The Coming of the Lord by 1891: A Prophecy Unfulfilled

 

Prophecy: In 1835, Joseph Smith declared that the Second Coming of Christ would occur within 56 years, by 1891. He stated:

 "It was the will of God that they should be ordained to the ministry and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene"

(History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 182).

This prophecy was made with a specific time frame, claiming that Christ would return within 56 years from 1835, placing the Second Coming around the year 1891.

The year 1891 came and went without the prophesied return of Christ. Over 130 years have passed since this prophecy was made, and the predicted event has not occurred.

 According to Deuteronomy 18:21-22, the failure of this prophecy disqualifies Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God. The scripture states:

"And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 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." 

(Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

This biblical standard clearly indicates that a prophet whose predictions do not come to pass has spoken presumptuously and is not a true prophet.

Rebuttal to FairLDS.org and Apologetic Arguments:

FairLDS.org, a prominent Mormon apologetics site, often attempts to reinterpret or soften the impact of Joseph Smith's failed prophecies. In the case of the 1891 prophecy, FairLDS.org and other apologists may argue that the prophecy was conditional or that it was not meant to be taken literally. Here’s a detailed rebuttal to these common defenses:

Claim #1: The Prophecy Was Conditional

Rebuttal: Some apologists argue that Joseph Smith's prophecy was conditional upon the faithfulness of the Saints or other unspecified factors. However, this argument fails to hold up under scrutiny because the prophecy itself contains NO explicit conditional statements.

 The prophecy in the History of the Church does not mention any conditions that would affect its fulfillment. Instead, it speaks with certainty about the timing of Christ’s return. If the prophecy had been conditional, it would have been more explicitly stated, as seen in other scriptural instances where conditions are clearly outlined.

Claim #2: The Prophecy Was Not Meant to Be Taken Literally

Rebuttal: Apologists also claim that Joseph Smith’s prophecy should be interpreted metaphorically or symbolically, rather than literally. However, the language used in the prophecy does not support this interpretation. 

The phrase "fifty-six years should wind up the scene" is a clear, time-bound statement. Additionally, early church leaders and members took this prophecy seriously and expected Christ's return within that time frame. The lack of symbolic language in the prophecy makes it difficult to justify this reinterpretation in an effort to skirt around the reality that this was a failed prophecy plain and simple.  Apologists have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to try to avoid the stark truth that this was a straightforward prophecy that failed miserably.  No mental gymnastics needed. 

Claim #3: The Prophecy is Still Open to Fulfillment

Rebuttal: Some defenders may suggest that the prophecy is still open to fulfillment in a future or spiritual sense. However, this argument is contradicted by the specificity of the prophecy. Joseph Smith gave a precise timeline that has already passed without the prophesied event occurring. Attempting to redefine the fulfillment of the prophecy ignores the clear and measurable nature of the original statement. The passage of over 130 years since the deadline further solidifies the prophecy as failed.

To reinforce the conclusion that Joseph Smith's prophecy was indeed false, we can look at additional sources and evidence:

Contemporary Reactions and Expectations:

Many early Latter-day Saints took Joseph Smith's prophecy seriously and expected the Second Coming to occur within the given timeframe. This belief influenced their actions and attitudes. For example, church leaders like Orson Pratt emphasized the nearness of Christ's return based on Joseph Smith’s prophecy. The failure of this event to materialize was a significant disappointment for those who expected its fulfillment.

Historical Documentation:

The History of the Church and other early church records preserve Joseph Smith's statements about the Second Coming. These sources provide direct evidence of what was prophesied and when. The failure of these prophecies is well-documented and acknowledged even by those within the LDS tradition, though often with attempts to mitigate their significance.

Joseph Smith’s prophecy regarding the Second Coming of Christ by 1891 is a clear example of a failed prophecy. The specific timeframe given, combined with the lack of fulfillment, directly contradicts the biblical standard for prophets outlined in Deuteronomy 18:21-22. Despite attempts by apologetic sources like FairLDS.org to reinterpret or justify the prophecy, the plain facts demonstrate that it did not come to pass as predicted. This failed prophecy calls into question Joseph Smith's claims to prophetic authority and challenges the foundation of his prophetic role within the LDS Church.

References:

History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 182

 Deuteronomy 18:21-22

FairLDS.org (for the apologetic arguments and rebuttals)

Orson Pratt's Discourses (for evidence of early LDS leaders’ beliefs in the prophecy)