Now, what do we learn from this?

1) The Lord does in fact hear and listen to people (e.g., the Lord remains with Abraham even after the messengers have left on their fact-finding mission).

2) The Lord interacts with people (e.g., Abraham and the Lord go back and forth about sparing the righteous from the impending disaster).

3) The Lord educates people when they talk to him (e.g., Abraham learns the Lord’s nature is both just and compassionate).

What else do we learn from what didnt happen?

1) The Lord knew more about the situation at S&G than Abraham did, yet he permitted Abraham to question him and bargain with him, didnt get cross with Abraham, but didnt allow him to derail His plans. The Lord knew more than Abraham in the situation, and He was going to act accordingly.

2) The Lord did ultimately spare Lot, although Abraham’s appeal didnt appear to have much direct impact on that. So, even though Abraham’s concern over his nephew was justified, the means by which he was trying to protect him were misguided, and his appeal was in effect unnecessary and turned out to be innappropriate given the situation on the ground there in S&D. Yet, the Lord didnt get angry at him, realizing that the matter in Abraham’s mind was the balance between justice and mercy.

3) While it is obvious Abraham is concerned about Lot, Abraham didnt pray specifically for Lot, but for the righteous to be spared the impending destruction, and his interest was in their lives, not their material things. Abraham’s interest wasnt just in getting Lot and his family and his stuff out of S&D, it was in the well-being of all righteous who may be there.

So, the Lord does listen to people, does talk to them, does teach them, but the things people ask for tend to be ill-informed but possibly with good intentions. So, while the Lord’s path really isnt altered, the person talking to the Lord does learn something and has beneficial experience. Abraham’s desire and prayer regarding the righteous is fulfilled with Lot being spared, so even though the cities are destroyed, Lot isnt. Teaching us that keeping your desires just (i.e., easy if you reconcile your will to the Lord’s will) and your prayers reasonably fexible (i.e., had Abraham asked the Lord to not destroy S&D at all no matter what, he would have been frustrated) results in them being granted, even if its in a roundabout sort of way.

That post I linked to was probably a bit misleading because it has such a heavy focus on foreknowledge and you seemed to be really implying a form of immutability in your comment. As you mentioned, the weeping passages in our restored scriptures are in fact among the strongest evidence against an immutable God.

So getting back to the original comment, I think that we can and do change God’s mind with our petitions. I just don’t believe the notion that my prayers only change me and not Him. That is the doctrine that I believe is incorrect at best and dangerous at worst (perhaps as faith-crippling as the somewhat related concept of a fixed future could be.)

That post I linked to was probably a bit misleading because it has such a heavy focus on foreknowledge and you seemed to be really implying a form of immutability in your comment. As you mentioned, the weeping passages in our restored scriptures are in fact among the strongest evidence against an immutable God.

So getting back to the original comment, I think that we can and do change God’s mind with our petitions. I just don’t believe the notion that my prayers only change me and not Him. That is the doctrine that I believe is incorrect at best and dangerous at worst (perhaps as faith-crippling as the somewhat related concept of a fixed future could be.)

I can’t find a link to it anywhere online at the moment, but the late Eugene England wrote a beautiful essay entitled “The Weeping God of Mormonism.” If you can get your hands on a copy, I highly recommend it. It comes closest to describing the interplay between God and agency in which I believe. To believe in this God, one must accept that He is a God with limitations — he cannot violate our agency, for example — but endless compassion. He is a God who cannot make our decisions for us, but who comforts and weeps with us when things go woefully wrong.

I’ve posted on it in the past.

Sorry, Geoff, but I’m at a loss with your response. I don’t believe in absolute foreknowledge at all. I believe in agency. That I have abandoned my belief that my prayers change God in any meaningful way should NOT be understood as an embrace of the notion that the future is somehow foreordained. The future is a function of what we make it through the exercise of our agency.

So, I agree with you that the doctrine is false and fatalistic and pernicious — and it’s not one I believe in.

If you point is valid, and I don’t believe it is, then how do you explain Alma Jrs. conversion or Saul’s conversion.

If feel there is a delicate balance for God to let things unfold…naturally…and helping when He knows what He’s doing based on His and our eternal best interests.

Sorry, but I could not disagree more, Chris. I believe this is in fact a false and fatalistic and pernicious doctrine (even if it is a popular doctrine).

I’ve posted on it in the past.

Don - I think that the process of wearying the must include real dialogic prayer. God will tell us when to shut up and stop asking if we really are bugging him. If he does we can be grateful that we have at least received revelation on the subject and that He is fully aware of our request (even if he is denying it.)

Geoff, I think of Heavenly Father that way too. Obviously we can get our own way sometimes even if it’s not good, like J.S. and the lost 116 pages. I do have a difficult time when the scriptures tell us to weary the Lord with our prayers, and then when to back off.

I have a hard time believing that God would care any more about your business decisions that he cares about the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. And where do they find themselves today?

My point is this — God has granted us agency and the world unfolds before us because of the way we use it. Nothing more, nothing less. He allows it to rain and shine on the just and the unjust alike. I have completely abandoned the idea that my prayers change God or what He “thinks” or how He reacts to or interferes in my life.

To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, I pray to change myself, not God.

You did not get the theatre because “the other big theater owner in town actually purchased the investor’s contract and will be operating the theater themselves”.

I guess that would be E.