Talk:Prophecies attributed to Joseph Smith

Re-formatted "alleged failed prophesies" into table

I re-formatted the "alleged failed prophesies" list into table format, which I think reads a lot nicer. I also added date and source (D&C etc) information. I also added several alleged failed pr. to the list.

The obvious problem with this article is that the upper half of the article is "see, these prophesies came true" and the lower half is "see, these prophesies failed". Clearly, there should be a uniform presentation thru-out the article.

One approach would be to use a table for _all_ the prophesies. A new column could be added (to the new "failed prophesies" table) for "Church View" or "Apologists Interpretation". It could look like this:

Source	Date	Prophecy	Apologist's View	Critic's View
D&C 1:40	1829	This is text of some prophecy that came true, indisputably	Here is how it came true: blah, blah.	-
D&C 1:42	1829	This text of some prophesy that failed utterly	-	Here is how it failed: blah, blah.
D&C 2:33	1829	Here is some prophecy that is debatable whether it was fulfilled or not.	Here is how it succeeded	The following parts of the prophesy did not occur: blah, blah

The new table is arranged in chronological order, but I suppose it could also be arranged by source document.

If anyone has real heartburn with the new table, I wouldn't object too strongly to returning it to prose, but: 1) Please discuss here so we can discuss pros/cons and see what the best solution is; and 2) Do not delete any information that is currently in the table, especially the dates, sources, and "critics view" information.

--Noleander (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Trodel: Can you explain the concerns you have with the table? The article already had a section on "Alleged False prophesies", I just added a few more, and reformatted into a table. Was your concern the table format? Or the new additions?

I, too, want to ensure full neutrality. That is why I suggested (above on this Talk page) that we consider including positive information also in table format. However, I didnt want to go that far without consensus. Also, you say the table is "ugly" but I think it is a very concise, informative format. Users can easily compare dates and source documents, etc. --Noleander (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here is a table that I think is very well done: Book of Mormon#Editions ... it is that kind of simple, informative layout that I was shooting for. I apologize if it looked POV. My long-term goal was simply to make the article more useful to the encyclopedia users. Do you think the Book of Mormon#Editions table is ugly?

For example, lets say there are 40 prophecies that came true: wouldn't it be helpful for users to see them listed chronological in a table, with Date and Source columns? --Noleander (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Trodel: another question: Several prophecies are duplicated in both the upper section and the lower "failed" section. I think the encyclopedia would be better if there was no duplication, do you agree? One of my goals with the table was to move towards eliminating those duplications. See the example table above here on the Talk page, it has columns for comments about the prophecies. What do you think of using the table to eliminate duplication? --Noleander (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I took another look at the table in the article, and I do see one downside: it is rather long (vertically). Not only is it hard on the eyes, but the reader loses the column-headings after scrolling down. So, yes, in that sense it is ugly. How about this proposal:

• We break the table into several smaller tables by, say, year, or source document. For example, one table for 1832, one for 1833, etc.
• We put all prophesies into these tables, sorted by date
• There is no distinction between "see, this prophecy came true" and "see, this one failed" prophecies ... they are all uniformly presented.
• The table(s) have the following columns: Date; source document; summary of prophecy; and Notes.
• The "Notes" column would contain any discussion of whether the prophecy came true or not ... but _only_ if the prophecy were not clear to the casual reader (in other words, a reader wouldnt know who Granger is, so that one would need a comment). Likewise, any key apologetic material could be in the Notes column (e.g. "LDS theology holds that after death blah blah... ") to help users understand the context. Also, if some people consider that the item is not a prophecy, that would be in the Notes column.
• The table would replace the existing prose.
• Each table would be in its own subsection, so the years would appear in the article's table-of-contents.

Does that sound like a good idea? --Noleander (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is what that proposal would look like:

Prophecies from 1829

Source	Date	Prophecy	Notes
D&C 1:40	Aug 12, 1829	This is text of some prophecy that came true	Here are details that show why it came true (only if not obvious)
D&C 2:30	Nov 12, 1829	This is text of some prophecy is obvious to the layperson reader	[no notes necessary]

Prophecies from 1830

Source	Date	Prophecy	Notes
D&C 1:42	Feb 4, 1830	This text of some prophesy that failed	Here are some details explaining why it failed (only if not obvious).
D&C 2:33	March 3, 1830	Here is another prophecy, but its wording or source makes it debatable whether or not it is a genuine prophecy	Here is an explanation why some feel this item is not a prophecy

Is new format better

Trodel: I used the new table format in the "controversial" prophesy section at the bottom of the article. What do you think? If you really hate it, Im not opposed to going back to prose, but - please - leave the new text/footnotes/dates intact ... I put a lot of work into establishing the links, etc. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Razarax: I support the new format as long as nothing was removed. The prose looks as if it contains much more information than the table. If info was removed, I say keep the prose. If all the info was kept and just put into the tables, then I support the tables.

Remaining task: find dates for about a dozen prophecies

I've got all the prophecies in the new, readable table format. I also consolidated all the prophecies into one uniform presentation, so they are no longer divided into two groups (apologetic and critical).

The only remaining task is to find dates for about a dozen prophecies that have unknown dates. If anyone could help with that, I'd appreciate it. --Noleander (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright buyer?

I was looking at the table of prophesies, but this one confused me:

Prophecy	Source	Date	Notes
Copyright sale - Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery were to find a copyright buyer in Canada.	Pearl of Great Price, JS-History 1:40	1829/1830 Winter	They never found a buyer.<ref>Abanes, p 461</ref>

Notice the source says "Pearl of Great Price, JS-History 1:40". The full text of JSH 1:40:

In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when “they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,” but soon would come.

Where does that say anything about finding a copyright buyer in Canada (and what copyright are we talking about anyway?)? What am I missing? A quote from Abanes book for this section would help, if he's the one making the claim. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I was the editor that put that in. I have a copy of Abanes book, let me look it up and see if I can clarify. If it is inaccurate, I'll delete it from this article. --Noleander (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what happened. I typed-in the wrong citation. The "copyright buyer" prophecy is not from PGP, it is from "A Comprehensive History of the Church" by B.H. Roberts (1930) vol 1, p 165. The PGP 1:40 is another allegedly false prophecy, since Isiah says that Jesus will come, and the "about to be fulfilled" line implies that it should have happened sometime in the 1800's. I'll fix that mistake. --Noleander (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fecklefoot: By the way, thanks for catching that. --Noleander (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, but I'm not sure if I agree with JSH 1:40 is another false (unfulfilled) prophecy since "about to be fulfilled" could mean any amount of time, from 1 hour to a couple hundred years. It all depends on context. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

One fundamental problem with starting with this entire article is that Joseph Smith once said that a prophet should only be considered a prophet when he says "Thus saith the Lord." The same thing applies to his prophecies. Many of these so-called prophecies fall into the category of predictions, not prophecies. This is a fundamental distinction that leads to premise fallacy that needs to be addressed in this entire article. Critics will say that it is a self-serving distinction on the part of believers, but it is, nonetheless, a distinction clearly made by Smith himself, and therefore renders the entire article subject to serious WP:NPOV issues if not addressed. Davidwhittle (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just came across this and thought it should be clarified that your quote is inaccurate. Joseph Smith never said "a prophet should only be considered a prophet when he says 'Thus saith the Lord.'" The quote found at President of the Church quotes Joseph Smith as saying "a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such." --John G. Miles (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due: Some of these are Malachi's prophecies, not Smith's

I deleted the former first prophecy, about Elijah coming, because it is a biblical prophecy, not a prophecy of Joseph Smith. It's straight from the book of Malachi, and Smith shouldn't get credit for Malachi's prophecy. Besides, the first documented evidence that the angel Moroni referred to Elijah during Smith's second vision was in 1838. But this was already two years after Smith said that Elijah had come to the Kirtland Temple in 1836. So even if it were Smith's own prophecy, it wasn't recorded until after the prophesied event already happened. Given these problems (mainly the fact that it wasn't a Smith prophecy at all), I deleted it. COGDEN 20:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the second prophecy, the "Jesus will come to his temple" prophecy, I think the same thing applies, and it ought to be deleted. This is another biblical prophecy made by Malachi, not a prophecy of Joseph Smith. We should not ascribe biblical prophecies to Joseph Smith merely because he repeated them. COGDEN 20:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Abanes

Does anyone have this book who can check to see if he is being used correctly, and not 'interpreted'? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I got into the book on amazon.com, I'd been locked out at amazon.co.uk. Basically the entire article was a table nicked from Abanes book, blatant copyvio. I've restored the version just before the table was created. Dougweller (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Book of Abraham?

Have to say I am very impressed with the re-writing of this article.

However why does it mention the Book of Abraham? His claimed translation is irrelevant, as it is not a "prophecy" and has nothing to do with the subject. Routerone (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice: List of prophecies is currently being re-formatted

Note: the list of prophecies in this article may have some copyright violation issues, so it has temporarily been removed (and an older, more out-of-date version of the pre-table content put in its place) to avoid legal problems. The table will be restored soon, in a format that doesn't have any copyright issues.

If you added any content into that table in the past few months, don't panic, it will most likely be restored soon. As with all copyright violation concerns, the content has also been removed from the article's history, so you won't find it there either.

Please avoid editing the "list of prophecies" text for a little while until we get this straightened out. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The copyright issue is that the "list of prophecies" content may be too similar to the list of prophecies found Richard Abanes One Nation Under Gods, which was based on Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?. Although all references to Tanners and Abanes were accompanied by footnotes, some of the text in the "Notes" column (of the table layout) paraphrased from Abanes but was not inside quotation marks (however in every case there was a citation to Abanes). Solutions could include: Changing the paraphrases into direct quotes (as in "Abanes claims that 'the prophecy did not come true' "); or removing the paraphrases altogether. The list of prophecies itself is not an issue, since that list is widely documented, and the list in this article is more comprehensive than either Tanner's list or Abanes' list. And, of course, the direct quotes from Joseph Smith or D&C are not at issue. As discussed above in this Talk page, the table layout seems to be much more useful and readable, so the goal is to retain that readability without raising any legal issues. --Noleander (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The deficiencies of the table have been overcome, and it was restored. --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have took it upon myself to remove the table format again. From what I can see, the article is far better without it. Its more comprehensive, a higher quality, more in depth and hence it is far more suitable. I have a number of the problems with that table format in itself. In the last revision of it I just removed, it seemed too critcal and too point of view pushing and thus it seemed to become an attack on the subject with "critics claim this" "critics claim that" all over it, where this version is far more neutral and comprehends more detail on the actual prophecies aswell as the corresponding Mormon point of view. The table format does indeed make it incredibly difficult to keep stable and prevent paraphrasing synthesis in the actual description of the prophecies. For the sake of this page and for the sake of preventing this page becoming (yet another) excuse just to have a go at the church and not serving its actual purpose. I'd like us to keep it on the current revision. Routerone (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss changes on the Talk page before making them. Reverting to an old version of the article loses lots of information, including several prophecies, dozens of wikilinks, and many sourced footnotes. The table format is far more informative to readers of the encyclopedia. If you think it is too critical, feel free to add (cited) information into the "Notes" column. I understand that it may appear that it contains some information such as "Critics claim ..." which may appear on the fact to be negative, but the essence of the article is to capture the controversy over the prophecies: did they come true or not? If you have additional information to add into the table, please add it, but provide sources, of course. --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's not NPOV, fix it, don't blame the format. No matter what the format, you can expect most if not all prophecies to have a critical comment, that doesn't make it not NPOV - remember non-religious people don't believe in prophecy, so they wouldn't accept any of them, and none LDS are unlikely to consider Smith a prophet. It's inherent in the article that it will be full of criticism, and I can understand that believers wouldn't like that, but that's the nature of being NPOV. The article should make it clear that LDS believers accept the prophecies (although not that all of them have come true yet if I remember the article correctly), and non-believers do not. It's valid to discuss which format makes the article easier to understand, of course. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources needed

IP: Please provide sources for material you are adding to the article. In particular, the sources should be discussing the topic in the context of the prophecies, if possible. --Noleander (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia Material?

What is the point of this article? It appears to be an attempt to evaluate the accuracy of prophetic claims made by Joseph Smith, but the title thereof is "List of Prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr." This suggests that the article will contain ALL prophecies, whether or not they can be tested, or even were intended for people of our times. (I am thinking particularly about the many prophecies unique to the Book of Mormon, some of them about people and events described in the book. Whether Book of Mormon is a true record of ancient peoples is immaterial; those prophecies were given to us through Joseph Smith.) A GENUINE list of prophecies by Joseph Smith would demonstrate the sorts of subjects in the Latter-day Saint movement that are justified in having prophecies about. That would be a very interesting article, both from a scholarly and spiritual direction.

This article is very weak; more of a scorecard, and the score is hard to tell because both sides clamor that each point belongs to them. Not just that, but so far it is based on very limited sources (particularly on the "not a prophet" team, relying almost entirely on just two sources, the Abanes and Tanner books). Suggest directing interested readers to external sources that keep score, and turn this into a larger article on prophecies in the LDS movement, and linking it with Revelation (Latter Day Saints). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.240.14 (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Serious problems with NPOV and UNBALANCED

I agree with the point made in the previous section by 75.169.240.14. I believe the article could be useful (I found it when I was searching for several prophecies by Joseph Smith), but in its current form it seems to be seriously unbalanced, especially towards the idea that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that Mormons who defend him as a prophet are ignorant about all of his unfulfilled prophecies. I have added the WP:UNBALANCED tag and will add the WP:NPOV tag until these issues are addressed - which, I should add, is a monumental challenge, given how much research, both anti-Mormon and apologetic, has been done in this area, most of which is not available online. Davidwhittle (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully--and wholeheartedly--disagree with the proposition that this article is unbalanced, per se. To argue that placing an emphasis on the widespread scepticism of Joseph Smith's claims to have been a prophet causes--in and of itself--the article to be "unbalanced" is problematic. It is tantamount to stating, for example, that giving more weight to the scientific consensus on climate change than the "sceptic" or "denier" position--for which there is little evidence--is "unbalanced" or evidence of a NNPOV. On the contrary, treating extraordinary, unvalidated claims like Joseph Smith's with equally extraordinary scepticism is arguably the most responsible manner of presenting such information in an encyclopaedic format. I agree that the topic is hotly disputed and that there could be better sourcing from claimants from both standpoints, but in the absence of such, the burden of proof ought to rest, as it does in both scientific and historical disciplines, with the party making an extraordinary claim--the default position being the conclusion that the claim is false until demonstrated convincingly otherwise. Zephyr44 (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC) EDIT: In summation, I would be in favour of removing the above tags, but retaining the "disputed topic" tag. Zephyr44 (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Davidwhittle hasn't edited this article for four months and there is no discussion here about his pov tag, so yes, it should clearly be removed. I'll do it. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Leonids Meteor Shower Prophecy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't see why the Leonids Meteor Shower Prophecy is so much more notable that it merits a stand alone article. This material could easily fit into the table in this article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. I don't see why Leonids Meteor Shower Prophecy should not be merged here. That particular prophecy is not more notable than any of the rest Smith made, IMO. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. Me too. I'd never heard of the meteor shower prophecy until the article was created. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Civil war prediction

In the "Civil War" prophecy section, the notes state - "However, the prediction that this war would "be poured out upon all nations" was not fulfilled."

However! the prediction does not state "this war", but simply "war". Clearly the prediction does not say that the civil war will spread worldwide, but that from this time, war, generally, will be a regular occurrence around the world, with this particular war marking the start of this trend. Obviously this is true, as mentioned at the start of the notes. Various wars did occur, leading up to the first and second World Wars. Note, "World Wars" - and if there is any dispute as to whether they in fact were worldwide and involved "all nations", still they are regarded as World Wars.

Therefore this prediction was fulfilled, and the statement in the notes is erroneous.

Tezzerii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezzerii (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states this? If not, it's original research. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This Article Is Completely Biased

First off, this is hardly a list of J.S. prophecies - so if we're going to have a list of prophecies Joseph Smith made, I think we need to really put that list out there. A previous poster, Davidwhittle, claimed that this article was biased in favor of critics. I absolutely disagree. And for these reasons.

So first thing: EVERY prophecy made by Joseph Smith has been countered and explained from an objective view. So why is it that hardly any of them explain this.

Second thing: The prophecies listed wherein the critics are recognized, all it says is, "Critics claim this prophecy was not fulfilled". However, this list will emphasize in great detail why believers see it as a fulfillment of prophecy.

So, it's like, Believers have all this reason to believe why it was fulfilled, here's all this info ... but critics claim this was not fulfilled ... that's all we're going to tell you on their behalf.

This article actually got me so frustrated, I opened an account and will actively help to balance this. Likewise, if you're going to list a prophecy, please - do your research equally on both sides, and make the case for BOTH apologists and critics.

DK The Mage (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"EVERY prophecy made by Joseph Smith has been countered and explained from an objective view" — what reliable source do you have for this? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Orrin Porter Rockwell

Under the prophecy Orrin Porter Rockwell protected from enemies it states that Rockwell never cut his hair for the rest of his life. But in his article, it states he finally cut his hair so a wig could be made for a balding widow. Which is it? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You were right to question this, and it has been fixed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Groovy, thanks! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Rocky Mountains prophecy

History of the Church is not the only source to this prophecy, you can also find a much earlier description of 1831 in Doctrine and Covenants. “Zion shall flourish upon the hills and rejoice upon the mountains, and shall be assembled together unto the place which I have appointed” (D&C 49:25) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.13.248 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of prophecies of Joseph Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106002805/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=8625 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=8625

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition of POV tag

I have added the "POV" tag to this article, because as it currently stands it is biased towards the Mormon view of these prophecies, with the "notes" section including extensive coverage of this view, with few including an independent or neutral perspective on the prophecy. I would also note that many are sourced to unreliable sources, such as FAIR (Mormon apologetics organization), and others are entirely unsourced.

In my opinion, this article needs extensive cleanup before this tag can be removed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely. This entire article does not read like an encyclopedia article but rather it reads as religious apologetics and borderline hagiography treatment of Smith. The reasons why the prophecies are seen as failed get very little explanation at all while the reasons the religion claims they are fulfilled get extensive and copious treatment. It is very unbalanced in the amount of explanation for each side of the debate, and as you mention many sources are from the religion itself. A thorough article would have independently vetted sources and present the actual reasons why the religious claims are not accepted vs just saying 'critics claim X or Y prophecy didn't happen but HERES A TON OF REASONS WHY IT DID!!!', such as it reads now.

It is anything but neutral. Ammonthenephite (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, although from the other side (I notice most of the counterclaims are from one guy's book). I think this article should most likely be deleted, for the reason that it is almost impossible to find reliable sources. All of the sources in this article are primary sources for their claims, not secondary sources. Brirush (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this article should most likely be deleted. The article title alone implies a definite POV and I doubt any number of qualifiers in the article body would ever make up for it. Add in how everything comes from primary sources (which are themselves POV) and I'm not sure how it could be salvaged. Not to mention how it is going to be a magnet for controversy no matter how the various claims and counterclaims are phrased and cited. Same with the List of non-canonical revelations in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but I digress. Trevdna (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss the article if it were deleted, but I do think we could salvage it if... actually, don't see a way forward. Feoffer (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I saw we had an AFD in 2023 that resulted in keep, so I've gone with my original instinct of proseifying, summarizing faithful and mainstream views. Lots of improvements to be made, but I'll take down the tags (please rv if objections) and move to a title that reflects the prose rather than list rewrite Feoffer (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)