In Luke 18:1-8, Jesus shares the parable of the importuning Widow and Unjust Judge (also called the parable of the persistent widow). In this parable, we learn that persistent prayers receive answers. The parable proposes that prayers can be answered through faithful wearying.

The widow petitions the king, and the king ignores her. Finally, the king relents. Not out of compassion but because of her wearying. It looks like the rationale or justness of the request, the king’s character or the woman’s character is not justified or explained. Jesus wants us to hear what the unjust judge said.

Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

In verse 7 Jesus states the lesson,

And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

Jesus adds one condition in His response. He states that His elect will receive the honor of a positive response to wearying. Now, I know many of us will say that His elect are the obedient that don’t ask for things that are off-limits. An elect person would never ask for someone’s death or other horrible petition. If they did, then they wouldn’t be elect, and God would be off the hook. However, how do we deal with requests that are in a murkier area? What about Joseph’s prayer for Martin Harris to show the 116 pages to his family?

Can we get God to change His answer?

The parable of the importuning woman intends to show that a person’s petitions can change the plan of God (if they are the elect). We don’t have to build our understanding of wearied prayers from the parable. We can look at the real-life story of importuning Joseph.

Martin’s importuning case

Lucy Harris, Martin’s wife, had become increasingly concerned about Martin’s interest and financial involvement in the translation of the plates. She and others began to pressure Martin for evidence of the plates’ existence. To satisfy their concerns, Martin requested that Joseph allow him to take the 116 pages of the manuscript they had completed to show as evidence.¹ Martin did not want to look like a fool to his family and pleaded with Joseph (and I suppose God) to avenge him.

Here are Joseph’s words around the petitions.

Some time after Mr. Harris had begun to write for me, he began to importune me to give him liberty to carry the writings home and show them; and desired of me that I would inquire of the Lord, through the Urim and Thummim, if he might not do so. I did inquire, and the answer was that he must not. However, he was not satisfied with this answer, and desired that I should inquire again. I did so, and the answer was as before. Still he could not be contented, but insisted that I should inquire once more. After much solicitation I again inquired of the Lord, and permission was granted him to have the writings on certain conditions; which were, that he show them only to his brother, Preserved Harris, his own wife, his father and his mother, and a Mrs. Cobb, a sister to his wife. -History of the Church 1:3-

Martin took the 116 pages and did not keep his oath. He proceeded to show them to friends and family beyond the five granted him by God. The pages were lost to the great despair of Joseph, Joseph’s family, and Martin Harris. According to his mother, Joseph states;

It is I who tempted that wrath of God. I should have been satisfied with the first answer. -History of Joseph Smith, Pg. 128-

Did God say yes or no?

Here is the struggle. Joseph’s prayers and the subsequent revelations seem to state that God eventually said, ‘yes.’ However, He did not want to say, ‘yes.’ How does this work? Why didn’t God just say, ’no’ one more time? Can we importune God into a ‘yes’ when God wants it to be a ’no?’ Can we change the will of God?

Some may say, God knew that Martin was going to lose the pages, so he counseled Nephi to make the small plates. Joseph didn’t change the mind of God. God knew this was going to happen.² God couldn’t tell him yes the first time because he needed to teach Joseph a lesson with the first two answers. However, Joseph’s response and the Lord’s response to this event seem to imply that the two negative answers and the affirmative answer were sincere decisions at each prayer.

God’s commentary on Joseph’s importuning prayer

Doctrine and Covenants, section 3 and 10 were received soon after Joseph and Martin lost the 116 pages. In fact, section 3 is the first written revelation of Joseph Smith. Notice how the Lord chastises Joseph and that He seems to be stating that Joseph went too far in his petitions.

D&C 3:1-3

The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught. For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;

D&C 10:1-2

Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them. And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.

Frustrating the work

Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;

I think this phrase has traditionally been interpreted as God knowing the fixed future. Especially with God’s commentary on crooked paths just before this phrase. Interestingly, in section 3, there is no commentary from God about his omniscience or knowledge of the future. He says that His works, and designs, and purposes cannot be frustrated. All of these phrases speak to wisdom and omnipotence, not omniscience.

God wants Joseph to trust His promises and is reminding him of the promises. In addition, I see in these verses a God that is teaching Joseph that they are in a relationship. That God has elected him. Joseph doesn’t have to live in fear of the relationship breaking on God’s accord. He is a relational God. I see God reminding Joseph that the critical relationship is with God not fallen man or wicked man. God is reminding Joseph of the relationship’s importance.

God tells Joseph that partnering with Men will end in frustration. God’s partnership has not been and will not be frustrated. Joseph may importune for things that are not optimal, and God will continue to answer those prayers. However, Joseph must remember that he is in a relationship with God at the cost of all other relationships. In partnering with a relational God, Joseph is covered by His extended arm and protected in every time of trouble.

In section 3 and 10, I see God reminding Joseph that even with this grave mistake, God is going to march with him to bring the purposes of God to fruition. God would have said, ’no’ if His plan was going to be frustrated. This was a severe mistake but a contingency that God had prepared for if it happened. God is telling Joseph to focus on the power of an everlasting relationship in both the errors and the anguish. God is telling Joseph that His wisdom can handle Joseph’s suboptimal contingent choices.

What does this all mean for our relationship with God?

I want to highlight two key points about our relationship with God.

1. He does respond and, yes, even change His mind when we petition Him.
2. He is God, and His plans are not frustrated. He will not just say, ‘yes’ at the expense of His will and plan. We win if we are in a relationship with Him.

1. He does respond and, yes, even change his mind when we petition him.

We are in a relationship with God, and we are agents. God wants us to practice fidelity, but He does not want codependence. He wants us to wrestle with ourselves and with Him. However, He does not want us having affairs with other wicked men. Joseph’s petitioning went awry because he was starting a metaphorical affair with Martin Harris not because he was importuning the Lord. We are His bride. He does not want unfaithfulness, codependence, or dominion. He wants a marriage of partnership.

So our prayers matter and God wants to work with us to create the future. In Theology in Exodus, Donald E. Gowan shares;

The picture of God presented to us through the Old Testament is that of a God who has chosen to work with, rather than just upon human beings, so that humans are given the chance, if they will accept the responsibility, to contribute to a future that will be different from what it would have been, had they remained passive.

It is through our relationship with the Divine that change happens in our lives. This same relationship changes the world and even God. In Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-human Dialogue, Samuel Balentine shares the following commentary on prayer as taught in the Old Testament.

In the act of prayer, God and humanity are not only characterized but ‘recharacterized.’ That is, prayer is a constitutive act of faith that creates the potential for newness in both God and humanity. Neither partner remains unaffected or unchanged after the discourse of prayer. … in the Hebraic understanding, God is open and receptive to change. Such an understanding is principally derived from God’s unrelenting commitment to be in relationship with humanity. … Unless one construes the relationship as forever fixed and settled by divine fiat, God must reckon with the possibility that the ongoing conversation with the covenant partner may necessitate changes in divine plans.

2. He will not just say, ‘yes’ at the expense of His will and plan. We win if we are in a relationship with Him.

In What are we doing when we pray? Vincent Brummer shares;

God does what is asked because he is asked. In this sense, the petition itself is a condition for God’s doing what he is requested. On the one hand, however, it is not a sufficient condition making it inevitable for God to comply with the request. In that case, prayer would become a kind of magical technique by which God could be manipulated by us … On the other hand, although the petition is not a cause which makes God’s response inevitable, it is the reason for his response.³

God worked with Joseph’s shortcomings, and He will work with ours. As a people that have entered into covenants with Him, we are His elect. He will dialogue with us in our decisions. We can’t control Him, and he will not control us. He will even say, ‘yes’ to importuning prayers that may not result in the optimal path but still result in the optimal destination. As with Joseph, he will use these importuning moments to teach and guide. He will not give up on us. Joseph had to learn that God has a plan and that the plan revolves around loving relationships that can only be frustrated by our choice to separate from God.

• commentary
• omniscience
• prayer
• openness
• lds
• principles