Why did Smith say that David Patten was to go on a mission and then he died before he could go?
"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, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world. For verily thus saith the Lord, that inasmuch as there are those among you who deny my name, others shall be planted in their stead and receive their bishopric. Amen" (D&C 114:1-2).
It does seem rather strange that in April 1838 the Lord would call Patten on a mission for the next spring only to have Patten die before it could happen. Recall that the Lord is supposed to be ultimately in control of when each individual dies. Also keep in mind that Patten died in good standing with the LDS Church. In fact, he died in a gun battle defending the LDS Church. Joseph Smith said, "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 3:171).
LDS Stephen R. Gibson claims that this was not a "prophecy that David would serve a mission, but an admonition to set all his affairs in order so that he may perform a mission." Gibson claims that Patten did in fact get his affairs in order, and that this was indicative of the Lord’s foreknowledge of his death. Then Gibson says, "And who knows but that Patten served that mission call on the other side of the veil?" Gibson then likens Patten to Judas being promised by Christ in Matthew 19:28 to sit with Him on one of the twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel. Finally, Gibson plays the D&C 124:49 card where the Lord lets His people off the hook of keeping their commandments if their enemies are too powerful for them.
There are problems here though. The possibility that Patten served his mission in the spirit world seems difficult to square with the call for him to accompany eleven others who remained living in testifying and bearing glad tidings to all the world the following spring. Further, Gibson leaves out the important detail of Christ saying, "[Y]e which have followed me… shall sit" in the Matthew passage. This makes the analogy between Judas and Patten not very good. The former did not end up following Christ whereas the latter supposedly did, and there was no such statement in the Lord’s alleged command to Patten. Finally, D&C 124:49 does not really help if we are supposed to take God seriously. What God says, He will do; to hell with His enemies (for more on this, see HERE).
With all this in mind, it still seems prima facie that Gibson makes a good point about this being an admonition and not a prophecy. It would be quite different if the passage clearly said that Patten would serve the mission. It would be a lot more obvious that this was a false prophecy if that were the case. As it is though, we need to judge whether it is possible here for the Almighty to have His own reasons for not following through. It is also important to keep in mind Romans 11:29: "for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (NASB). If this is the case, then how are there instances in Scripture where God announces He will do one thing, but something else follows (e.g., Hezekiah or the Ninevites)?
I have already dealt with this elsewhere, but it seems that those reasons have to do with God simply showing mercy. When it comes to God, He says, "For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13, NASB). God values mercy over judgment.
This is not what appears to be going on with the Patten alleged revelation. God did not extend mercy to Patten by allowing him to be killed when He already told Patten that He wanted him to go on an earthly mission with the other living followers. God also did not need to extend mercy to Patten for being in rebellion to Him, since according to Smith, Patten was not in rebellion.
Things would be totally different if God was not in charge of life itself. But since God is, and since Patten was supposedly following the Lord, there was no reason for God to go back on His alleged calling to Patten by allowing him to die. As such, this supposed revelation seems more like it came from the mind of man rather than the mind of God.
R. M. Sivulka