In D&C 103:31-34, we read the following (emphasis added):
Behold this is my will; ask and ye shall receive; but men do not always do my will. Therefore, if you cannot obtain five hundred, seek diligently that peradventure you may obtain three hundred. And if ye cannot obtain three hundred, seek diligently that peradventure ye may obtain one hundred. But verily I say unto you, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall not go up unto the land of Zion until you have obtained a hundred of the strength of my house, to go up with you unto the land of Zion.
In this passage, the Lord, speaking through the Prophet Joseph Smith, states that man does not always do His will, and provides a series of conditional statements (notice the use of “if” and “may”) to the recipients of this revelation. All of this means perfect sense if one holds to a view of Open Theism/contingent foreknowledge and not the “traditional” view wherein God has exhaustive foreknowledge, whether the “simple foreknowledge” view or some other variation.
Furthermore, such fits many other texts, including those in the original language text. As one Reformed Presbyterian scholar, while holding personally to a Calvinistic perspective on God’s foreknowledge, wrote the following:
Some conditional prophecies were bi-polar. They declared two directions listeners may have taken, one leading to curse and other leading to blessing. For instance, In Isaiah 1:19-20, we read,
If you are ready and obey, you will eat the best produce of the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be eaten by the sword. For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.
Isaiah made two options explicit. Obedience would lead to eating the best of the promised land; disobedience would lead to being devoured by an enemy's sword.
In a similar fashion, Jeremiah approached Zedekiah with two choices for the house of David:
For if you thoroughly carry out these commands, then Davidic kings who sit on his throne will come through the gates of this palace, riding in chariots and on horses, each one accompanied by his officials and his army. But if you do not obey these commands, declares Yahweh, I swear by myself that this palace will fall into ruin (Jer 22:4-5).
The future of Judah's nobility depended on human actions. Great victory and blessings were in store for obedient kings, but rebellious kings would bring ruin to the palace. The prophetic prediction was explicitly qualified in both ways.
These passages introduce an important consideration. When prophets spoke about things to come, they did not necessarily refer to what the future would be. At times, they proclaimed only what might be. Prophets were "attempting to create certain responses in the community" by making their predictions explicitly conditional. They spoke of potential not necessary future events. Thus, their predictions *warned* of judgments and offered blessings in order to motivate listeners to participate in determining their own future.
Source: Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. Historical Contingences and Biblical Predictions: An Inaugural Address Presented to the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary, pp. 7-8
Latter-day Saints who are Open Theists, like myself, view such to be very strong texts supporting our position.