In the book of Deuteronomy, we read:
In the towns of the latter
peoples, however, which the LORD your God is giving you as a heritage, you
shall not let a soul remain alive. No, you must proscribe them -- the Hittites
and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the
Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you, lest they lead you into
doing all the abhorrent things that they have done for their gods and you stand
guilty before the LORD your God. (Deut 20:16-18 | 1985 JPS Tanakh)
But in the book of Joshua, we read:
Apart from
the Hivites who dwelt in Gibeon, not a single city made terms
with the Israelites; all were taken in battle. (Josh 11:19 | 1985 JPS Tanakh)
This shows that appealing to Detu 18:18-20 as if it teaches there
is no contingencies to prophecies, whether explicit or implicit, and one must
have a 100% track record on their prophecies is one that Moses himself would
fail.
Critics (typically Evangelical Protestants) if they wish to be
consistent will have to admit one of the following:
Moses was a false prophet (or at least became a false prophet
later in his life, just after the revelation of Deut 18:18-20)
Or
Prophecy is always contingent, and the then-future will-will
actions of agents can interfere with the fulfillment of prophecies.
Of course, this would require intellectual honesty and, as noted, consistency. In my experience, the likes of Bowman, White, Durbin, the Tanners, etc., rarely demonstrate such.
On Joseph Smith's prophecies, both fulfilled and purportedly false, see:
