The Folk Prophet

This implies serious problems in home and family. Which is really the primary root of most of society's problems.

I searched just for fun and found: [əˈlekSHən] and /iˈlek.ʃən/ I think both are fine.

Maybe fleeing the country is in order then? I mean if you truly want to keep your distance...right?

I agree. And I also hope and pray for better. But it's without any real hope. Unfortunately, I'm afraid, the best case is we get 4 more years of Biden and progressivism, eventually losing the Supreme Court to the left, eventually losing religious and parental rights, etc., etc. That's probably the best case. The worst case is probably Trump getting thrown in jail, his faithfuls legitimately revolting (Here, Jan 6th...hold my beer...) and we're into full-on civil war, concentration camps for Catholics, etc., etc. Sigh. It's gonna be a rough ride until the Savior returns.

So I really don't get the struggle though. I mean I understand not liking Trump from a moral standpoint. But it's like saying you're struggling with the choice put before you...punched in the face....or shot in the face. Which do you choose? Is there really a struggle in that choice? Edit: I realize I might be discussing what's being struggled over in wildly different terms that you might be meaning. So to be clear, it struck me that the "struggle" is who one would vote for, Trump or Biden. I mean if one really thinks (as some seem to) that Biden is better for the country, then sure... But if one knows full well that Trump is better for the country, but also presumes he's immoral... I dunno. I don't understand that struggle I suppose.

Which, of course, is pointless because none of them have a shot. Which is unfortunate. (I'm currently favoring Ramaswamy, myself...had I the choice.)

I'm not sure it's "skill" that's the issue. I'm sure the "journalist" who wrote the article is perfectly capable of writing something that isn't entirely ignorant and ridiculously biased.

I'd like to point out that the idea (upon which the humor of the comic is predicated) that upon eating the fruit that Adam and Eve immediately developed a perfect comprehensive understanding of good and evil is false. Rather, the idea of "knowledge" of good and evil for having eating the fruit stems from (no pun intended) a path that is chosen that would lead to knowledge of good and evil. We, being fallen as Adam and Eve became upon eating the fruit, are STILL dependent on obedience to God. We do not understand what is good and evil without God.

“Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on ‘tradition’ without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards,” After careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues...I end up voting pretty much a straight ticket. I don't like the Republican party at all. So when and if I find a Democrat who supports positions of good and right....well....they wouldn't be a Democrat any more now, would they? As far as voting independent or other parties....sure... it could happen.

It's the same logic musicians use to call themselves "employed".

I made it 20 seconds!

Hmm. I never got the sense that she came back to "marry" Higgins. I don't disagree that the ending could have been something better...but not this. This was terrible -- empty -- sad -- unsatisfying. I think ideally there needed to be a true equilibrium established between them somehow that kept them in each other's lives for the better. Not sure what that would be. But her just walking off forever does not feel satisfactory.

Why would you want to copyright art that you didn't create? Edit: Let me expand on that... If you submitted a novel to a publisher and they picked it up and then had it illustrated by a professional artist.... you wouldn't own the copyright to those illustrations either.

I think the cynical response is the suggestion that I'm saying the lackadaisical turning off of the TV on Sunday equates to a fast. It feels like this debate has, perhaps, run it's course and continuing doesn't have a ton of value. So I'll back out now. Thanks for the back and forth on it.

I thought we'd established that I wasn't saying one can fulfill the law of the fast without fasting. (Though I do understand that you are narrowing fasting to mean food and drink and nothing else.) Clearly we are interpreting things differently. It's been taught many times and places (I didn't share a lot of them because they aren't "authoritative" quotes from the prophet or the like) that we should adjust our fast according to what we can do and be wise in the matter, and that we can obtain the blessings of fasting in doing so. The fact that the fasting from food and drink for 24 hours is "no iron-clad law" unto us and that we need "to exercise wisdom and discretion" sounds pretty much like exactly what I've trying to say. Either you are reading it differently, thinking I mean something different than I do, or just don't agree. C'est la etc. I will grant that his quote doesn't explicitly specify that one can fast from something other than food and drink...though that feels like a perfectly appropriate understanding of "no iron-clad law" and "wisdom and discretion" to me. Ah, man, you don't expect me to read ALL the posts do you?

More from President Joseph F. Smith: “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).

“… The Lord has instituted the fast on a reasonable and intelligent basis, and none of his works are vain or unwise. His law is perfect in this as in other things. Hence, those who can, are required to comply thereto; it is a duty from which they cannot escape; but let it be remembered that the observance of the Fast Day by abstaining twenty-four hours from food and drink is not an absolute rule, it is no iron-clad law to us, but it is left with the people as a matter of conscience, to exercise wisdom and discretion.” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939], pp. 243, 244.) Edit: also from the same: “Many are subject to weakness, others are delicate in health, and others have nursing babies; of such it should not be required to fast. Neither should parents compel their little children to fast”

I don't believe I said that one could get the blessings from fasting without fasting. I said (or tried to say) that one could keep the law of the fast without abstaining, specifically, from food and/or water. Whereas I understand and accept that fasting commonly refers to abstaining from food, and that we have been asked by our leadership to keep the law of the fast in that way, and therefore strict obedience requires that those who can keep it in that way or else we are not keeping the law of the fast, I believe when one legitimately cannot do so, for medical reasons, that one can still fast in other ways, and I believe our leaders have made that clear too. More importantly...and I think this needs to be noted...the specific counsel is to fast for 2 meals or 24 hours. But that is not the definition of fasting. Everyone fasts! Every night. Then we break our fast with breakfast. The question of "the law of the fast" is in how long, is it not? The current counsel is once a month for 2 meals or 24 hours. But I don't believe that's defined as the law of the fast scripturally, and it could, I believe, change. I see no reason why, given the counsel from our leaders related to medical reasons, that one could not have the spirit of the fast over a period of, say, 12 hours, were they not able to go 24, and still be blessed accordingly because they did their best (a la the widow's mite thinking, etc).

You are using the word accountability to mean something different that I am. I believe we've descended into a semantic debate. This feels like a strange interpretation of what I said.

Well, we don't seem to agree here. I think this one-to-one, if you don't do this you don't get that, approach runs too close to the concept of trying to earn our own salvation. Clearly there are some points where such is the case (baptism, for example), but I don't see everything as that concrete. And, to my thinking, your example of chastity doesn't exactly work. If one tries to live the law of chastity they will. But that doesn't mean they won't be exposed to explicit content or even, potentially, sexually abused or raped. Being raped or sexually abused or exposed to explicit sexual content isn't breaking the law of chastity. Living the law of chastity is obviously, to my thinking, more than just the concrete fact that one's eyes never see and body never touches a being sexually that isn't one's legal spouse. Will matters. And neither do I believe that the law of the fast is as concrete as what you're implying. Of course even my comparison fails a bit, because being forced fed food against our will isn't exactly what we're talking about. The plain fact is the two laws aren't perfectly comparable and so the analogies will break down. So really where I primarily disagree is in the idea that doing "all you can" is insufficient. I believe it is. I believe that that is exactly what is being asked of us. I believe that is exactly why the Atonement was made. And if someone literally tries their best to keep the law of chastity (or any other law), but literally cannot then one will not be held accountable for that. Of course, as you suggest, everyone just makes that excuse ("I couldn't help myself") and it's generally bogus, because they actually could but they would not. But if they actually can't...it's a different matter. I believe if one has a legitimate condition where one cannot fully fast for 24 hours refraining entirely from all food and drink, but they do what they can, in humility and faith, no blessings will be lost. Some stuff I came across reading up and researching on the matter...: I liked the idea given here from Mosiah 4:26 "for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2007/09/fast-enough?lang=eng And here where it states: "Those with a medical condition that would be worsened by fasting should exercise wisdom and modify their approach." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2012/06/fasting-strengthens-us-spiritually-and-temporally?lang=eng And this article was helpful too: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2008/09/to-the-point/i-have-a-medical-condition-that-keeps-me-from-fasting-but-i-still-want-fast-sunday-to-be-special-how-can-i-bring-the-spirit-closer-to-me-on-fast-sundays?lang=eng These aren't given to try and say I'm right and you're wrong. Just some stuff I came across while looking into it. On a side note: I'm actually grateful for this thread. It's forced me to reconsider my commitment to fasting and to admit that I have not had the right attitude about it for some time. I need to improve. Another thought as I read: In D&C 59 it says: 13 And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full. 14 Verily, this is fasting and prayer, or in other words, rejoicing and prayer. At first I felt a bit confused because I know we should rejoice while fasting, but defining fasting as rejoicing didn't click. So I clicked on the link for the word fasting and got: IE hungering and thirsting after righteousness; see Matt. 5:6; 3 Ne. 12:6. TG Fast, Fasting. Matthew 5:6 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 3 Nephi 12:6 6 And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost. And I was struck by the idea that fasting is an ensample of just this.... hungering and thirsting after righteousness. It is, perhaps, meant to connect us in that manner. Our strong desire for food when we are physically hungry is meant to be related to the strong desire we should have for righteousness and knowing our Father in Heaven. I have been mindful of the idea of hungering and thirsting after righteousness for a time now, and so connecting fasting to that was insightful to me.

If one is doing all they can then they are being obedient to the law upon which the blessings are predicated.

I would posit that if one legitimately cannot fast from food that one can fast in other ways and still receive the blessings of fasting. I agree with you that I have my private doubts in many a case... But I also know people who legit cannot. Not fully. I do not believe they will lose any blessings if they are otherwise faithful and do what they can to fast elsewise. I have never come across one before, however, who simply cavalierly casts aside fasting whilst still claiming to be faithful. It is a bit of a strange position to take. Most people at least make an excuse of some sort.

Out of curiosity, assuming the only two options were disobedience or obedience but irritable and resentful, do you think the Lord prefers the first to the latter?

Can you expound on this, particularly the bolded? Certainly if one point blank will not fast, well....I'd say loss salvation is perhaps the larger concern. But literally cannot?

I forget all the time. I typically make it up on the following Sunday when I do.