In reading this discussion on prayer, I was reminded of another question I have had for a long time, and about which I would be interested in getting feedback. When I think back through my life about the strongest, most direct answers to prayers there are a few occasions where I was asking for something rather small and yet received a rather large answer. Here is the most remarkable of those experiences: when I was about 14 or 15 years old my dachshund was missing. I simply noticed he was not around and started looking for him. He had not been missing long and I was not that worried. Still, I looked inside and out and could not find him. I went looking again in the basement and, when alone down there, decided to offer a quick prayer about finding him. I emphasize that this was just a quick prayer–not a heartfelt pleading–for I really was not that concerned yet. But I knelt in a closet (where I had been looking for the dog), said my prayer, and as soon as I said “amen” I heard a very distinct voice say “he’s in the car.” I have never heard a voice in response to prayer before or since, but this was very clear–and startling. I was so surprised that I looked around the basement to make sure my older brother was not playing tricks on me! Well, needless to say I went and opened the garage, opened the car door, and there was the dog. Apparently he had jumped in while my mother was unloading some groceries an hour earlier. But apart from eventually making a mess in the car, this was not an urgent situation (no risk of the dog overheating, since it was in the garage).

I have often wondered why I had such a clear response to that question, when there have been so many other situations that I have prayed about fervently and sometimes not had any discernible response. I should emphasize that my prayers do get answered and in general I feel like I can discern the Lord’s will (but without the advantage of whichever angel blurted out a response for me that one time!). There are other times I simply cannot discern His will for me, which is how I ended up finding this post to begin with.

Sorry to continue, but one last question (and more on topic): what other examples are there when something has been commanded but then became no longer expedient? And what changed? I’m thinking of things like living the United Order, or plural marriage, or wasn’t there a temple that the early saints were “excused” from the obligation to build?

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/Anthon3.gif

Hawkgrrrl did mention that expedient is used more in the D&C than any other scripture in her OP (original post).

In answer to Doug G, I seriously doubt that Oliver copied anything from the plates in attempt to translate the BoM. I’ve read some church history books, and know Oliver was acquainted with a divining rod, and I believe he was supposed to use that somehow to translate. If I had to use such a thing, I’d be dumbfounded how to make it work, even if I did “study it out in my mind.”

I wasn’t referring to Oliver translating in my comment. I had something else in mind. Not really important now. I don’t know much about this episode in church history.

And he probably had french toast for breakfast the day he finished translating the Book of Jacob and ended with “adieu”. I agree with Jason on this.

Words change meanings and translators usually take liberties. Who knows what really was originally written (if anything). We have what we have and there are a lot of great thoughts in the BoM. I use the words in the book to get out of it what I can and don’t spend too much time thinking about what the “author” may have meant in using particular words because who knows what he originally wrote anyway.

Jared,

I’ve reread my post about Oliver translating and I can’t see where I stated or even inferred that someone should have a problem with the seer stone thing. Of course, AndrewJDavis seems to be implying that Joseph copied all the characters down before he began the translation. Just curious if that’s Mormon folklore or if there is some creditable historical document asserting such. I know he wrote down a few characters for Martin Harris to take to Professor Anton, but I hadn’t heard of writing characters down and using them in the translation. Any reference????

Might seem like nitpicking, but I don’t think so.

JS uses “expedient” to translate whatever word author uses in BofM, probably because it’s a favorite word of JS’s (as indicated by his use of it throughout D&C).

Also, dictionary definition should be from early 1800s, not from today. Words change meaning over time. To know what JS meant by “expedient” requires knowing what the word meant and how people used it at the time JS was using it. Maybe the meaning isn’t much different — but if you really want answers here, you have to take those steps to check it out, just in case.

Just thought I’d toss that out there.

My initial thoughts here are to say that maybe there’s too much effort at eisegesis (reading into the text). Isn’t the text saying simply that, if what you ask for is right/good/proper for you, then you’ll get it, but if you’re asking for things that aren’t right/good/proper for you, then this will factor in how you are judged?

This is not so much “careful what you ask for because you might get it,” but rather, “careful what you ask for because you will be judged on what you ask for.” If it’s good and right, you’ll get it; if not, you’ll be in trouble for asking. (Probably because it reveals your lack of good judgment or righteous motive, etc.)

Hawkgrrrl, sorry for taking this to a tangent, but I want to try to answer Andrew’s question while trying to tie it back to your point of the post.

Andrew, I wish I could speak more authoritatively on your questions, but here is my best understanding. While Oliver was one of the 3 Witnesses, to my knowledge he did not see the plates at all while attempting to translate. There is a post at Gospel Doctrine Underground, and many of the comments state that Oliver was supposed to use a divining rod. Whether it is a seerstone, divinning rod, or whatever, it seems more like witchcraft than revelation to me. But for the sake of argument, let’s say God does work in this way, and it is just one of his more strange methods of revelation.

While people love to tell us to study it out in our minds as it says in D&C 9:8, they don’t read verses 10-12, (which fits in very nicely with Hawkgrrrl’s premise:

10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now. 11 Behold, it was expedient when you commenced; but you feared, and the time is past, and it is not expedient now; 12 For, do you not behold that I have agiven unto my servant bJoseph sufficient strength, whereby it is made up? And neither of you have I condemned.

Oliver never sought to translate, until Joseph gave him a blessing stating that the Lord would give Oliver the gift to translate, if Oliver desired. So, when Oliver desired, he couldn’t translate. Then the Lord says in a future section that Oliver will still be able to translate future records, but of course that never happened. Ironically, Oliver is not under condemnation for fearing to translate, despite D&C 88:65.

All this leaves me more confused than ever about what is expedient, what is not, and how/when/why is one under condemnation?

My experience has taught me to be specific in what we ask. I think the more specific the better. For example, if you’re praying for someone who is sick, one could pray “please bless them to feel better”, or better yet pray “please bless Jack to find a solution to his health problem. When Jack receives a priesthood blessing, please inspire Fred Jones and Ben Johnson with power to know thy will. Bless them with the gift to heal and Jack with the gift to be healed. Please lead Jack to find a doctor that will be prepared to give him the care he stands in need of.

Great post Hawkgrrrl. But I can’t help but notice how few comments there are. It seems that those subjects that influence spirituality receive fewer comments than subject that are of lesser importance. I also noticed that in the Catgories section of the blog the heading for Holy Ghost has not been entered. Just observing, I’m not being critical. I enjoy and respect this blog and those who contribute to it.

But thanks for pointing out the background for the verses, it is always better to look at them in context. But I don’t feel that the Lord was setting Oliver up for failure (the condemnation referred to in the OP).

I don’t understand why it concerns some people that Joseph Smith used the stone and hat to translate the Book of Mormon. Where does it say he translated the Book of Mormon by holding it in hands or viewing it? Maybe he could have done it both ways, and maybe he did. I don’t know what the fuss is about.

Prayer and answers to prayer, in my estimation, is where the rubber meets the road.In other words, do we have the Lord’s ear or not? If we do, can we keep it? We can keep it when we pray for things that are expedient. If we pray for that which is not expedient then we bring condemnation upon ourselves. Expedient = seeking for the things the Lord has told us are important: missionary and temple work for example. Seeking for the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the Spirit to further the Lords work. Condemnation = seeking after power, gain,riches, and status.

In a general way, it doesn’t matter what religion we are or what position we hold in the church we attend, that really doesn’t matters (Or that we even attend church).

I believe that all mankind has the opportunity to gain the ear of the Lord if they are living as close as possible to the light they have been given. This is the key.

This works both ways to our blessing or to our condemnation. Where much is given, much is required.

True followers of Christ, meaning those who have been given the opportunity to receive the gospel as taught by LDS and who have embraced it with all their hearts have a great advantage–they are favored of the Lord. The Lord hears and answers their prayers. However, should they start asking for that which is not expedient then they lose their way and come under condemnation.

The Book of Mormon teaches this powerfully. The Nephites were blessed because of their righteousness, and then the next thing the record states is that pride entered into their heart as they sought for the things of this world–condemnation soon followed. This is the cycle that keeps repeating itself in the BoM.

Please forgive me, but when you set yourself up like this, I just can’t resist.

“Oliver was trying to translate the Golden Plates, but he was not supposed to look at the Golden Plates. What exactly was he supposed to study out in his mind? I personally hate it when people refer to this scripture, because it is usually done in a naive way.”

I think you know that Joseph wasn’t looking at the plates either when he translated. He was staring into a seer stone lying in the bottom of a hat. Therefore, Andrew is correct; Oliver was attempting to do exactly what he saw Joseph doing without success. Hence the scripture about expediency…

As for prayers being answered the way D&C 88 spells it out. I can’t buy any of it. I served a mission many years ago under a mission president who claimed to have a revelation from God. He told us that God promised him that if we labored worthily the Lord would prepare at least two (and sometimes many more) people in each area who would accept the gospel. I was an obedient missionary and prayed fervently every month to find those two individuals that were ready. I bet you can guess the result, not only did I fail more months than not, but so did every missionary in our mission.

Was our request expedient? Was every missionary in Australia unworthy? Was it a righteous desire? Is there some reason the Lord would promise my mission president something that He couldn’t deliver on? I’m not pretending to know how or why God does what He does, but I’m convinced that whatever He does decide to do has very little to do with what I personally ask of Him.

The problematic portion of the scripture, IMO, is that it will be turned unto your condemnation if you ask for what is not expedient. It seems to me that the word expedient is inadequate in this formula: request – expedience = condemnation. Maybe the formula should really read: request – expedience [where expedience is a known factor] = chastisement.