God's way of helping people to recognize and avoid false prophets.
The fourth type of prediction is the close-dated unconditional prophecy. Although relatively few of Joseph Smith's prophecies are of this type they are extremely important because they make it possible to put Joseph Smith to the biblical test of a prophet.
Example: Temple in Independence
Last month's Watchman Expositor reviewed an example of a close-dated unconditional prophecy preserved in Doctrine and Covenants Section 84.
In this revelation given on September 22 and 23, 1832, Joseph Smith foretold of an LDS temple to be built in Independence, Missouri.
The prophecy specifies that the city of "New Jerusalem" including the temple was to be constructed, "beginning at the temple lot which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri" (verse 3).
Verses four and five add that the "temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away" before the temple will be built.
One hundred and sixty years later, in 1992, there is still no LDS Temple in the entire state of Missouri much less on the "temple lot" specified in the revelation. (Note: An LDS temple is currently under construction across the state in St. Louis).
As mentioned last month, early Mormon leaders made it quite clear that the word "generation" meant those that were alive when the revelation was given in 1832. Before they all died, the Independence temple was to be.
Example: David W. Patten
A second example of a close-dated unconditional prophecy is found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 114.
This two-verse prophecy given April 17, 1838 are instructions to David W. Patten, one of the LDS twelve Apostles. He was to prepare to go on a mission with the other eleven (Apostles) into "all the world."
According to the revelation, the mission was to take place "next spring" which would give the prophecy a "closed-date" somewhere around April or May of 1839.
Less than three months later, the "twelve" were given a specific date to leave (April 26, 1839) and one of the apostles, Thomas Marsh, was instructed to stay behind to "publish my word" (Doctrine and Covenants Section 118).
The date of April 26, 1839 came and as History of the Church, written by Joseph Smith, records, "The Brethren arrived at Far West, and proceeded to transact the business of their mission" (Vol. 3 p.336).
However, David W. Patten was not part of that mission. David Patten was not present because he had died in October of 1838.
History of the Church reports: "Captain Patten was carried some of the way in a litter, but it caused so much distress that he begged to be left by the way side...he died that night" (Vol. 3, p. 171).
Rather than going on a mission with the Twelve next spring, as Joseph Smith had prophesied in 1838, Patten died before the next year even came.
This could not be a reference to a "mission" in the spirit world after death because Joseph Smith was specific that he was to go "unto all the world" (not the "spirit" world) and he was to be with the other eleven (Doctrine and Covenants 114).
Some Mormons have suggested that David Patten could have apostatized from his calling. In other words God called him to go on the mission but because of sin or faithlessness he fell from the calling.
There are two problems with this explanation. The God of the Bible is all-knowing and He knew that Patten was going to die. Also, Patten did not fall away from the Church.
After Patten's death, Joseph Smith wrote, "Brother David Patten was a very worthy man, beloved by all good men who know him. He was one of the Twelve Apostles, and died as he had lived, a man of God, and strong in the faith of a glorious resurrection" (History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 171).
When objectively examining the prophecies of Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants it must be concluded that he made false prophecies.
One should not expect a prophet to be perfect as they are human. When they speak in the name of the Lord, however, Deuteronomy 18 demands 100 percent accuracy.
This is God's way of helping people to recognize and avoid false prophets.
Firstly, on the nature of Deut 18 and the test of a prophet, Walker is way out in left field on this issue. I highly recommend the paper from 1993 by Dr. Richard L. Pratt (a Reformed Presbyterian, one who holds to God having exhaustive foreknowledge [not an Open Theist]), “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions.” On pp.12-13 of this paper, Pratt writes the following:
An alternative outlook would be to assume that Moses and his audience realized that unqualified predictions had implied conditions. If this dynamic was well-known, then he did not have to repeat it explicitly when he offered his criterion in Deuteronomy 18:22. In this view, Moses’ test instructed Israel to expect a prediction from a true prophet to come about, unless significant intervening contingencies interrupted.
This understanding of the Mosaic criterion may explain why so many passages
highlight the historical contingencies that interrupted many fulfillments. Old Testament writers accounted for the Mosaic test of false prophets by pointing out why the predictions of true prophets sometimes did not come true. For example, the writer of Jonah explains how the king of Nineveh ordered fasting and mourning by “every person (h’dm) and by every beast (whbhmh), herd (hbqr), and flock (whs‘n)” (Jon 3:7). The Chronicler used one of his most poignant theological terms (kn`) when he said that Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah “humbled themselves” (2 Chr 12:6). The writer of Kings described Josiah’s ritual tearing of his robe (2 Kgs 22:11). The specificity of these passages suggests that so long as Israelites could point to significant intervening contingencies, they had no trouble accepting interrupted predictions as originating with Yahweh.
This fits with what we find in the article referenced above, “Joel Kramer vs. the Bible,” where we read the following:
Many critics will appeal to texts such as Malachi 3:6 to claim the effect that God does not change his mind, and, furthermore, such texts that speak of God changing His mind (e.g., Gen 6:6) are to be relegated as mere “anthropomorphisms.” Notwithstanding, such an approach is based on pure eisegesis. The context of Malachi 3:6 specifies that God’s exchangeability refers only to His unchanging willingness to forgive if the sinner repents, not that God cannot change His mind about previous decisions or about contingencies that arise in accordance with man’s free-will decisions (cf. Jeremiah 18:7-10).
Other passages which indicate that God “does not change” (e.g., Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 110:4; James 1:17) refer only to God’s inability to lie, take back an oath He made, tempt one to sin, or reverse decisions based on a capricious whim, since these would be adverse to His divine character.
Exodus 32-33 is a very potent example of (1) God changing his mind and (2) God’s personal nature. Let us look at it in point by point format:
1. God determines to destroy all of Israel for worshipping the golden calf.
2. Moses pleads with God to relent, reiterating the promise to Abraham and the potential mockery from Egypt.
3. God rescinds His threat to destroy all of Israel, yet punishes the leading perpetrators.
4. Moses spends 40 days prostrate and fasting to appease God for Israel’s sin.
5. Although temporarily appeased, God refuses to go with the Israelites through the desert, because they are so “stiff-necked” he “might destroy them on the way.”
6. Moses pleads again with God to change His mind.
7. God changes His mind and decides to go with them.
8. God then remarks on the intimate relationship He has with Moses as the basis of His decision to change His mind.
9. God confirms this intimate relationship by showing Moses part of His actual appearance.
D&C 84 and the Temple in Missouri
Firstly, it should be noted that D&C 84:3-5 is not a prophecy, but a commandment. That this is the case can be seen in D&C 124:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them to hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments so I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God. (D&C 124:49-51)
In 2009, Jeff Lindsay reproduced some notes provided to him by D. Charles Pyle on the issue of D&C 84, which provides further nail to the coffin of critics like Walker who claim this is a false prophecy:
Surprise Answer: The Temple Prophecy May Have Already Been Fulfilled
In an email discussion on this topic in 2009 (cited with permission), Brother Pyle made this comment regarding verse 5:
Indeed, this verse was fulfilled--in Kirtland. Here is what was recorded for that event in 1836:
George A. Smith arose and began to prophesy, when a noise was heard like the sound of a rushing mighty wind, which filled the Temple, and all the congregation simultaneously arose, being moved upon by an invisible power; many began to speak in tongues and prophesy; others saw glorious visions; and I beheld the Temple was filled with angels, which fact I declared to the congregation. The people of the neighborhood came running together (hearing an unusual sound within, and seeing a bright light like a pillar of fire resting upon the Temple), and were astonished at what was taking place. (History of the Church, 2:428)
See also Section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Most people who read the above verse in the above section of the Doctrine and Covenants assume that verse 5 has to refer only to the temple that was to be built in the center place of that time. However, all that is required is that a temple be built and that certain events happen in order to meet the conditions of this portion of the prophecy.
This is a fair point. The Church did make efforts in Missouri that can count as a beginning, and did complete a temple in that generation - in Kirtland, Ohio. There was obviously a desire to make the temple in Missouri, but the Church's presence and success in Missouri was not a foregone conclusion but a conditional event dependent on the faithfulness of the members. A variety of mistakes were made that violated their part of the bargain and resulted in being driven out, delaying the building of Zion in Missouri and making a temple there impossible at the time. But a temple - not the desired Missouri temple - was built shortly after this prophecy was given, arguably fulfilling the demands of the prophecy.
Brother Pyle had more to say about this episode and the conditional aspects of the Saints' presence and success in Missouri:
Trouble with [anti-Mormon] argumentation is that the prophecy was fulfilled, even if the location of the fulfillment was moved due to the conditional nature of prophecy and of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Bible is filled with such contingent prophecies. However [many] critics of the Church . . . take the Doctrine and Covenants out of context. Building a temple there would require the Saints to remain there in the center place. However, remaining in the center place was contingent by nature. Reading a number of sections of the Doctrine and Covenants shows the conditional nature of their stay there. The Saints failed to live up to the expectations and requirements to stay there. Therefore, they were driven out. . . .
The Saints were building the city. The temple site had already been dedicated and foundational cornerstones laid the year previous. Note also the past tense of the latter part of verse 3. However, verse 2, as already noted, was to be tempered by the contingent nature of sections of the Doctrine and Covenants surrounding Section 84, particularly Section 58 and the Sections numbering in the 100s. Note the following verses from Section 58:
6 Behold, verily I say unto you, for this cause I have sent you--that you might be obedient, and that your hearts might be prepared to bear testimony of the things which are to come;
7 And also that you might be honored in laying the foundation, and in bearing record of the land upon which the Zion of God shall stand; . . .
19 For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this land. . . .
30 Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments?
31 Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?
32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.
33 Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.
44 And now, verily, I say concerning the residue of the elders of my church, the time has not yet come, for many years, for them to receive their inheritance in this land, except they desire it through the prayer of faith, only as it shall be appointed unto them of the Lord.
45 For, behold, they shall push the people together from the bends of the earth. . . .
50 And I give unto my servant Sidney Rigdon a commandment, that he shall write a description of the land of Zion, and a statement of the will of God, as it shall be made known by the Spirit unto him;
51 And an epistle and subscription, to be presented unto all the churches to obtain moneys, to be put into the hands of the bishop, of himself or the agent, as seemeth him good or as he shall direct, to purchase lands for an inheritance for the children of God.
52 For, behold, verily I say unto you, the Lord willeth that the disciples and the children of men should open their hearts, even to purchase this whole region of country, as soon as time will permit.
53 Behold, here is wisdom. Let them do this lest they receive none inheritance, save it be by the shedding of blood.
54 And again, inasmuch as there is land obtained, let there be workmen sent forth of all kinds unto this land, to labor for the saints of God.
55 Let all these things be done in order; and let the privileges of the lands be made known from time to time, by the bishop or the agent of the church.
56 And let the work of the gathering be not in haste, nor by flight; but let it be done as it shall be counseled by the elders of the church at the conferences, according to the knowledge which they receive from time to time.
Note the words concerning "many years" in the afore-cited revelation? As can be seen, this above revelation shows some interesting things concerning this land and even was prescient concerning what would come in this region as well as what people would say when the Lord revokes and takes blessings away due to failure to keep the law of God. Did this not indeed happen? Had not it indeed been seen in those days by those who left the Church? And, is not it now being fulfilled by every single critic who has written concerning Section 84 and the land of Zion?
D&C 84:4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
The Saints did begin gathering to this location and building the city. They were driven out before the city could be completed because they had failed to live up to expectations for remaining there as a people. Again, see the context of the Doctrine and Covenants sections preceding and succeeding Section 84, particularly those numbering in the 100s. The Saints did not keep the conditions and were driven out. They were told to keep quiet of these things and not to boast, as well as keep the law of God concerning this land. They failed in all these things and were driven out as promised in a following revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants. See, for example, Section 97:26. This forced a move of locations for the building of a temple in that generation. . . . Suffice it to say, that it still was in the Lord's plan to build a temple within that generation.
Thus, the Kirtland Temple may have contributed toward fulfillment of that prophecy. (source)
That early Latter-day Saint leaders understood that the temple in Missouri was contingent can be seen in the following from Richard Cowan, a historian of early Latter-day Saint history:
The Saints in Utah
were naturally interested in the prospects of returning to Jackson County, many
assuming that the time of the return was not distant. In 1862, Brigham Young
declared that he wanted to push construction of the Salt Lake Temple as far as
possible before returning to Jackson County. “The way things are going,” he
believed, “the way will soon be clear.” In fact, President Young hoped that it
would be his privilege to see the temple in Jackson County finished before any
other temple (Wilford Woodruff, Historian’s
Private Journal, 22 August 1862). Other events, however, would alter the
Saints’ timetable.
During the Civil War,
the Mormons felt secure in the relative isolation of their Rocky Mountain
stronghold. They viewed the destruction which the North and South were heaping
on one another as just recompense for the nation’s earlier mistreatment of the
Latter-day Saints and supposed that this desolation would open the way for
their return to Jackson County. When this failed to materialize, the Saints
looked to a more distant return.
Orson Pratt, for
example, exhibited this shift in feeling. In 1872, he quoted Joseph Smith’s
1832 revelation that the “temple shall be reared in this generation” (D&C
84:4). Noting that most who were living when that revelation was given had
passed away, Elder Pratt concluded that “the time must be pretty near when we
shall begin that work” (JD 17:111).
Just three years later he referred to the same prophecy, but this time
emphasized that he believed God was not “limited to any definite period” (JD 19:215).
During the 1870s a
number of Latter-day Saints in Utah engaged in a variety of cooperative
ventures known as “united orders.” They recalled the 1834 revelation given at
Fishing River, Missouri, which specified that the people must be united and impart
to the poor according to a celestial law before Zion could be established
(D&C 105:3-5). In this setting, Church leaders emphasized the need to live this higher law before the New Jerusalem and its temple could be built.
“We are not yet prepared to go and establish the Center Stake of Zion,”
President Young emphasized. The Lord gathered the Saints to the place where the
New Jerusalem would be built and gave them laws concerning the establishment of
Zion, “but the people could not abide them, and the Church was scattered” (JD 11:324).
Speaking in 1874,
Orson Pratt recalled the Fielding River revelation given 40 years before and
declared that if the Saints in their prevailing way of life were to attempt to
build the temple on the consecrated spot, “we should be cast out again,”
because “the Lord would not acknowledge us as his people.” Elder Pratt
continue: “If we would go back then, we must comply with the celestial law, the
law of consecration, the law of oneness” (JD
17:113). “When we go back to Jackson County, we are to go back with power,”
he declared on another occasion. “Do you suppose that God will reveal his power
among an unsanctified people who have no regard nor respect for his laws?” (JD 15:362)
Brigham Young
likewise cautioned, “If we are not very careful, the earth will be cleansed
from wickedness before we are prepared to take possession of it. We must be
pure and to be prepared to build up Zion” (JD
9:137). George Q. Cannon insisted that before Jesus will come to his latter-day
temple, “the organization of society that exists in the heavens must exist on
the earth; the same condition of society, so far as it is applicable to mortal
beings, must exist here” (JD 13:99).
Likewise, Wilford
Woodruff reminded the people of Enoch’s example and stressed that the New
Jerusalem will have to be built “by the United Order of Zion and according to
the celestial law” (JD 17:250). A
portion of the property consecrated to the Lord’s storehouse, explained Elder
Orson Pratt, “will be used for the building of temples” (JD 21:153). (Richard O. Cowan, “The Great Temple of the New
Jerusalem” in Arnold K. Garr and Clark V. Johnson, eds. Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: Missouri [Provo,
Utah: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University,
1994], 137-54, here, pp. 145-46)
Also note the following from Brigham Young in a sermon from May
15, 1865:
Some may ask why we did not tarry
at the centre stake of Zion when the Lord planted our feet there? We had eyes,
but we did not see; we had ears, but we did not hear; we had hearts that were
devoid of what the Lord required of his people; consequently, we could not
abide what the Lord revealed unto us. We had to go from there to gain an
experience. Can you understand this? I think there are some here who can. if we
could have received the words of life and lived according to them, when we were
first gathered to the centre stake of Zion, we never would have been removed
from that place. But we did not abide the law the Lord gave to us. (JOD 11:102)
The following conclusion, from an unpublished study on purportedly false prophecies of Joseph Smith, is rather apropos:
In the above can be seen the fact
that the Lord both gives and revokes commandments, provides blessings for
obedience, withholds blessings for disobedience, and punishes for
transgressions; such was the case in the building of the city of Zion and its
temple and the united order. The commandments to accomplish these plus the
resulting promises and blessings were withdrawn by the Lord as already noted
due to the saints’ transgressions, which has led some people to erroneously
conclude without looking at all of the communication from the Lord to the
prophet Joseph Smith, that Joseph Smith was a “false prophet”. (Thomas S.
Medford, “A Response to Eight False Prophecies of Joseph Smith,” January 6,
1980, M230.9 M488re 1980, Church History Library)
D&C 114 and David Patten
Again, this is not a prophecy but a commandment. How do we know this? Notice the use of the subjunctive and other elements showing such to be contingent in the disputed verse:
Verily thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world. (D&C 114:1)
Again, a contingent promise and commandment is in view; not a prophecy. The use of "that he may" explains everything. It is a subjunctive and therefore makes it clear that he was simply promised that he may or may not serve a mission, and such was contingent upon him fulfilling certain circumstances. Notice how it does not say that Patten "would go." English grammar is obviously not one of Walker's strong points (as is logic, exegesis, and sound theology). Furthermore, If Walker wants to claim this as a false prophecy, then that makes the Decalogue a listing of 10 false prophecies of Moses (and Yahweh) as they get broken every single day! Of course, such a claim would be utterly stupid. However, the fact that Walker, if he were consistent, would have to argue in a like-manner tells you all you need to know about his intellectual integrity and exegetical abilities.
Patten did not settle his business as soon as he would have; had he done so, he would not have been "on the scene" to be killed at Crooked River. However, as Russel C. McGregor and Kerry Shirts note in their article, “Letters to an anti-Mormon” (p. 176), in response to James White's poorly researched Letters to a Mormon Elder (I will note here that White has never responded to this devastating response to his book):
[T]here is indeed a prophecy contained in that section, the prophecy that a twelve-man mission would depart the following spring, the spring of 1839. And it happens that on 26 April 1839 the Quorum of the Twelve did in fact depart on a mission of England [beginning from the place and time specified]. Had Patten been alive at the time, he would have been part of that mission. Thus, your rhetorical question, "Why would God describe the specifics of a mission that would never take place?" is moot, since the mission did in fact take place. Therefore it was entirely appropriate for Patten to prepare for it. The mission went ahead, with another in Elder Patten's place.
In a google message group, LDS apologist, D. Charles Pyle offered another interesting insight into the topic of David Patten and D&C 114:
But, there is more to the story that meets the eye! There was a time that Patten expressed the wish that he be a martyr! What were the circumstances of this event? What was his reaction to the news that he was called to serve a mission? What did he do at his death bed when the brethren tried to heal him and keep him alive? Could this also have been a reason that he did not fulfill his responsibility and serve that mission? Read on and find your answer, dear reader.
Lycurgus A. Wilson, who used primary sources written by those who knew Patten and were there to witness the events of Patten's life, wrote of the circumstances of the receipt of the Doctrine and Covenants revelation now under scrutiny:
The spirit of the apostasy soon spreading into Missouri, it was found necessary to displace the three Presidents, David Whitmer, John Whitmer and W. W. Phelps. In consequence, Thomas B. Marsh and David W. Patten were, on February 10th,
sustained as temporary Presidents of the Church in Missouri, pending the arrival of the Prophet Joseph Smith from Kirtland. At the coming of the Prophet, March 14th, 1838, a
conference was called, at which three weeks later, Thomas B. Marsh was chosen President in Missouri, and David W. Patten and Brigham Young his assistants.
The spirit of the apostasy soon spreading into Missouri, it was found necessary to displace the three Presidents, David Whitmer, John Whitmer and W. W. Phelps. In consequence, Thomas B. Marsh and David W. Patten were, on February 10th,
sustained as temporary Presidents of the Church in Missouri, pending the arrival of the Prophet Joseph Smith from Kirtland. At the coming of the Prophet, March 14th, 1838, a
conference was called, at which three weeks later, Thomas B. Marsh was chosen President in Missouri, and David W. Patten and Brigham Young his assistants.
Shortly after, on April 17, 1838, the following revelation was received through the Prophet Joseph Smith:
1. Verily thus said the Lord, it is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his
merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even Twelve, including himself, to testify of my name, and bear glad tidings unto
the world.
merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even Twelve, including himself, to testify of my name, and bear glad tidings unto
the world.
2. For verily thus saith the Lord, that inasmuch as there are those among you who deny my name, others shall be planted in their stead, and receive bishopric. Amen. - Doc
and Cov. Sec. 114.
and Cov. Sec. 114.
It was probably this revelation that occasioned a conversation between the Prophet and David, reported by Wilford Woodruff.
David made known to the Prophet that he had asked the Lord to let him die the death of a martyr, at which the Prophet, greatly moved, expressed extreme sorrow, "for," said he to David, "when a man of your faith asks the Lord for anything, he generally gets it." (Life of David W. Patten, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1900), 57-58
. .. What finally happened that caused the conditions behind the revelation not to be met? Heber C. Kimball recalls:
We felt so very much attached to our beloved Brother, that we beseeched the Lord to spare his life and endeavored to exercise faith in the Lord for his recovery. Of this he was perfectly aware, and expressed a desire, that we should let him go, as his "desire was to be with Christ which was far better." A few minutes before he died he prayed as follows: "Father I ask thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, that thou wouldst release my spirit and receive it unto thyself: and then said to those who surrounded his dying bed, "Brethren, you have held me by your faith, but do give me up and let me go I beseech you. We then committed him to God, and he soon breathed his last, and slept in Jesus without a groan. (Kimball, Heber C., Journal of Heber C. Kimball. Compiled by R. B. Thompson. As cited from Infobase Library '98)
In an article entitled, “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy,” LDS scholar John A. Tvedtnes offered the following cogent comments about D&C 114 and how it relates to similar texts in the Bible:
Let’s examine one of Joseph Smith’s revelations often listed as a “false prophecy” by critics. In D&C 114, David W. Patten was commanded to “settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can” and prepare to leave on mission the next spring with the rest of the Twelve Apostles (cf. D&C 118:5-6). Due to circumstances beyond his control (i.e., mob attacks), Patten did not settle his business “as soon as he can,” as the Lord commanded and died before he could go on the mission the Lord had for him. Some have objected that, since God is all-knowing, he would have been aware that Patten would die, so why give such a commandment. In response, we ask, Didn’t God know that Nineveh would repent upon hearing Jonah’s message (Jonah 3:5)? Why, then, did he tell Jonah to prophesy doom to the inhabitants of the city (Jonah 3:4)? And didn’t God know that Hezekiah would live another fifteen years? So why give two conflicting prophecies through the prophet Isaiah (2 Kings 20:1-6)? Didn’t God know that Pharaoh would reject Moses’ words? Then why bother to send the prophet to the Egyptian king to ask that he let Israel go free?
But there is more to the David Patten story than meets the eye. Latter-day Saints believe that when a commandment is given to a man because of the office he holds, the commandment can apply to his successor. Thus, while David W. Patten did not fill the mission to England, the new apostles called to fill vacancies in the quorum did. There are biblical precedents for this. For example, the Lord commanded Elijah to anoint Hazael king of Assyria and Jehu king of Israel and Elisha as prophet in his stead (1 Kings 19:15-16). Elijah did, indeed, call Elisha (1 Kings 19:19-21). But it was Elisha, after Elijah was taken to heaven, who sent one of the prophets to anoint Jehu (2 Kings 9:1-10), and Elisha himself announced to Hazael that he would be king (2 Kings 8:7-13). In other words, Elijah did not accomplish two of the three tasks assigned to him by God. Does this make him a false prophet? In the LDS view, he did the right thing by designating his successor, who followed through on unfinished business. In the same manner, some of the things the Lord commanded the early Latter-day Saints to accomplish (such as to settle in Zion, Missouri) will be fulfilled by their descendants and successors. Likewise, the blessings pronounced on each of the tribes of Israel by Jacob (Genesis 48-49) and Moses (Deuteronomy 33) are to be understood as blessings for their future generations, not only for the men to whom the words were addressed.
We must also note that sometimes God’s commandments are designed as tests of obedience. For example, he didn’t really want Abraham to kill his son, Isaac, though this is what he told him to do (Genesis 22). The same is true of the Lord’s commandment to send an armed group (“Zion’s Camp”) to redeem the land of Zion in Missouri (D&C 101, 103, 105).
Conclusion
As we have seen in this paper, James Walker’s arguments against Joseph Smith are based on (1) poor exegetical skills; (2) poor grasp of LDS sources; (3) poor grasp of LDS history; (4) illogical and inconsistent reasoning and (5) no meaningful interaction with LDS apologetics and scholarship. The article, as with the rest of Walker’s offerings on “Mormonism” (as well as in favour of his flavour of Protestantism) is, simply put, a joke, historically, theologically, and exegetically.
Additionally, we have seen that the two main examples of allegedly false prophecies of Joseph Smith (1) are not even prophecies to begin with and (2) are not problematic to the prophetic claims of Joseph Smith and (3) if Walker et al. were to be consistent, they would have to reject biblical prophets (and even Yahweh!) as false prophets. While I disagree with him, Reformed apologist James White is correct when he often says to Muslim opponents, “Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument.”
For those who wish to research the topic of Joseph Smith's prophecies (something Walker clearly did not do in any meaningful way), here is some recommended resources:
Stephen O. Smoot, “Joel Kramer vs. the Bible and Joseph Smith” (a review of Joseph Smith vs. the Bible which I helped research)
John A. Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophecies and Prophecy”
Idem. “A Reply to Dick Baer” (challenges a list of 52 purportedly false prophecies of Joseph Smith)
The FairMormon Wiki page, “Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies”
Jeff Lindsay, “The Mormon Concept of Modern Prophets: Mormon Answers to Common Questions”
Kevin Christensen, "Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets"
Richard L. Pratt (non-LDS [Presbyterian] scholar), "Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions"
Resources on Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith
The above resources do offer a number of fulfilled prophecies of Joseph Smith, but for articles and books with a focus on providing such, I would recommend the following:
Articles:
Jeff Lindsay, “Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith”
Gilbert Schaffs, “Samples of Prophecies of Joseph Smith that have been fulfilled” (this is appendix C of The Truth about the Godmakers)
Kerry A. Shirts, "A War on the Civil War Prophecy"
Idem. "Joseph Smith's Last Prophecy Literally Fulfilled"
Books:
Pat Ament, Joseph Smith’s Prophetic Gifts
Duane Crowther, The Prophecies of Joseph Smith
Daniel C. Peterson, The Last Days (2 vol.) (doesn't deal exclusively with Joseph Smith's prophetic utterances, but is still a good resource)
Another important article would be George Cobabe's debunking of the "White Horse Prophecy" (BTW--Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster are writing a book on this issue, so that would be something to look out for, too; in the interim, see their presentation on this issue here)