Vort

Yes, I appreciated your database-like M:M relationship possibility. IMO, verse 21's wording precludes this as a general rule. But when it comes to interpreting the specific nuances of scripture, I'm no more nor less qualified than anyone else here. So I grant the possibility that a given blessing might be separately predicated upon N laws (where N>1), and thus perhaps every blessing offered by heaven can be received through various pathways and is not dependent upon obeying one given law. But if this is the case, I wonder that the Lord bothered revealing D&C 130:20-21, since even if it is true by definition, in practice it really is not.

D&C 130:21—"...when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." All blessings from God are predicated upon a law. This is implicit in the wording of v. 20. Verse 21 asserts that the reception of the predicated blessing happens only when the corresponding law is obeyed; in fact, it asserts that obedience to the law is the mechanism through with the blessing is granted. Are there any blessings predicated upon the law of the fast? If so, then obedience to the law of the fast is requisite in order to receive those blessings. POSSIBILITY #1: There are (as yet unspecified, at least in this thread) blessings predicated upon the law of the fast. Therefore, in order to receive those blessings, one must keep the law of the fast. POSSIBILITY #1a: The law of the fast requires fasting. Therefore, one can receive the blessings predicated upon the law of the fast only by fasting. POSSIBILITY #1b: The law of the fast doesn't actually require any fasting. In other words, one can comply with the law of the fast without fasting. Therefore, one can receive the blessings predicated upon the law of the fast without fasting. POSSIBILITY #2: There are no blessings predicated upon the law of the fast. Therefore, any and all blessings that can be received by fasting can also be received without fasting. POSSIBILITY #3: The law mentioned in D&C 130:20-21 does not mean an individual law for each blessing or set of blessings, but an overarching "law that you must obey to receive divine blessings". It does not refer specifically to the law of the fast or the law of chastity or anything like that, but is instead the Law of Good Enough to Receive Divine Blessings. Anyone who obeys this law, which is apparently a pretty low bar, thus qualifies to receive divine blessings. I believe Possibility #1, specifically #1a. I disbelieve Possibilities #1b, #2, and #3. I concede they are indeed possibilities, but I reject them for semantic, doctrinal, or philosophical reasons. I do not recognize any other possibilities outside of those mentioned above. I am willing to be educated.

I disagree. Of course they will be held to account for it. We must all of us account to God for our actions. Little children are not held to account, according to our teachings. But we are. If we are forced, then our accounting will consist of reporting, "I was forced." If we are enslaved to our appetites such that we no longer have the ability to resist evil, that will be our account. If we are blameless, then there will be no blame. But account we will. And based on D&C 130:21-22, my understanding remains most firmly that when certain blessings are conditioned on observing a law, then those blessings cannot be obtained except by keeping the law upon which they were predicated, not now and not in eternity. So in effect, what you and Carb seem to be saying is, "There are no blessings predicated upon keeping the law of the fast." I concede this is a possibility, but I do not believe it. I suppose there is another possibility: The law of the fast does not include actual fasting; therefore, it is possible to observe the law of the fast without fasting. I reject this for obvious semantic reasons, but again, I concede it's possible.

This does not jibe with my understanding of D&C 130:21-22. If there are blessings specific to the fast—and I believe there are—there can be no other way to receive those blessings but by fasting. That is the meaning of "specific to".

I would suggest that this is not the case, depending on how you define "get away with". In the kingdom of God, you may escape overt detection in mortality; many do. But if that is what you embrace, your lot is cast. Even if you "get away with it" for your whole life, when you stand before God, you stand naked. Cold comfort, perhaps, but I firmly believe it to be true.

Skullduggery

If the blessing is predicated on the law of the fast, then by definition you must fulfill the law of the fast to receive the blessing. Simply trying hard, or even doing "all you can", is not sufficient to receive the blessing predicated on the law. You must obey the law. Period. That is my understanding of what the words mean. You don't receive the blessings predicated on living the law of chastity by simply trying really hard to live the law of chastity. Even doing the best you can will be insufficient if you fail to actually live the law of chastity. You must actually live the law of chastity to receive the blessings predicated on that law. Same with the law of the fast. You must actually live that law, which means you must fast. Simply wanting to or trying to or doing your best (if "your best" is something other than fasting) is not sufficient.

Based on D&C 130:21-22, I do.

Yeah, it's tough when those bigots refuse to acknowledge your sacred love of a seven-year-old. Appreciate the introspection.

As far as I know, we don't really have rules as such. Small children are never expected to fast. (I daresay most parents will not allow their small children to fast more than a short time, if at all. I personally never asked or even suggested that my small children fast.) Pregnant and nursing mothers, those of particularly delicate heath, and those who have a specific physical condition that prevents safe fasting are usually counseled not to fast. Fasting brings blessings, including some blessings that can be received in no other way; but as President Joseph F. Smith taught, "There is such a thing as overdoing. A man may fast and pray till he kills himself; and there isn’t any necessity for it; nor wisdom in it. … The Lord can hear a simple prayer, offered in faith, in half a dozen words, and he will recognize fasting that may not continue more than twenty-four hours, just as readily and as effectually as He will answer a prayer of a thousand words and fasting for a month. … The Lord will accept that which is enough, with a good deal more pleasure and satisfaction than that which is too much and unnecessary" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1912, 133–34). Most Latter-day Saints start fasting around the age of twelve, though I know of no written counsel that mandates or even suggests this. I know of no upper age limit; on the contrary, I suspect the apostles and other general authorities, mostly older men, fast quite a lot. Again, in my personal experience, most Saints never quite avail themselves of the potential blessings awaiting them through observance of the law of the fast. I would bet a considerable sum on the idea that, as a rule, the Saints fast too little rather than too much.

Can you expound on this, particularly the bolded? Over the years, I have heard literally dozens of Saints claim that they cannot fast without grave risk of injury or death. In my experience, you can probably find a half-dozen or more in the average ward. I have my private doubts in many cases, but it's not my judgment to make. If one truly cannot fast without risk of serious injury or death, that person had probably best not fast, even if it means not receiving the blessings specific to the fast. That's all I meant.

Quite the opposite. I tried to fast from childhood, but my family didn't really do a 24-hour fast. I tried my first 24-hour fast when I was 15 and preparing for my patriarchal blessing. It didn't go too well. I got a whopper of a headache, as you mention, and threw up later after shamefully gorging myself. Later on, as an adult, I decided I should learn to fast for real. So I did. It took me a long time, years or even decades; had I applied myself sooner and more forcefully, I would have had better results much sooner. I have learned that fasting is a magnificent act, a time to ignore the petty things of the world (including food) and let the flesh go on its own while I try to nourish my spirit. I do not claim any exceptional insights from or results due to fasting, but I have gained personal insights and seen results, however non-exceptional they may seem to others. *************************** As for the headaches: They go away. They're a temporary thing, a childish tantrum your body is throwing because it wants more blood sugar and you hurt its feelings by not giving it more. After you get used to fasting, your body learns not to freak out, and there is no headache. Actually, it feels restful and rather good to fast. Twenty-four hours is the prescribed fast for religious purposes, and I don't think you'll find any apostles or prophets (certainly not recent) who will say to fast beyond that. But I have had very encouraging results fasting for longer periods, up to a week. I should have been more diligent in pursuing fasting, but I have allowed other concerns to crowd it out. I will get back to it. (To be fair, I was very sick last year and hospitalized for over a month, so fasting beyond my already losing 60 pounds seemed, mmmm, I guess unwise. Now that I've regained most of that lard, I think long fasts are in order again.) Three years ago, I wrote in another thread: I think I still agree with my 57-year-old self.

Agreed on both counts. There are blessings unique to fasting that come in no other way. If you want those blessings, you must fast. If you will not or cannot fast, you cannot receive those blessings.

I just responded on another thread with the same basic thoughts I have on this topic. We absolutely fail to understand what a husband/wife sealing means in any but the most rudimentary terms. If we had a real comprehension of eternity, eternal life, and the real effects of the sealing power between husband and wife and between parent and child, it would completely overturn all our current preconceptions. I expect the very idea of dissolving a sealing with a spouse because s/he was mean to us would become untenable, to the point that we would stagger at the idea that we would ever have supported or even contemplated such a thing. It's clear that no unclean thing can dwell with God in a kingdom of glory. This applies as much to the telestial kingdom as to the terrestrial or the celestial. But the celestial have something far greater and more profound than I expect those of the other kingdoms can even clearly understand. Those who qualify to receive the gift of eternal life will, in every case and without exception, be so Godly that they will attain a state of complete perfection, "even as [our] Father which is in heaven is perfect." Whatever petty wranglings we have dealt with in this sphere, or for that matter even weighty matters of real moral import, will not trouble such beings. They will have, in Joseph Smith's words, "walk[ed] such things under [their] feet." This doubtless includes marital squabbles. In the celestial realm, there is no envy or jealousy or spite. In that case, Alice can be sealed to Bob and receive all the blessings, joy, marital intimacy, and eternal increase of such a sealing, regardless of whether or not Bob is also sealed to Cathy. On the other hand, if one does not live so as to qualify to receive the gift of eternal life, then as far as we understand, the marital sealing covenant is of no effect. So it literally does not matter to Alice whether Bob is sealed to Cathy or Cathy to Bob. As long as Alice and Bob receive the gift of eternal life, that's all that matters to them, at least as far as their relationship with each other goes. In that case, Bob's sealing to an unworthy wife is of no consequence; the ligature between Bob and Cathy ceases to exist, not having been sealed by the holy spirit of promise.

This is not unlike my realization that, given a choice of living like the ancient Nephite disciples, I would quickly and firmly choose dying at 72 and being with Christ over living in a translated state for two thousand years to help prepare the vineyard for his return. I do think that we perhaps put too much emphasis on what we feel and think right now versus what we're trying to become. I have found that, at least for me, my perception/viewpoint largely determines how I evaluate things. As a parent, I have usually been happy, and almost always at least willing, to make even difficult sacrifices for my children. If I viewed celestial life using that lens, I would certainly find myself much more willing to be compliant with, and even embrace, the necessary sacrifices. But from a purely selfish level, of course celestial life doesn't sound appealing. I think we need to take God's word at face value that "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." If we wait until we comprehend God's gifts before we qualify ourselves to receive them, we will never receive them.

Not sure. I don't yet understand the root of my own discomfort. It seems like the kind of thing I should like...but somehow I don't.

"Proud" literally means sticking up above the common surface. Carpenters and machinists talk about a surface being "proud", often with the meaning that the surface needs to be planed or sanded or ground down until it is level with the rest of the common surface. The etymology apparently derives from the Latin prefix pro-, meaning before or in front of, and the common Latin verb esse "to be". Interestingly, it seems that the recent etymological ancestors of the word "proud" referred to putting oneself above others, so the way we commonly use the word "proud" is the primary meaning, not a figurative meaning. "Humble", from the Latin humilis, literally means "near to the ground". The idea of "being humble" thus evokes the imagery of kneeling or prostrating oneself so as to be on or near the ground, beneath (and subject to) whomever is standing over you. I find it meaningful that the scriptures never, not one time, advise us to be proud, but always advise us instead to be humble. I think the self-esteem movement that has been all the rage in the US and other western countries since at least the 1970s is at best a sad misunderstanding of healthy attitudes and at worst a hellish lie foisted on society at large.

You make some compelling points. I haven't thought about this issue and have not developed any considered opinions. On the one hand, I distrust most teachers. On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with the idea of schoolchildren being continuously monitored, for reasons I can't seem to articulate very well at the moment. I monitor my own children, but somehow parental/guardian monitoring seems different from a cold, impersonal general monitor. Something about it just rubs me wrong. Maybe I'll give it some thought and see if I can't explain myself better.

I heard it on Star Trek and I read it in Spiderman, so it must be true. In the mouth of two witnesses etc.

Bona fides firmly established. So, apparently, is literally everyone else, given the ever-increasing number of letters and the convenient plus sign. No true Scotsman could disagree. I must challenge the root of your indoctrination on this topic.

Hearttoheart, I'm wondering: Was there any specific thing anyone said that you disagreed with? Or was it just the tone you didn't like? I realize that you sympathize with the wife; I think it would take a heart of stone not to have any sympathy for her position. But a sympathetic person can be wrong. Do you see anything wrong with how she is treating her husband and/or in her very approach to the issue?

Hollywood has been doing this for at least a generation now. The result I see is nieces who honestly believe they could go toe-to-toe with any man. The delusion is almost unbelievable. Did recent generations never figure out that Hollywood movies are just pretend?

Why, because QAnon, obviously. Any informed and right-thinking (i.e. left-thinking) individual knows this.

Anyone like memorizing stuff? Things like states and state capitals, presidents, prophets/apostles, the periodic table of elements, or whatever. If so, what kinds of things do you enjoy memorizing? Have you realized any benefits beyond self-satisfaction?

I bet a prophet's prayer generally sounds a lot like our prayers.