Joseph Smith’s Failed Prophecy About David Patten

In Doctrine and Covenants 114:1, dated April 17, 1838, Joseph Smith records the following revelation from God:

“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.”

Notice that this verse is structured as a divine command issued in the spring of 1838, instructing Patten to prepare for a mission with the quorum of the Twelve Apostles in spring 1839.

But the prophecy failed. On October 25, 1838, just six months after this revelation, Patten was killed in the Battle of Crooked River during the Missouri Mormon War. He never went on the mission. He never saw the next spring. There was no company of twelve including himself.

The biblical standard for prophecy is not at all lenient on this. Deuteronomy 18:22 states:

“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.“

This isn’t just some helpful guideline; it’s a divine litmus test. The moment a “thus saith the Lord” statement fails to come true on an unconditional prophecy, the prophet fails the test.

So what’s the difference between an unconditional prophecy and a conditional one?

A conditional prophecy depends on human response—repentance, obedience, or rebellion can change the outcome. Example: Jonah 3:4. Jonah warns Nineveh of destruction in 40 days, but when they repent, God spares them (Jonah 3:10). The warning was real, but conditional.

An unconditional prophecy will happen no matter what. Example: Micah 5:2 predicts the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. There’s no condition—just a straight declaration, fulfilled in Jesus’ birth (Matt. 2:1).

Conditional prophecies give space for mercy. Unconditional ones are fixed. Knowing the difference helps test whether a prophecy that fails really had any wiggle room.

The prophecy about David Patten in D&C 114:1 is unconditional because it contains no stated or implied condition. It doesn’t say, “if he lives” or “if circumstances allow.” Instead, it gives a direct command from God: Patten is to settle his affairs so that he “may perform a mission… next spring… even twelve including himself.”

The instruction in D&C 114:1 is not open-ended or ambiguous. It includes:

• A clear timeframe: “next spring” (i.e., spring 1839)
• A specific action: Patten is to “perform a mission”
• A defined group: “twelve including himself”

These details make the prophecy verifiable and unconditional—there are no stated “ifs” or conditions that would change the outcome.

So how do Mormon apologists respond?

1. “It wasn’t a prophecy—just a mission call.”

This is the most common dodge, including on the FAIR Mormon website. They argue that D&C 114 is not predictive prophecy, just a conditional instruction. Basically just Patten being told he’s called by God. But the text says otherwise. It doesn’t say, “If he lives, he may go.” It says:

“…that he may perform a mission unto me next spring…”

The “that he may” construction in early 19th-century usage (and in King James-style English) introduces a purpose clause, not mere possibility. Compare John 20:31—“These are written, that ye might believe…”—not suggesting mere potential, but rather intention and expected outcome. D&C 114 reads the same: Patten is to settle his affairs so that he can go. This is a stated divine objective.

And contextually, it gets worse. Three months later, on July 8, 1838, Joseph received another revelation—Doctrine and Covenants 118. This one reaffirmed the apostolic mission plan, commanding:

“And next spring let them depart to go over the great waters… Let them take leave of my saints in the city of Far West, on the twenty-sixth day of April next, on the building-spot of my house, saith the Lord.” (D&C 118:4–5)

The “them” here refers to the full quorum of twelve—Patten included at the time. Only the four newly called apostles (Taylor, Page, Woodruff, Richards) are named in the text. The rest, including Patten, were still part of the quorum. Patten’s name is absent not because he was excluded, but because he was already part of the quorum being instructed to go. This adds a second prophetic layer, reiterating the timeline and location—and again, Patten did not and could not fulfill it.

2. “But D&C 124:49 gives a divine exception.”

Here’s the verse, recorded in 1841—two years after Patten’s death:

“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 their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more… but to accept of their offerings.”

This is essentially a retroactive waiver. And it’s invoked to explain away any failed command by claiming, “Well, enemies interfered.” But this completely undermines the biblical test. If a prophet can’t ever be wrong because you can always blame external interference, then the prophecy becomes unfalsifiable by definition. Every failure becomes a non-failure—until Deuteronomy 18 becomes meaningless.

And it doesn’t even fit here. The D&C 114 prophecy is given in April. D&C 118 follows in July. Patten dies in October. The only “interference” is the natural result of him dying in a violent conflict, which an omniscient God could foresee. If Patten’s death was inevitable and divinely known, promising him a mission the following spring is irresponsible at best, deceptive at worst.

3. “Jesus promised Judas a throne and that didn’t happen either.”

This argument cites Matthew 19:28:

“Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Critics argue that Judas was included in that promise, and since Judas fell, the promise failed—yet no one calls Jesus a false prophet. FAIR is resorting to tu quo que.

But this is really weak. The promise is eschatological—it concerns the final judgment, not a scheduled event in time like Patten’s mission. More importantly, the early church understood Judas’ office as vacated and filled by Matthias (Acts 1:26). The number twelve was preserved. The prophecy wasn’t falsified—it was reassigned, consistent with Jesus’ intent.

By contrast, Patten’s absence breaks the numeric condition of “twelve including himself.” There’s no room for reassignment. It’s falsified as stated.

4. “He Fulfilled the Mission in the Spirit World”

Some Latter-day Saints, realizing David Patten didn’t live to go on the mission Joseph Smith prophesied, claim he must have fulfilled it in the spirit world—as a post-mortem missionary. This idea shows up in early Mormon commentary, like B.H. Roberts, who speculated that Patten “was called to a greater mission on the other side.”

But this is clearly an ad hoc rationalization. The original prophecy in D&C 114:1 says Patten should “settle up all his business” and “make a disposition of his merchandise” so that he can perform a mission next spring “in company with others, even twelve including himself.” The context is entirely earthly and logistical—business affairs, travel plans, a calendar date, and a group of men departing together. That has nothing to do with spirit-world assignments.

Besides, if God intended Patten to be a spirit missionary, why tell him to pack his physical bags? Why not tell him “for ye shall truly die, but fear not, for thou shall be my spirit-world missionary?”

More to the point, this tactic nullifies the test of prophecy entirely. If a prophecy fails in real life, but apologists can just say “he did it spiritually,” then any prophetic error can be redefined as a success—just invisible. If you’re going to resort to invisible explanations, you had better have some very strong exegetical reasons for doing so.

Note how this explanation—again, common among early LDS leaders like B.H. Roberts—actually contradicts FAIR’s modern claim that D&C 114 wasn’t a prophecy at all, showing that even early Mormons assumed it was prophetic and needed to be salvaged by shifting its fulfillment to the afterlife.

5. “Patten fell from grace”

Some Latter-day Saints have floated the idea that David Patten may have somehow fallen from his calling—that God intended for him to serve the mission, but Patten disqualified himself through sin or unfaithfulness. This explanation fails on two fronts.

First, God’s foreknowledge rules it out. If Patten was going to apostatize or die before the mission, an all-knowing God would not have spoken as if the mission was still on schedule. The prophecy assumes continuity, not failure.

Second, there’s zero evidence that Patten ever wavered in his faith. Quite the opposite. After his death, Joseph Smith himself 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)

In other words, no apostasy, no disqualification—just a failed prophecy.

The logic here is straightforward:

• Premise 1: According to Deuteronomy 18:22, if a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the prophecy does not come to pass, that prophet has spoken presumptuously and is not from God.
• Premise 2: Joseph Smith prophesied, in the name of the Lord, that David Patten would go on a mission in spring 1839 as one of twelve apostles (D&C 114:1).
• Premise 3: David Patten died in October 1838 and did not go on that mission.
• Conclusion: Therefore, Joseph Smith’s prophecy did not come to pass, and by biblical standards, he spoke presumptuously and is a false prophet.

All the attempts by Mormon apologists to explain away the failed prophecy—whether by redefining it as a mere calling, appealing to posthumous spirit missions, or blaming outside interference—fall flat. Again, the revelation was time-bound, specific, and unconditional. By the Bible’s own standard, it didn’t come true—and that means Joseph Smith spoke falsely in the name of the Lord.