Why Doesn’t God Answer Prayers?

[Snow]

I am one of those people. I am one of those people who attributes every good thing in his life, every blessing, every trial, the growth from those trials, etc, to Heavenly Father. Everything is in his name.

Mosiah - Chapter 4 - Verse 19

19 For behold, are we not all abeggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

Mosiah - Chaper 4 - Verse 21

21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to aimpart of the substance that ye have one to another.

Why bother with that sort of response. It you are going to posit that God, being the creator or all things, is responsible for all things - fine. It's not really relevant, but fine. On the other hand, you must then give God all the credit for the evil things, at least the natural evils.

[Snow]

So you would appreciate your home teacher to offer the answer, "There is no answer," as opposed to a pleasant anecdote? Also, how do you square John 14 with contrary evidence presented in observable reality?

I'm not complaining about my home teacher. He is a good guy. Doesn't really help me understand the world much better but he doesn't have to. I also do have to square John with reality because I think literal readings of verses in isolated settings is often inappropriate.

If this is not too personal, do you mind sharing why you are a Latter-Day Saint instead of an atheist or an agnostic? Usually, people with strong convictions that the Scriptures do not correlate well with what actually occurs in the world tend to retire the religious experience.

Thanks.

Regards,

Kawazu

Your question is flawed. I think that the scripture DO correlate well with reality when their role and creation and limitations and scope are properly appreciated. I have little difficulty with the actual scriptures - believing them to be a great source of wisdom and truth - it people's immature and blind interpretation of them that's problematic for me.

[Traveler]

That's a fair question - I don't know and as many here do know, I ask these types of questions here to move my thinking along hopefully gains greater understanding... but here's a rough and unfinished thought:

It is screamingly obvious that in many matters God stays our of our way and lets us as individuals and as the body of Christ work out our own salvation. It seems reasonable that God answers some prayers, and comforts some who need comfort, and may even supernaturally intercede is man's affairs (miracles) but often does not. That is indisputable.

What also seems beyond dispute is that people mistakenly attribute all sorts of things to God and have crafted their own belief system such that whatever happens, they can always attribute the outcome to God, I got a car, I didn't get a car; God supernaturally intervened to cause the prospective employer to hire me when he/she otherwise would not have - over someone else (who may have also been praying) who would have otherwise got the job; God told me evolution was true, or told me that it was untrue, that Mormonism is keen or that Methodism or Islam is the way to go.

Whatever is or isn't going on, the promise of John 14:13 "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son." cannot be understood literally or taken at face value.

Snow: I thought I would respond directly to you by paraphrasing the words of Apostle Hugh B. Brown. G-d does speak to man – but we must have the faith to hear him.

I agree with you that it seems that many hear things that are hard for me to understand or accept because from time to time what they think he says contradicts what I think he says to me. However, I will say this. It does appear to me that those that live according to their understanding of that which is good and encourage others to live their lives according to their understanding of good – seem to me to have a lot in common in what they think G-d tells them in answers to their prayers.

The Traveler

[Kawazu]

Your question is flawed. I think that the scripture DO correlate well with reality when their role and creation and limitations and scope are properly appreciated. I have little difficulty with the actual scriptures - believing them to be a great source of wisdom and truth - it people's immature and blind interpretation of them that's problematic for me.

Hi,

So you interpret the Standard Works more holistically, with an eye toward what the original authors were trying to convey to their contemporaries--that is how you personally pursue wisdom and spiritual guidance?

Cheers,

Kawazu

[Maxel]

Why bother with that sort of response. It you are going to posit that God, being the creator or all things, is responsible for all things - fine. It's not really relevant, but fine. On the other hand, you must then give God all the credit for the evil things, at least the natural evils.

Why bother with this sort of response, Snow? You've made assumptions that far exceed what Gatorman actually said (to say that we are (rightfully so) dependent on God for our sustained life does not equate to God being responsible for all evil). To boot, you rail against his post which is mostly scripture. Do you have a problem with the scripture itself- which does deal with prayer and is not wholly irrelevant- or with Gatorman's interpretation?

I feel exactly the same way as Gatorman and was about to post what he said; that's why I'm taking the liberty of replying to your post, Snow.

[Snow]

Snow, I will here admit that my recent interactions with you have been largely defensive as a hold-over from months ago- for that, I apologize. I haven't been around nearly as much in the intervening time and if you changed your attitude in that time I missed it. I want to stress my apology: I fear that I've been defensive without cause and my vision is clouded regarding you.

Relax. I don't bear any grudges and if you were mad at me, I may well have deserved it. You may get mad at me again so don't apologize too much.

Snow, you're sidestepping the real issue. The way you use "dogma" and "dogmatic" (or have in the past) is usually as an insult used to attack those whose opinions concerning God are different than yours. However, I admit this was as of 4 months ago so you might not do that anymore- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.

If one wants to feel insulted because their beliefs are dogmatic, it's America, they can feel anyway they want. For me, dogma has it's place. It is, however, inappropriate where science and evidence can provide answers.

I wasn't just talking about this thread. You've been pretty brutal to Believer on another thread. Doesn't matter if he 'started it', was being blind to the evidence, whatever- the fact remains that you said some things that were rude and condescending..

Well maybe yeah, maybe no but look at the where the link takes you - the poster is claiming that no fact, no evidence, no reality would change his/her mind. That boondoggles the mind... and, that poster now continually snipes and grouses about me in post after post. I could care less. Being an adult and free agent, I can't be condescended to or offended against my will.

Personally, as a Mormon, I am committed to truth and if truth requires me change my views, then I'll change my views.

I'm unclear as to the thrust of your claim. Are you saying that one cannot condescend to another unless the condescendee submits/is, in fact, crucially inferior to the condescendor?

Something like that. They have to make a choice in the matter.

Or that an action cannot be condescending in nature unless the previously stated parameters are met? Or that an action cannot be perceived as condescending unless the stated parameters are met?

Not necessarily. Remarks may possess certain innate characteristics but those characteristics are completely benign and ineffectual unless the hearer decides to grant them power.

Or that a condescending action cannot harm the condescendee's faith?

Absolutely. A condescending action has no power over faith. How on earth could your faith be impacted my any belief on my part. I have no power to affect another's real faith. I may be good-looking and a sweet-talking-ladies man, but I ain't no Svengali. We are adults here are we not?

To clarify my statement: acting condescending to another when discussing matters of faith is damaging to the condescendee's faith- or at the very least, their soul. Whether the condescendee's faith can handle it, whether the condescendee is gracious and perfectly humble in their response and reaction, the fact is that the condescendee has been hurt by the condescender, and the condescendee's faith may very easily be damaged.

Could not disagree more. Any "faith" that can be damaged because someone else disagrees or is rude or sarcastic is not faith. Moreover, the only power I have over you, Maxel, is the power you choose to allow me. I already see that you have taken back some (maybe all) of the little power you previously and willingly granted me over you.

[Gatorman]

...when their role and creation and limitations and scope are properly appreciated...

Snow - Can you please explain what you believe the role, creation, limitations, and scope of the scriptures are?

[Snow]

Why bother with this sort of response, Snow? You've made assumptions that far exceed what Gatorman actually said (to say that we are (rightfully so) dependent on God for our sustained life does not equate to God being responsible for all evil). To boot, you rail against his post which is mostly scripture. Do you have a problem with the scripture itself- which does deal with prayer and is not wholly irrelevant- or with Gatorman's interpretation?

I feel exactly the same way as Gatorman and was about to post what he said; that's why I'm taking the liberty of replying to your post, Snow.

Now who is leaping to conclusions? He indicated that God is responsible for all the good in our life. Fine. Does it even need to be said? Like I don't already get the concept? Of course I do.

... and far from assuming what Gatorman said, I pointed about that giving all the credit to God carries with it a logical conclusion that God is also responsible for all natural evil is. He didn't say that and I didn't imply that he did, but it naturally follows - dispute if you can but you really can't.

...and, no, I don't rail against the scripture, it just isn't german to the point of the debate. We are not discussing whether or not God is the creator and thus responsible for all he created, we are discussing specific line item supernatural intervention. Try not to let your emotions drag you around.

[Snow]

Snow - Can you please explain what you believe the role, creation, limitations, and scope of the scriptures are?

Which ones?

[Gatorman]

Which ones?

The ones you were referring to in your post. I would assume the LDS Standard works.

[Gatorman]

... and far from assuming what Gatorman said, I pointed about that giving all the credit to God carries with it a logical conclusion that God is also responsible for all natural evil is. He didn't say that and I didn't imply that he did, but it naturally follows - dispute if you can but you really can't...

Snow - As a parent, I can tell my children not to do something dangerous. Yet, they still choose to do it and get hurt. Am I responsible for that 'evil' or 'hurt' they received? No. So, your 'naturally follows' is mistaken, but I forgive you for making such an assumption.

[Guest missingsomething]

continually snipes and grouses about me in post after post.

yeah, I know how that goes...

[Guest missingsomething]

Im sorry what was the OP about again?

[Maxel]

Snow- regarding your views about condescencion, I would like to continue that discussion, but I'll reply to that when I'm not so tired- my mind's starting to shut down and I don't want to end up spewing garbage.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Im sorry what was the OP about again?

I don't know... my head exploded about an hour and half ago.

[Snow]

yeah, I know how that goes...

You'll probably outgrow it. Nice to have you with us.

[Snow]

Im sorry what was the OP about again?

You didn't read the title before you clicked it? Look up a the upper portion of your browser widow. It's right there along with the whole pathway.

[Snow]

The ones you were referring to in your post. I would assume the LDS Standard works.

You would like me to review the entiretiy of the Standard Works with attention paid to creation, role. limitation and scope.

Yeah - I'm gonna have to pass on that Gator. You might read my thread on Who wrote the Bible.

[Gatorman]

You would like me to review the entiretiy of the Standard Works with attention paid to creation, role. limitation and scope.

Yeah - I'm gonna have to pass on that Gator. You might read my thread on Who wrote the Bible.

So, as long as the scriptures meet the needs or requirements of science, you are okay. Otherwise, it is outside of their role, as far as science is concerned?

[john doe]

Maybe it's a quest for truth, not just scientific requirements.

[Gatorman]

Maybe it's a quest for truth, not just scientific requirements.

Understood john. But, my faith, my prayers, etc, tell me that the Book of Mormon is true. No qualification. The bible has been handled, mishandled, and mistreated by accident or intent for some many 'years', that we have the qualification on it.

Example - Science/archelogical evidence suggests 'submarines' were not invented until the past couple hundred years. Yet, the Book of Mormon suggests otherwise. I take the position of the Book of Mormon, finding that the Sciences/Archeologists are flawed or simply lack data. The City of Enoch, another example. These are not quandries or conundrums for me, just because there is no physical or scientific evidence. If Heavenly Father wants to 'disappear' a city, he will disappear it. And, if he chooses a method that means science can never prove it, then, science will fail.

[FunkyTown]

Understood john. But, my faith, my prayers, etc, tell me that the Book of Mormon is true. No qualification. The bible has been handled, mishandled, and mistreated by accident or intent for some many 'years', that we have the qualification on it.

Example - Science/archelogical evidence suggests 'submarines' were not invented until the past couple hundred years. Yet, the Book of Mormon suggests otherwise. I take the position of the Book of Mormon, finding that the Sciences/Archeologists are flawed or simply lack data. The City of Enoch, another example. These are not quandries or conundrums for me, just because there is no physical or scientific evidence. If Heavenly Father wants to 'disappear' a city, he will disappear it. And, if he chooses a method that means science can never prove it, then, science will fail.

Err... Just as an aside, the whole 'Submarine' thing isn't new to the Book of Mormon.

To understand why, you have to understand Jewish cosmology:

Here's the King James translation of Genesis 1:7

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

In old Jewish cosmology, the universe was suspended in waters. This is why Genesis 1:2 says:

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

This seems strange, but not so strange when you consider that the ocean and outer space are very similar: They are vast and unknowable, you can not breathe in either of them, you are weightless in both of them.

In fact, you can see this yourself later on in Genesis 8 when God says:

21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

When the Flood came, God killed every thing that breathed air. Every Butterfly(whom routinely migrate in a steady flight pattern without landing for more than 30 days), every Penguin, every Manitee. Anything that breathed air died.

The Flood was not just a lot of rain. It was the utter collapse of the atmosphere, the destruction of anything that lived on land. It was a cataclysmic, end of the world event.

Again: What does this have to do with Submarines?

Noah's Ark was not a boat. It was not a ship with sails. It was a box that kept air in. This is even logical: There is only one other place that the word 'Ark' shows up in the bible. It's the Ark of the Covenant.

And the Jewish people didn't build a boat to carry around the promise of God through the desert. They built a box.

For a more indepth study of this, see 'Commentary on the Torah', by Richard Elliott Friedman who is the head of Jewish Studies at NYU.

[Gatorman]

Thank you Funky. Your posts only suggest more frustrations for some of the posts. It has been posited, also, that the Great Flood was not a great flood. That Noah and the animals could not have survived.

[Hemidakota]

Err... Just as an aside, the whole 'Submarine' thing isn't new to the Book of Mormon.

To understand why, you have to understand Jewish cosmology:

Here's the King James translation of Genesis 1:7

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

In old Jewish cosmology, the universe was suspended in waters. This is why Genesis 1:2 says:

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

This seems strange, but not so strange when you consider that the ocean and outer space are very similar: They are vast and unknowable, you can not breathe in either of them, you are weightless in both of them.

In fact, you can see this yourself later on in Genesis 8 when God says:

21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

When the Flood came, God killed every thing that breathed air. Every Butterfly(whom routinely migrate in a steady flight pattern without landing for more than 30 days), every Penguin, every Manitee. Anything that breathed air died.

The Flood was not just a lot of rain. It was the utter collapse of the atmosphere, the destruction of anything that lived on land. It was a cataclysmic, end of the world event.

Again: What does this have to do with Submarines?

Noah's Ark was not a boat. It was not a ship with sails. It was a box that kept air in. This is even logical: There is only one other place that the word 'Ark' shows up in the bible. It's the Ark of the Covenant.

And the Jewish people didn't build a boat to carry around the promise of God through the desert. They built a box.

For a more indepth study of this, see 'Commentary on the Torah', by Richard Elliott Friedman who is the head of Jewish Studies at NYU.

And with our friends who believe it was a local flood, that was the slowest journey going up river.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Good post FunkyTown...

The scripture in Ether about the Jaredite barges tells us what you are saying about the Ark of Noah.