When it comes to religious stumbling blocks--issues that believers of any religious tradition find hard to reconcile together with current teachings or policy--the 'inaction of God' is a common one.  Basically, the idea that God has the omnipotent power to overcome any large or small problem we face in mortality...but chooses (for some reason) not to do so.  Many people just can't accept the idea that a living God is compatible with the prevalence of evil in the world today, where God appears to remain passive.

Answers to the problem of God's inaction (meaning, of course, not answers answers, but rather alternative ideas to help reconcile the problem) generally include: free agency and a higher view of ultimate purpose of mortality (as discussed a number of times on this site and elsewhere).

I believe, paradoxically, however, the bigger stumbling block to those who doubt God's existence is not heavenly inaction, but heavenly action.

I believe many people who find it a stumbling block to reconcile the suffering they see every day with the supposed existence of a merciful, just God still have an inherent understanding (whether they fully accept it as an explanation or not) of the principle of free agency, and why God (if He did exist) might not want to make all of our choices for us as if we were just sock puppets.

Many people understand on a fundamental level that it's inconsistent to say that God *should* stretch forth his hand to keep people from murdering other people, but should *not*  do anything if one chooses to have an abortion, for example.  That He should do something to save infants from dying in fiery car crashes, but NOT do anything if one chooses to drive 120 mph down the highway (and/or drive drunk) in the first place.  (Obviously, there are a lot of exceptions:  mankind does have a grand ability to convince themselves that God is perfectly okay with things they personally do--whether it be bad habits, sexual preferences, or drug use--but frowns upon things that other people do...)

Notwithstanding the problem of 'relative morality', I believe people generally appreciate the concepts of personal freedom and liberty even to do things that are 'wrong', and can understand on some level how God *might* choose to stay His hand in the name of free agency to allow mankind to choose for themselves: allowing us to make our own beds and sleep in them (or hang ourselves with our own rope...choose your metaphor).

If the problem were *just* God's inaction, I think fewer people would find it a stumbling block.  The problem comes when 'heavenly inaction' in regards to daily pain, suffering, and death is coupled with the claimed 'heavenly action' of many religious believers.

As one example, every year we'll hear quotes from famous athletes claiming divine guidance in helping them catch touchdown passes, or win championships.  The implication is not that God doesn't interfere in human affairs, but that he interferes selectively...and often regarding trivial issues like sporting events.

Gregg Easterbrook (link no longer available, unfortunately) had this to say on the subject after Super Bowl 39 (Patriots vs. Eagles) in 2005:

On media day before the Super Bowl, [Eagles wide receiver] Terrell Owens declared, "I think God put me on this stage for a certain reason. ... I think God is using me [and] put me on a platform to really show the world how great he is. God has put me in the position, and I'm welcoming that challenge. Just by the timing of me getting hurt, he had to sit me down and put things into perspective for me. And that's what he's done. He put me on the biggest stage of my life to show people how great he is.' Many commentators ridiculed the notion that God would allow 150,000 people to die in terror in the Indian Ocean tsunami, but intervene in Terrell's football career in order to bring him more publicity. As a churchgoer, I add: if God cares who wins football games, we are all in worse trouble than we thought. Whether God intervenes in daily life is a complicated question in theology. But supposing there is divine influence in events, God help us, as it were, if it's used up on touchdown passes.

There's a second problem in what Owens said, and in similar, though less extreme, statements that athletes sometimes make -- that their victories are really victories for God, or that Allah or Jesus helped them prevail. Praising God for success in sports can be a form of self-flattery. When an athlete says God helped him win a game, he's saying that in a world of poverty, inequality and war, the Maker believes the athlete's touchdown or interception was more important, and thus worthy of divine intervention, than the active suffering or quiet unhappiness of billions of human beings. "God wanted me to win" is an awful lot like saying, "God cares more about my sports career than about the 20 million people who have died of AIDS in Africa."

From an LDS perspective, most Church members don't give much credence to God helping athletes (even at BYU...although there are exceptions here, too), yet this same problem still presents itself in other ways.  Often we'll hear testimonies about simple events that suggest divine intervention: finding lost keys, for example, where "I said a prayer, and then there they were!"

Again, we run into the same 'selective action' issue: where a non-believer might hear that story from a Church member and wonder why God chooses not to interfere in African genocide, say, but chooses for some reason to help out an upper-middle class family find their lost SUV keys?  For real?

Are there perhaps people who *want* to believe in God and that He has a higher purpose for all of us which includes letting us suffer a little in mortality, but find a bigger stumbling block in the fact that God appears (according to the stories they hear from believers) to have somewhat weird priorities in the use of His power?  If He was consistently 'hands-off', it might be easier to accept for more people, but being 'hands-on' in some areas but not others likely makes the ideas defending the 'hands-off' approach harder to accept.

Now, the fundamental problem here is that--stating the obvious--just saying "God helped me out..." or even that "God approves of me doing..." does not in and of itself prove anything at all.  (Obviously when you hear someone say they know God approves of their sexually active gay lifestyle, and someone else says they know God approves of beating gays to death, something must be up...)    It's hard enough to discern divine guidance and assistance in our own lives, let alone try to judge the accuracy of similar statements in others'...

The main question is: is there a downside to being overly anxious to 'acknowledge the Lord's hand in all things'?  Is there a point where ascribing all little things to the Lord's active hand becomes counter-productive when trying to help others understand the purpose behind the 'big' things?   Does giving credit to 'heavenly action' make the understanding of 'heavenly inaction' more difficult, outside or even inside the Church?