A few years ago, I wrote about importuning prayers in the post “The importuning Joseph, the lost pages, and relational theology (D&C 3:1-2, D&C 10:1-3)”. In that post, I try to convey that Joseph’s fault was not in petitioning God multiple times. His fault was in worshiping Martin over God. We have a bit of lore around the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. If you don’t know the story then you can review this article and Chapter 5 of Saints to get the background.

I worry that our cultural beliefs about God’s Omniscience create an alternative narrative to this story. Elder Renlund’s 20222 General Conference talk is another example of these cultural beliefs. I want to use his talk as a backdrop to discuss some topics around prayer, omniscience, our interaction with God and doctrine. Towards the end of Elder Renlund’s discourse he posits the following question.

If God has answered a question and the circumstances have not changed, why would we expect the answer to be different?

While I agree with conclusion based on the assumption of “if nothing has changed”, I am not sure I agree with the assumption when it comes to prayer. If nothing has changed, then it shouldn’t be different. I wonder if the fact that I, as a loving child of God, return to him in another petition on the topic is enough to change the circumstances. Does He feel our response to petition Him again as a changing of the circumstances?

But Elder Renlund answers his question a bit differntly than I do. His response is almost a rephrase of the question with an additional wrinkle about peronsal revelation (emphasis is mine).

If we have received personal revelation for our situation and the circumstances have not changed, God has already answered our question.

What does it take to know that our ‘personal revelation’ is the answer from God? I think many times we hear a signal from God but are left to make quite a bit of interpretation. We may have the beginning of a ‘personal revelation’ but we don’t have a complete one. Later in the discourse Elder Renlund makes this same caveat.

Even as we trust God’s prior answers, we need to be open to further personal revelation. We should recognize that personal revelation may be received “line upon line” and “precept upon precept,” that revealed direction can be and frequently is incremental.

Our inability to interpret personal revelation and the incremental nature of revelation necessitates a careful balance when we limit our communication with God because we worry about a response of “I told you so…”

Should we ask God the same question after he has answered?

It depends on the depth, intensity, and clarity of the answer. It depends on the understanding and clarity of the receiver of the answer. It is completely appropriate to say as many petitionary prayers and discuss the topic with as many loved ones as we need on the same subject to arrive at a complete ‘personal revelation’ for the question.

In general, God seems to respond to each and every prayer based on the current reality, not solely on what he said in the past. He is not a God of ‘I told you so’ but a God of love. Engaging the topic in a partnership is always preferred by Him – even if we are inferior partners with sub optimal ideas.

The scriptural examples answer, “yes.”

There are many examples of repeated or petitionary prayers after God’s answer. Most of these stories reward the petitioner. Gideon’s prayers to understand God’s will concerning his army, Moses’ petition when God intends to destroy Isreal, Joshua’s agreement with God and the Gibeonites, Enoch’s continued cry unto the Lord, and Joseph Smith’s prayers about the 116 pages are all great examples of Jesus’ parable of the importuning widow.

In fact, the parable of the importuning widow is an important scriptural message for the framework of personal revelation. We learn that ’[Jesus] spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray and not to faint’ which focuses on the fact that the widow gets the unjust judge to listen ‘simply because she bothers [him]" to the point that he fears that ‘at the last she will entirely exhaust [him] with her visits.’¹ Jesus then says that a just God would respond quicker and more responsively than the unjust judge.

Elder Renlund’s examples of poorly repeated prayers

I like Elder Renlund’s example of a poor repeated prayer when he talks about repentance.

For example, we sometimes ask repeatedly for reassurance that we have been forgiven. If we have repented, been filled with joy and peace of conscience, and received a remission of our sins, we do not need to ask again but can trust the answer God has already given.

This example may be the most pernicious in our faith. We need to trust that God has forgiven us and stop going back to get revelation on the same repentance, if nothing has changed. However, I do think that God will continue to shower love on us even in this situation. I don’t believe that He will stop revealing his love and partnership because we have asked for forgiveness for a past sin too many times.

I struggle with Elder Renlund’s explaination of Joseph’s prayers about Martin Harris’ request to share the 116 pages with his wife.

Unsure of what to do, Joseph prayed for guidance. The Lord told him not to let Martin take the pages. Martin requested that Joseph ask God again. Joseph did so, and the answer was, not surprisingly, the same. But Martin begged Joseph to ask a third time, and Joseph did so. This time God did not say no.

He then adds a bit of extra-scriptural commentary,

Instead, it was as though God said, “Joseph, you know how I feel about this, but you have your agency to choose.”

Were Joseph’s prayers about the 116 pages an example of an improper prayer?

I worry about how our cultural paradigm of the lost 116 pages has created a bit of an improper understanding of Joseph’s prayers to God. I worry that our views on fixed future omniscience are partially responsible for this misunderstanding.

I think Elder Renlund’s example of Joseph’s prayers about the pages don’t fit well as an example of an improper prayer. I know I am pushing against a stream of standard thought around Joseph’s prayers on the 116 pages. Saints, Chapter 5 All is Lost and Robert D. Hales’ conference talk lean into the same view.

Saints

Saints, Chapter 5 All is Lost doesn’t go as far as Elder Renlund but also seems to imply that Joseph pushed God to the point that He said, ‘do as you please’ in the following snippet from the chapter.

Unsure what to do, Joseph prayed for guidance, and the Lord told him not to let Martin take the pages. But Martin was sure showing them to his wife would change things, and he begged Joseph to ask again. Joseph did so, but the answer was the same. Martin pressed him to ask a third time, however, and this time God allowed them to do as they pleased.

Robert D. Hales

In April 2016, Robert D. Hales went even farther than Elder Rendlund and was corrected based on the words provided online. His audio on the topic says,

All of us may be tempted to let our personal desires overcome the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The Prophet Joseph Smith pleaded with Heavenly Father for permission to lend the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon to Martin Harris. Joseph thought it was a good idea, but the Holy Ghost did not give him confirming feelings. Eventually, Joseph lent the papers anyway. And Martin Harris lost them. For a season the Lord withdrew the Prophet’s gift to translate, and he learned a painful but valuable lesson that shaped the remainder of his service.

Actual Audio, April 2016, Minute 6:25

But The Church did not publish his words as spoken. They were edited to say,

All of us may be tempted to let our personal desires overcome the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The Prophet Joseph Smith pleaded with Heavenly Father for permission to lend the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon to Martin Harris. Joseph thought it was a good idea. At first, the Holy Ghost did not give him confirming feelings. Eventually, the Lord allowed Joseph to lend the pages anyway. Martin Harris lost them. For a season, the Lord withdrew the Prophet’s gift to translate, and Joseph learned a painful but valuable lesson that shaped the remainder of his service.

These two versions of Robert D. Hales talk highlight the theological issues with this topic. Elder Hales words seem to imply that Joseph ignored God or that God wasn’t in control of His prophet. That becomes a very complicated theological nut to untie. Either way, we are forced to reconcile what it means for an all-knowing God to engage Joseph in these three prayers. It appears that the Church Correlation department was not willing to ignore the fact that God did answer Joseph’s prayer positively.

The historical record of Joseph’s prayers

Joseph Smith’s own pen tells us that god said ’let him go with them’ which does not sound like a God ’not saying no’ or a God letting Joseph ‘do as he pleased’ as if God was giving into Joseph’s misguided prayer. It sounds like God said, ‘yes’ and then explained the conditions of the yes.

I inquired of the Lord and the Lord said unto me that he must not take them and I spake unto him the word of the Lord and he said inquire again and I inquired again and also the third time and the Lord said unto me let him go with them only he shall covenant with me that he will not shew them to only but four persons and he covenanted wit the Lord that he would do according to the word of the Lord

“History, circa Summer 1832,” p. 5, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed October 23, 2022

I think we get some of our cultural perceptions of Joseph’s prayers based some of Joseph’s comments after Martin lost the pages. A little later in the same history Joseph says, ‘and I also was chastened also for my transgression for asking the Lord the third time’ and Joseph’s mother explains that Joseph shared that, ‘it is I who tempted the wrath of God. I should have been satisfied with the first answer which I received from the Lord; for he told me that it was not safe to let the writing go out of my possession.’

Lucy Mack Smith’s recollection of Joseph crying out, A Period of Preparation, 1823–29

However, the last word on the topic should be given to God. In D&C 3:6-7, God states the concern and reason for Joseph’s loss of the plates and his ability to translate.

And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God

It appears that God is not concerned about three prayers, six prayers, or two prayers. He is concerned about what prompts those prayers. Joseph was not prompted by a will to understand God and His will but to get God to do Martin’s will. The lesson is in the why of the prayer not in the count of prayers. It wasn’t that Joseph should have limited his prayers to one or two petitions. It was that he shouldn’t have had those petitions driven by ’the persuasions of men.’

Seeing the theology from the weeds

Here are some questions that I have pondered that get us into this misunderstanding of prayer and revelation.

1. Do we see God as a being that can negotiate with loving partners? Not the negotiation that happens to tourists at international street markets but the kind that happens in marriage.
2. Do we see God living in the now that is willing to make loving decisions instead of controlling decisions?
3. When we think about God knowing all of the future perfectly, does it make us create awkward beliefs about Him changing His mind?
4. Do we believe in a God that is wise enough and powerful enough to handle contingencies?
5. Do we understand prayer and faith as powers given to us that can persuade God?
6. Can we perceive a plan that has God involved but doesn’t go exactly as anticipated?

The lesson from Joseph’s prayers is that God responds and that he can protect His will even when partnering with His prophet’s potentially misguided will or our will that ‘sees through a glass darkly.’ He wants to engage with our best thinking not tell us the best way to think.

I think that C.S. Lewis’ thoughts in this space are especially relevant.

C.S. Lewis on Prayer and God

The book God in the dock contains snippets and essays by C.S. Lewis he shares two great views on prayer that are worth our attention.

Assuming He knows best?

“Praying for particular things,” said I, “always seems to me like advising God how to run the world. Wouldn’t it be wiser to assume that He knows best?”

“On the same principle,” said he, “I suppose you never ask a man next to you to pass the salt, because God knows best whether you ought to have salt or not. And I suppose you never take an umbrella, because God knows best whether you ought to be wet or dry.”

“That’s quite different,” I protested.

“I don’t see why,” said he. “The odd thing is that He should let us influence the course of events at all. But since He lets us do it in one way, I don’t see why He shouldn’t let us do it in the other.”

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, Part 2, ch. 7 “Scraps,” #4 (1970)

The case against prayer

The case against prayer (I mean the “low” or old-fashioned kind) is this. The thing you ask for is either good—for you and for the world in general—or else it is not. If it is, then a good and wise God will do it anyway. If it is not, then He won’t. In neither case can your prayer make any difference. But if this argument is sound, surely it is an argument not only against praying, but against doing anything whatever?

We know that we can act and that our actions produce results. Everyone who believes in God must therefore admit (quite apart from the question of prayer) that God has not chosen to write the whole of history with His own hand. Most of the events that go on in the universe are indeed out of our control, but not all. It is like a play in which the scene and the general outline of the story is fixed by the author, but certain minor details are left for the actors to improvise. It may be a mystery why He should have allowed us to cause real events at all; but it is no odder that He should allow us to cause them by praying than by any other method.

Pascal says that God “instituted prayer in order to allow His creatures the dignity of causality.” It would perhaps be truer to say that He invented both prayer and physical action for that purpose. He gave us small creatures the dignity of being able to contribute to the course of events in two different ways. He made the matter of the universe such that we can (in those limits) do things to it; that is why we can wash our own hands and feed or murder our fellow creatures. Similarly, He made His own plan or plot of history such that it admits a certain amount of free play and can be modified in response to our prayers. If it is foolish and impudent to ask for victory in a war (on the ground that God might be expected to know best), it would be equally foolish and impudent to put on a mackintosh—does not God know best whether you ought to be wet or dry?

The two methods by which we are allowed to produce events may be called work and prayer. Both are alike in this respect— that in both we try to produce a state of affairs which God has not (or at any rate not yet) seen fit to provide “on His own.” And from this point of view the old maxim laborare est orare (work is prayer) takes on a new meaning. What we do when we weed a field is not quite different from what we do when we pray for a good harvest.

Prayers are not always—in the crude, factual sense of the word—“granted.” This is not because prayer is a weaker kind of causality, but because it is a stronger kind. When it “works” at all it works unlimited by space and time. That is why God has retained a discretionary power of granting or refusing it; except on that condition prayer would destroy us. It is not unreasonable for a headmaster to say, “Such and such things you may do according to the fixed rules of this school. But such and such other things are too dangerous to be left to general rules. If you want to do them you must come and make a request and talk over the whole matter with me in my study. And then—we’ll see.”

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, Part 1, ch. 11 “Work and Prayer”

Conclusion

There are great lessons in the history of the lost 116 pages. However, one of them is not that it is improper to pray more than once on a topic with God. God wants an enganged people that work with Him to affect the future. He wants us to create and is willing to respond to our “less-than-perfect” prayers to help us in our creativity. When it comes to His trust and partnership he will be clear that we should not have any other Gods before him. Joseph broke that partnership when he trusted Martin Harris’ partnership more than God’s. Like the ancient Israelites of the Old Testament, God is clear about the betrayal of that partnership and trust but also clear about His willingness to look forward in love.

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