Question: How can a Latter-day Saint reconcile alleged failed prophecies made by prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: How can a Latter-day Saint reconcile alleged failed prophecies made by prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Introduction to Question

Many critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints assert that its past presidents (men that Latter-day Saints consider prophets) have made failed prophecies and that this either proves or provides evidence for the claim that they aren't true prophets receiving revelation from God.

Critics from other sects of Christianity in particular cite Deuteronomy 18:20–22 as proof of a scriptural requirement that we reject someone's claims to prophethood if they make a false prophecy. That scripture states:

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come 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.

Other articles on the FAIR wiki discuss how to reconcile failed prophecies from patriarchal blessings.

A set of article on the FAIR wiki discuss claims of Joseph Smith making false prophecies.

Yet another article talks about how to reconcile failed personal spiritual impressions.

This article will outline principles and procedures that a faithful Latter-day Saint can remember and follow when encountering claims of false prophecies made by past presidents of the Church. This article draws on the work of Matthew Roper and John Tvedtnes in formulating said principles and procedures. We strongly encourage reading the cited piece. It is thorough, enlightening commentary on this issue.

These principles can be used to evaluate the prophecies of both modern and ancient prophets. We hope that this article will be helpful for all claims of false prophecies.

Response to Question

1. The Three Models of Prophecy: Film Reel, Weather Forecast, and Plan

Some religious people have a film reel model of prophecy. This is where the future is already planned out and God, like an old-timey projectionist, can unfurl the reel and see what happens further on in the movie of life, come back to the present, and reveal that will to his children. Key to this model of prophecy is that the events revealed in prophecy will certainly happen.

Others have more of a weather forecast model of prophecy. This is a model where God makes the best prediction of the future based off of present circumstances. If present circumstances change, then the prophecy does not have to reach fulfillment. God’s formula in scripture seems to be one set up on conditional statements. For instance, God can state that if A, B, C, and D happen then E will happen. Who knows how A, B, C, and D, as the pre-requisite conditions for E to happen, might not obtain? We may make choices right now that change the outcome of the prophecy. Key to this model is that the events revealed in prophecy will probably happen.

Yet others have what might be termed a plan model of prophecy. This belief refers to those that view prophecies as God revealing his plans for the future given certain prerequisite conditions being met. If those conditions are not met, then God does not enact his plan. Key to this model of prophecy is that the events revealed and described in prophecy will contingently happen.

It's important to keep these models in mind. Those who hold to a more film reel model will have difficulty reconciling much of the seemingly "failed prophecies" of prophets. Those who hold to plan or weather forecast models will have an easier time. These models aren't all mutually exclusive. One can be a plan theorist about certain prophecies and weather forecast about others. Which model one holds to is basically contingent about what one believes about God's foreknowledge of the future.

2. God's Foreknowledge May Not be Absolute

A more speculative option (and one that is likely to be much more objectionable for some) but still possible is that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. The Church does not take an official position as to how members view God's foreknowledge. They can choose to believe that God has knowledge of all things that will actually happen in the future or that he only has knowledge of a certain amount or degree of future events.

3. Commentary on Deuteronomy 18

If the critics used their own standards, then they'd condemn the Bible as inauthentic.

John Tvedtnes wrote:

Based on the false premise that “all you need is one false prophecy to have a false prophet,” some critics have ignored many of Joseph Smith’s prophecies and have zeroed in on ones they consider to be false. But they typically identify unfulfilled commandments, opinions, and counsel as “false prophecies.” In doing so, they forsake the rules laid out in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, ignoring the fact that the passage defines a false prophecy as one uttered in the name of the Lord which does not come to pass.

The main problem is that the critics do not apply these same standards to biblical prophecies. And when we try to show that, by these standards, many of the biblical prophets fail the tests they have set up for Joseph Smith, we are accused of “Bible-slamming.” To those who ascribe more divinity to the Bible than to God, such a “sin” is worse than blasphemy itself. Honesty, however, impels us to submit the biblical prophets to the same tests as those applied to Joseph Smith.

For this reason, following the logic of the critics, we would have to conclude that Moses-to whom the revelation in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 is ascribed-was a false prophet. In Numbers 25:13, he said, in the name of the Lord, that Phinehas, his grand nephew, would hold the priesthood eternally. But if Hebrews 7:11-12 is correct, the Aaronic priesthood is not eternal. In this particular example, Moses fills the requirement for the test of Deuteronomy much more closely than does Joseph Smith in most of the examples of “false prophecies” cited by the critics. How, then, can Latter-day Saints accept both Joseph Smith and Moses as true prophets, regarding their prophecies as divinely-inspired? The answer lies in the fact that prophecy is typically conditional.

4. Ensure that the account of the prophecy does not misrepresent or misinterpret what the prophet actually said.

There are several things you can do to not misrepresent or misinterpret what a prophet actually said.

1. Check sources: One of the most obvious things you can do is revisit the source of the prophecy to see if there is any context you may be missing for your interpretation.
2. Check interpretation: Another thing you can do is check for alternative interpretations of the source. See if there are other Latter-day Saint or Christian authors who have examined the prophecy in question (whether in the scriptures or not) and see what they have said about it. Have they offered alternative interpretations? Is there only one possible interpretation that is compelled by the source or are there multiple possible interpretations, each of which may have its own possibility of being correct?
3. Vision or prophecy: John Tvedtnes insightfully wrote that "Visions are often highly symbolic and hence require interpretation. They cannot, therefore, necessarily be taken as “prophecy” in the sense of predictions of precise future events. As an example, we may consider Joseph Smith’s vision of the celestial kingdom (History of the Church 2:380-381). It has been highly criticized because in it he saw the twelve apostles of his day in the celestial kingdom. Of the twelve, however, five were excommunicated and never returned to the Church. This, the critics say, is evidence of a false prophecy. More likely, it is an indication of what the Lord intended for them, had they all remained faithful. If Joseph Smith is to be condemned as a false prophet on the basis of this vision, then we must condemn Jesus as a false prophet for similar reasons. Christ promised his twelve apostles that, when he returned to reign in glory, they would sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). And yet Judas, who was one of the twelve at the time, later fell away and, losing his place as an apostle, was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:15-26).12 If we take Jesus’ words literally, then either Judas will receive the reward (which makes the account in Acts wrong), or Jesus lied. On the other hand, if we do not hold Jesus to every word, should we not extend the same courtesy to Joseph Smith who, after all, was far less perfect than the Savior?"
4. Check to see if the prophecy can be fulfilled in multiple ways: One of the best tools a Latter-day Saint can use to defend a particular prophecy is to see if it can be fulfilled in multiple different ways. One of the main differences that Latter-day Saints hold with Jews is that Latter-day Saints (and other Christians) believe in the concept of dual fulfillment. That is: prophecies can be fulfilled in multiple ways. Check to see if that's the case with past prophecies.
5. Check to see if there is a set timeframe for fulfillment of the prophecy: Often, prophecies do not have a set timeframe for when they will be fulfilled. Sometimes they use language that's equivocal. For instance, prophecies may state that God will "soon" act in a certain way in the world. But, as many know, our "soon" and God's "soon" may not be the same "soon". Be sure to not impose your own view of timeframe onto God's. If there isn't a specified timeframe, then a resolution may be to simply be patient until the fulfillment of that prophecy comes. John Tvedtnes lays out much more detailed commentary on this in his article on the issue.
6. Prophetic language: Tvedtnes wrote that "[w]hen it comes to written revelations, the question of language becomes paramount. Was the revelation taken from the Lord’s dictation by the prophet? Or does it reflect the prophet’s language, reflecting the truths revealed to him by God? One could argue either case without clear resolution. But Latter-day Saints realize that the Lord “speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3; see also D&C 1:24). Thus, each prophet of the Old Testament wrote in his own dialect. Some of the later ones even used Aramaic or Persian words then being borrowed by the Hebrew language."

5. Ensure that the account of the prophecy is authentic and is not based on hearsay

John Tvedtnes wrote:

This brings us to the fact that some critics quote secondary sources to illustrate “false prophecies” uttered by Joseph Smith. By their very definition, such sources cannot be considered totally accurate in their representation of the prophet’s words. One of the critics became rather selective in his use of secondary sources. Whenever the “prophecy” (some of them weren’t prophecies), in his judgment, failed, he was quick to pronounce the secondary source “authentic” or “reliable.” But when it was fulfilled, he denounced it as coming from a secondary source and therefore unreliable. He even went so far as to term one failed prophecy as “reliable” because its source was “Mormon,” while denouncing another fulfilled prophecy on the very same grounds.

For my part, I use all secondary sources with caution. They may give insights, but they cannot be considered with the same weight as known statements of Joseph Smith. This is true of journal accounts as well, for the reason that they are generally written after the fact (often at the end of the day) and are usually not reviewed by the person who made the statement.

Here is an example of how journals are sometimes misused: One critic quoted a revelation of Joseph Smith as found in Parley P. Pratt’s Autobiography (page 100), reading “surely Zion cannot fail, neither be moved out of her place.” Elder Pratt, however, gave an abbreviated version of the revelation, which is found in D&C 97:19-20. In the original, we find that the words in question are what “the nations of the Gentiles shall say” of Zion at some point in the future. The secondary version was evidently used because it is more susceptible to interpretation as a “false prophecy.”

Other problems arise when the critics cite a known forgery or a “false prophecy” by Joseph Smith whose only source is another anti-Mormon publication. Of a particular document, one critic wrote, “I believe this might be the most clear cut prophecy Joseph Smith ever gave.” The document in question is a forgery prepared by Mark Hofmann.

Finally, we consider a statement attributed to Joseph Smith that may prove to be the one most frequently cited by modern critics. An article in The Young Woman’s Journal 3 (1892), 263-264, indicates that Joseph Smith, as early as 1837, had declared that there six-foot people living on the moon, who dressed like Quakers and lived nearly a thousand years. Because of its absurdity, some critics have included the article in their list of Joseph Smith’s “false prophecies,” though it is by no means prophetic in nature and despite the fact that the article does not attribute the belief to divine revelation. (Joseph may have been joking.) The statement regarding people on the moon is both second-hand and very late, and there are no known statements from Joseph Smith himself. The source is the Oliver B. Huntington Journal, Book 14, and is from a journal entry dated 1881, nearly forty years after Joseph Smith’s death! It is hardly a reliable source.

Nevertheless, Joseph Smith may have believed, as did Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 13:217), that the moon is inhabited. After all, it had been reported in the press in 1835 that Sir John Herschel, the most prominent astronomer of the day, had seen creatures on the moon who were human in form with bat-wings and wearing no clothing. During the century before, others had reported seeing moon people who were half-human and half-dog. Amazingly, a few astronomers even reported seeing people living on the sun! As it turned out, the Herschel story was a journalistic hoax, designed to increase circulation.14 But large numbers of people believed it, and it continues to appear occasionally in twentieth-century publications. Could we really fault Joseph for accepting as fact (if he did so) something that he thought prominent scientists of his day accepted? After all, he did not claim to have any divine source for this information.

One critic asked, “Do you really want to risk your eternal salvation on men who make statements like these?” To this, I reply, Can we risk our eternal salvation on the Bible, which reports that the sun and the moon stood still for Joshua (Joshua 10:12-14), when we know that this-like Quakers living on the moon-is a scientific impossibility? One might object that what the Bible describes is the standing still of the earth, rather than of the heavenly bodies (which is precisely the way the Book of Mormon puts it in Helaman 12:13-15). But the point is that the author of Joshua held an incorrect belief concerning the movement of celestial bodies, even if that does not invalidate the basic story he tells. So, too, Joseph Smith (and others) could have held false views concerning these same celestial bodies and yet told the truth about the revelations he received from God.

6. Verify that the source claims that the prophecy came by revelation from God

John Tvedtnes wrote:

Under date of February 8, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote, “[I] visited with a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that >a prophet is always a prophet;’ but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such” (History of the Church 5:265). Prophets are, after all, human beings. The fact that they speak for God on occasion does not remove their free agency. Like all of us, prophets have opinions. Sometimes, these opinions are clearly set off, as Paul did in his first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:10, 12, 25, 40). Joseph Smith occasionally used wording such as “this is my counsel” (History of the Church 1:455) or “I therefore warn” ( Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844). Elder Charles W. Penrose, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and later a counselor in the First Presidency, wrote, “At the head of this Church stands a man who is a Prophet…we respect and venerate him; but we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God.” More recently, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)

Similar thoughts were expressed by President Harold B. Lee in a European area conference:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

In January 1970, six months after the first Apollo moon landing, Joseph Fielding Smith became President of the Church. Some anti-Mormon groups took delight in pointing out that he had, during his tenure as an Apostle, declared that it was “doubtful that man will ever be permitted to make any instrument or ship to travel through space and visit the moon or any distant planet.” What these same critics failed to point out was that President Smith never attributed his belief to a revelation from God. Indeed, many of his generation held the same opinion, and all were surprised-but delighted-when proven wrong. Incorrect opinions do not make false prophets. Some of the Bible’s foremost prophets, such as Moses and Jeremiah, objected that their lack of eloquence made them unsuited to fill the role the Lord had cut out for them. God overruled these opinions and sent them on their way.

One opinion held by Joseph Smith, frequently cited by critics, is that the Lord would come in 1890 (e.g., History of the Church 2:182). That this was, in fact, his feeling, is clearly indicated by the number of references he made to it. Joseph’s statements on this subject were made in reaction to Adventist prophecies that Christ would come in the 1840s (History of the Church 5:272, 290-291, 326, 337). Joseph reported that he had once prayed to know the time of the Lord’s coming, and had been told, “My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man.” But Joseph was careful to add, “I was left to draw my own conclusions concerning this; and I took the liberty to conclude that if I did live to that time, He would make His appearance. But I do not say whether He will make His appearance or I shall go where He is” (History of the Church 5:324, 337; D&C 130:14-17).

Since Joseph did not live to the age of 85, the “if” portion of the Lord’s statement to him clearly shows that it was conditional. Moreover, Joseph was not told that the Lord would return in glory in 1890, only that he would see him at that time if he was yet alive. In other words, the Lord did not answer Joseph’s question directly, for the very reason that no one knows the time of his coming–not even Joseph Smith or the angels of heaven (Matthew 24:36).

One might enquire about the likelihood that the Lord would “trick” Joseph Smith thus, making him think that he would see the Lord in 1890 when, in fact, the Lord knew Joseph would die in 1844. The question is mooted by a similar situation in the Bible. Isaiah came to King Ahaz in the name of the Lord and told him that Ephraim (head of the northern kingdom of Israel) would be broken “within threescore and five years” (Isaiah 7:8). Ahaz reigned in Judah from 734 to 728 B.C. Sixty-five years later would be 689-663 B.C. In actual fact, however, Israel was taken captive in 722 B.C., just six years after Ahaz’s death, when his son Hezekiah was king of Judah.

Joseph made an assumption based on what the Lord told him, but it was only an assumption, and it was unwarranted. But this assumption guided some of his other declarations. This does not make him a false prophet, only a mortal who–like the rest of us–often let preconceived notions govern his thoughts. He was perfectly willing (and able) to change direction when the Lord contradicted any of his preconceptions.

7. Remember that most prophecies are contingent on conditions being met—even if that contingency is not made clear by the explicit text of the prophecy

Prophecy is always conditional. Be sure to look for both stated and unstated conditions for fulfilling the prophecy and make sure the all are accounted for before concluding that a prophecy is false.

John Tvedtnes wrote:

It was the Lord himself, through the biblical prophet Jeremiah, who explained the conditional nature of prophecy:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 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. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)

Jeremiah himself exemplified the principle of conditional prophecy when he told king Zedekiah, in the name of the Lord, that he would not go captive into Babylon if he followed the prophet’s instructions; otherwise, he would be taken captive and Jerusalem would be destroyed (Jeremiah 38:17-23). The conditional nature of prophecy explains why Jonah is not a false prophet. The Lord’s threat to destroy Nineveh within forty days (Jonah 3:4) was mitigated by the repentance of the city’s population (Jonah 3:4-9). “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” (Jonah 3:10). Ironically, Jonah was upset by the fact that the prophecy was not fulfilled, and the Lord had to explain to him that the resultant repentance of “sixscore thousand persons” was more important than fulfilling the word (Jonah 4:1-11). From this story, it is obvious that the free-will actions of men play a role in the fulfillment of prophecy. Here are other examples from the Bible:

• The Lord told David that the men of Keilah “will deliver thee up [to Saul]” (1 Samuel 23:12). This did not happen, however, because David fled from the city (verses 13-14).
• Isaiah told king Hezekiah, “Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.” (2 Kings 20:1) But after the king pleaded with the Lord, the prophet delivered a new message, saying that fifteen years would be added to his life (verses 2-6).
• The Lord told Moses that he would destroy the Israelites and make of Moses a greater nation than they. When Moses protested that this would be wrong, the Lord changed his mind (Numbers 14:11-20).
• The Lord said through Elisha that the combined armies of Israel, Judah and Edom would “smite every fenced city” of Moab and that he would “deliver the Moabites also into your hand.” But one city, Kir-hareseth, was not taken. When Mesha, the Moabite king, sacrificed his son on the city wall, the Israelites left and went home. The prophecy was not fulfilled because the Israelites would not cooperate with the Lord’s wishes.
• Through Ezekiel, the Lord declared that the Lebanese city of Tyre would be destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar, never to be rebuilt (Ezekiel 26, especially verses 4, 7, 12, 14). Though Nebuchadrezzar laid siege against Tyre from 598 to 586 B.C., he was never able to take the city.
• The Lord then told Ezekiel that, in compensation for his not taking Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar would be given the land of Egypt, (Ezekiel 29:17-10). Its people would be slain and its rivers dry up (Ezekiel 30:10-12; 32:11-15) and the land of Egypt would remain uninhabited for forty years (Ezekiel 29:11-13). But though Nebuchadrezzar defeated an Egyptian army in battle, he never conquered Egypt either.
• Isaiah, in his prophesy against Babylon (Isaiah 13:1), declared that the Medes would slay men, women and children and that Babylon would “be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation” (Isaiah 13:17-20). In 539 B.C., Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, took Babylon without bloodshed, and made it one of the principal cities of his empire. Babylon remained inhabited for centuries afterward.

It is in the light of the conditional nature of prophecy that we must consider some of Joseph Smith’s prophecies. For example, the missionary calling promised Thomas B. Marsh in D&C 112 was never fulfilled because he was excommunicated and forfeited his blessings. Critics have stated that if God really knew Marsh’s heart (verse 11), he would have known that he would apostatize and not be worthy of the promised blessings. The same argument has been used in regard to George Miller’s calling to the bishopric (D&C 124:20-21), eight years before he was disfellowshipped.

By this same reasoning, God should not have promised a throne to David (1 Samuel 16:12-13; 2 Samuel 3:9-10; 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:5), since David, in future, would commit adultery and order the death of an innocent man (1 Samuel 11). This also brings up the question of Jesus’ promise to his twelve apostles: “Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28). This promise was made before Judas betrayed the Master and he was obviously included among those who would sit on the “twelve thrones.” How could Jesus have made such a promise to the one who would betray him, whom he termed “a devil” (John 6:70-71)? The answer seems obvious: at the time of the promises, Judas, Thomas B. Marsh and George Miller were faithful to the Lord. By their subsequent actions, they lost all claim to those promises.

8. Remember the commandment "shall" and the predictive "shall"

One mistake people make in interpreting prophecies is that they mistake a commandment for a prophecy. That is because both use "shall" in their wording often. There's obviously a difference between "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall be in Arizona in four months". One option to consider when confronted with a "failed prophecy" is to see if it was actually a commandment.

9. There are perhaps little to no prophecies that can be considered "unreasonable"

John Tvedtnes wrote:

Some of the critics have included “unreasonable” prophecies in their lists of false prophetic utterances by Joseph Smith. The subjective nature of such a determination makes this procedure unacceptable. What is “unreasonable” to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another. For example, the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah “contradicted” each other concerning an essential point, and yet were both right. Ezekiel had prophesied that king Zedekiah would go to Babylon but never see it (Ezekiel 12:13), while his contemporary Jeremiah prophesied that Hezekiah would be taken captive to Babylon (Jeremiah 32:5). But, in the end, both prophets proved true, for Zedekiah indeed went captive into Babylon, but did not see the city, for he had been blinded (2 Kings 25:7). Thus, we see that prophecies “impossible” of fulfillment have, in the course of time, proven true. Joseph Smith deserves at least the same kind of consideration.

Conclusion

If one keeps all of these considerations and questions in mind, one should be able to resolve every question about each prophecy.

Notes