The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
3 minutes ago, Vort said:
Well, that seems to me to be the logical interpretation. I offered it because I think it's a strange thing to think. You obviously have another interpretation in mind. Would you share that interpretation, an interpretation that allows there to be blessings specifically attached to the law of the fast, yet that do not require actual fasting in order to receive, as seems to be suggested by D&C 130:20-21?
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).
-
5 hours ago, Vort said:
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.
You are using the word accountability to mean something different that I am. I believe we've descended into a semantic debate.
5 hours ago, Vort said:So in effect, what you and Carb seem to be saying is, "There are no blessings predicated upon keeping the law of the fast."
This feels like a strange interpretation of what I said.
-
9 hours ago, Vort said:
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.
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. -
2 hours ago, Vort said:
Based on D&C 130:21-22, I do.
If one is doing all they can then they are being obedient to the law upon which the blessings are predicated.
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
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.
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.
-
4 hours ago, Aquatic Contraption said:
My experience was always negative and left me feeling irritable and resentful.
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?
-
-
-
Fasting is a commandment from the Lord.
Essentially the OP says, "I used to obey the commandments but it was hard, so now I don't. How about you?"
- Aquatic Contraption, Carborendum and zil2
-
2
-
1
-
8 hours ago, Carborendum said:
The light of Christ that is given to all men from birth is pushed out of our hearts by certain mechanisms.
Yeah. That mechanism is called choice.
-
8 minutes ago, Ironhold said:
I've spoken with several people over the last few years, and we're all in agreement that the trilogy would have been better had it been focused around *Finn* and him discovering his Force sensitivity.
Hey, you know what would have made the trilogy even better.... Luke, Leia, and Han getting together again and being the heroes they were supposed to be.
-
On 7/13/2023 at 8:13 AM, Carborendum said:
An interesting revision to an old phrase:
The idea is that when people feel powerlessness, they tend toward reaching for means and methods that are unethical in any situation. But they feel justified because it is a matter of survival.
Neither of these things (power or powerlessness corrupting) are even remotely true though.
-
Just now, Ironhold said:
I've spoken with several people over the last few years, and we're all in agreement that the trilogy would have been better had it been focused around *Finn* and him discovering his Force sensitivity.
The Force Awakens... a Stormtrooper's conscience.
He becomes... The Last Jedi... to be personally trained by Luke before Luke is forced to make a sacrifice to protect everyone else.
However, Luke's sacrifice was not in vain, as Finn will help ensure The Rise of Skywalker's legacy by using his training to help protect the Jedi training facility and Luke's progeny.
Yeah. But I don't hate Rey as a character. I just hate that she's a Mary Sue. I agree with this though. Finn was a better character.
The worst of the three new characters was easily Poe though.
-
Just now, Ironhold said:
How I, personally, would have done an Indy 5?
Mutt (who has been recast) has been tapped for a "Monuments Men" type of organization and tasked with helping to recover the large sums of gold and treasures still missing after WWII.
This leads to him discovering that one of the German scientists who is working on the Apollo program is in fact somehow still dealing in these items, and may be seeking something specific.
Cue him calling the one person he can trust - his dad - to help him sort the matter.
Indy 5 could have been solved being pretty much the same show it is but with one change:
Replace the Helena Shaw character with a man. Preferably Short Round.
Man, that would have been awesome.
Short Round is awesome. Mutt was annoying.
-
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
So, I had to share the commentary from Pitch Meeting.
QuoteSo, an older Harrison Ford character has a crappy life, split up from his significant other, lost his son, teams up with a younger female character with a British accent who takes over the movie.
Yeah, I thought that might be cool.
<pause> This is a Star Wars.
OH!! Ok, I thought it sounded familiar. But we own that, so it's ok.
Good Point. Copy paste, baby!
Rey is significantly less annoying as a character than Helena Shaw.
-
14 minutes ago, Godless said:
Some hardships (like addiction and consequences of criminal activity) are inflicted upon ourselves. Others (like anti-LGBTQ prejudice) are inflicted by others. I believe that's an important distinction.
Of course it's an important distinction. One that he isn't making in his argument. He's saying no one would ever choose pain, rejection, or mental anguish -- ergo -- no one would choose LGBTQRSTUV-dom. Since people clearly, often, choose things that lead to pain, rejection, and mental anguish, the ergo here doesn't work.
Like I said, I'm not commenting on the gay and trans stuff as relating to choice. But the argument he's making isn't a sound one. And claiming that any right thinking individual would accept that falsehood is wrongheaded.
-
On 7/9/2023 at 10:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:
the very idea that someone somehow chooses a path of pain, rejection, and mental anguish is anathema to any right-thinking individual.
I'm not commenting on gay or trans of it all...but.....
A lifelong member, but you don't understand that wrong choices lead to pain, rejection, and mental anguish?
-
27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
Not really a raving review. I think there are better things to do with my time... like wasting energy typing on a keyboard on some hole-in-the-wall internet forum.
Yeah. It's worth a watch if it's on someone else's dime and you have nothing better to do.
- mirkwood and Carborendum
-
1
-
1
-
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:
the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles.
Sounds about right to me.
- Carborendum, Vort and Jedi_Nephite
-
2
-
1
-
So I just saw it.
My overall response....
Sure. It's fine.
On a scale of cold to hot it was bit tepid. But not terrible.
@Carborendum I haven't watched that yet, but was the Elaina Shaw character insufferable? Why yes, yes she was. But she was kind of written to be that way. And it was...fine...ish. I mean I think they could have done it better, cast it better, etc., The biggest complaint I had about her is she's this buck-ten scrawny female punching people and knocking them out. Yeah right!
Shad from Knights Watch is, himself, insufferable sometimes. He's SO nit-picky about every little thing. I mean that video you posted is over an hour and a half! Which is typical. I don't think I've ever finished a full video of his. Ripping every little imperfection apart, I'm sure. It's just a movie man! I get sick of the complaining when watching his stuff.
I have a few criticisms of the movie. Overall it was...what you might call an expected letdown. But it was better than Crystal Skull. Not as good as any of the others though. All the youtube haters calling it terrible though? Nah. It wasn't terrible. It was fine. My wife enjoyed it, I think, even more than I did. And I enjoyed it okay.
The other biggest thing I'd say as a critique is how humorless it was. I kind of expect laughs at an Indiana Jones movie. I think there was one or two semi-chuckles that were undeserved. It was pretty humorless overall.
-
8 hours ago, Godless said:
No, I'm just pointing out that saying it's being outperformed by Sound of Freedom isn't technically accurate. I don't give two craps about IJ, but seeing easily debunked stats makes my eye twitch.
7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:In terms of total dollar amounts, you're correct. I was looking at it from a profitability perspective.
Indy had a budget around $300 Million. Add to that the distribution, marketing, financing fees, etc. They need to make around $700 Million to $800 Million just to break even.
Sound of freedom was so low budget, and the marketing was mostly free. So, the profitability is much higher.
Sound of Freedom was also showed on 1750 fewer screens.
Obviously in overall numbers Indiana Jones will sell more tickets. But come on.
-
2 hours ago, mirkwood said:
What part do you think we are going to look back at and compare to the Satanic Panic?
He clearly read the Rolling Stone article on it.
- Carborendum, Vort and LDSGator
-
1
-
2
-
19 hours ago, Carborendum said:
I really have no desire to see another one until everyone and their dog tells me it's the best in the series.
That's your bar???
-
3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Crystal Skull [...] IMHO it wasn’t terrible.
Wow. I have entirely lost all respect for your movie assessment prowess.
- mordorbund and Vort
-
2
Do you fast?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by The Folk Prophet
“… 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”