Fasting...


sister_in_faith
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't want to misunderstand you Vort, but are you basically saying that I probably could fast if I really wanted to? Just get over yourself and do it? Seeing as you feel that people who can't fast are very very rare?

If you really and truly don't want to misunderstand me, please reread the first sentence of my previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't want to misunderstand you, so I'm asking for clarification. I reread the first sentence in your previous post, and then I read the rest of it again. My question still stands. What are you implying or trying to say? And how would you quantify very very few? 10% 5% less than 1%?

Let's not play word games with each other, just answer the questions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what he means by rare but some people should not fast. Pregnant women and people with diabetes for sure.

My uncle, a diabetic, fasts regularly. Those with diabetes need to be much more careful, but it is untrue that diabetics can't fast. As for pregnant women, there is no physical reason why an otherwise-healthy pregnant woman could not fast. But if she chooses not to, it's no skin off my nose. I think nursing mothers are probably less able to fast than pregnant women. My wife, who is not large, ate like a horse when she nursed our children.

Some people who should not fast the full 24 hours could fast for 1 meal perhaps.

This is a good idea, one we have used with our own children when they wanted to start fasting.

I am not sure why Vort has made me feel guilty by saying everyone gets sick fasting. Actually I am not sure that is true. I think most people get hungry.

I don't know why it might make you feel guilty, either.

And you are probably right; it is almost certainly the case that fewer than 100% of those not used to fasting get sick when they fast. But it is extremely common that those who fast when they are not used to it get feeling bad. My use of "everyone" was an example of hyperbole used to establish a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know your situation, so I can't speak with any authority to your particular case. But in general, fasting makes everybody sick, until they get used to it. Until your body adapts to fasting, you will get a headache and feel pretty awful. That doesn't mean you're dying, even if you think you feel like you are. It means you have to habituate your body to fasting.

Too many people give up on fasting without ever really giving it a chance. Fast once a month for a year, and if after the twelfth fast you are still feeling absolutely awful every time you fast, then you might want to reconsider your commitment. Until then, you can't know about fasting until you have given it an honest effort.

In 1894, President Wilford Woodruff said:

It was remarked this morning that some people said they could not fast because it made their head ache. Well, I can fast, and so can any other man; and if it makes my head ache by keeping the commandments of God, let it ache.

There may be some people whose health is so delicate and fragile that they would be harmed by fasting for 24 hours. Such people are very, very rare; for the vast majority of us, our overall health could only improve by avoiding food for a day. I believe if the Saints, and indeed anyone else, fasted once a month, they would see real health benefits.

To answer your question more directly: No, I don't believe there is any Lent-like substitute for fasting, like giving up TV or sex or phone conversations for 24 hours. The law of the fast is specific to food, I think.

This is what I want to understand. What point were you trying to get across here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to misunderstand you Vort, but are you basically saying that I probably could fast if I really wanted to? Just get over yourself and do it? Seeing as you feel that people who can't fast are very very rare?

I don't want to misunderstand you, so I'm asking for clarification. I reread the first sentence in your previous post, and then I read the rest of it again. My question still stands.

I assume you mean the following question:

I don't want to misunderstand you Vort, but are you basically saying that I probably could fast if I really wanted to?

So I gave you clarification. I instructed you to reread my first sentence. Now you're saying that did not clarify things. Can you explain which parts you don't understand and that are contributing to your confusion?

What are you implying or trying to say?

Let me try to explain what I am implying or trying to say, using the following bullet-pointed list:

  • In general, fasting makes everybody sick until they get used to it.
  • Too many people give up on fasting without ever really giving it a chance.
  • For the vast majority of us, our overall health could only improve by avoiding food for a day.
  • If people fasted once a month, they would see real health benefits.
  • I think the law of the fast is specific to food, and don't believe there is any Lent-like substitute for fasting, like giving up TV or sex or phone conversations for 24 hours.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

And how would you quantify very very few? 10% 5% less than 1%?

I would guess that fewer than 1% of people would be harmed by a 24-hour fast, if done correctly. Probably far fewer. Remember, we are the end product of thousands of generations of people who often had to go a day or more without eating. Those who keeled over when they couldn't eat for a day didn't reproduce much and probably are not well-represented in our ancestry.

Let's not play word games with each other, just answer the questions!

Ironically, I answered your questions in my original post on the matter, so your demand is redundant. But in the spirit of brotherhood, I have met it yet again for your benefit. Hope this helps clear things up in your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all agree that fasting is good, and we want to do it! I started a thread saying that I could not participate and was looking for alternatives. You then posted:

"I don't know your situation, so I can't speak with any authority to your particular case. But in general, fasting makes everybody sick, until they get used to it. Until your body adapts to fasting, you will get a headache and feel pretty awful. That doesn't mean you're dying, even if you think you feel like you are. It means you have to habituate your body to fasting.

Too many people give up on fasting without ever really giving it a chance. Fast once a month for a year, and if after the twelfth fast you are still feeling absolutely awful every time you fast, then you might want to reconsider your commitment. Until then, you can't know about fasting until you have given it an honest effort.

In 1894, President Wilford Woodruff said:

It was remarked this morning that some people said they could not fast because it made their head ache. Well, I can fast, and so can any other man; and if it makes my head ache by keeping the commandments of God, let it ache.

There may be some people whose health is so delicate and fragile that they would be harmed by fasting for 24 hours. Such people are very, very rare; for the vast majority of us, our overall health could only improve by avoiding food for a day. I believe if the Saints, and indeed anyone else, fasted once a month, they would see real health benefits.

To answer your question more directly: No, I don't believe there is any Lent-like substitute for fasting, like giving up TV or sex or phone conversations for 24 hours. The law of the fast is specific to food, I think."

Which in some part implies to me, the following... Too many people think that they are too sick to fast, when they are not. There are very very few people who cannot participate, the others who say they are sick and aren't should just buck up and do it anyway regardless of the consequences, as President Woodruff described. The link you provided a document that suggested that if god asks of one to fast, that he then makes it possible, and you should just push ahead (I reserve the right to have mistated this because it's not right in front of me) But basically after reading that I made me feel like I was supposed to be ashamed of not being able to fast. And that my attitude should be dang the consequences, I'm gonna fast!

The reason I requested clarification was because, in my opinion that is an offensive position to take. It hurts those of us who are disabled, and are still good members of the church. You could easily end up sending someone into an emergency kind of situation using guilt to make them fast when they shouldn't be.

I agree with you that there are probably some people who don't fast and they don't do it simply because they don't want to, but they say it is for medical reasons. I agree that those people could/should be guilted into participating, but not by us! That is reserved for their bishop to decide. So if you are coming on here trying to be the participate in fast hero I think your sentiments are dangerously misplaced.

And I took it as a personal afront because it was in a thread in which we were discussing my personal situation. I don't think it was a good idea to start making broad generalizations when it felt aimed at me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Bishop has suggested during sacrament meeting that we who are not able to fast in the traditional sense can fast from other things...like our favorite book, video games, our favorite foods (like sweets).

There are lots of talks and great lessons on LDS.org about the law of the fast. Food and water are part, but certainly not all of it. How many times in the scriptures are prayer and fasting put together? Also keep in mind a cause worth fasting for, and remember the poor. I think that if one would have to eat, maybe eat as cheaply and plainly as possible, in order to have more of an offering for the poor.

I think that it is admirable of you to increase your faith through proper fasting. :) It is a big step on the path of righteousness, one I think is much overlooked sometimes. It can be such a big boost to your spirituality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which in some part implies to me, the following...

No, actually, my response implied nothing of the sort. Rather, you inferred those things. Let me address them:

Too many people think that they are too sick to fast, when they are not.

I agree with this.

There are very very few people who cannot participate,

This particular piece was neither implied nor inferred; it was stated openly.

the others who say they are sick and aren't should just buck up and do it anyway regardless of the consequences,

No, I disagree with this. Specifically, the "regardless of the consequences" part is foolhardy; God certainly does not expect us to die to fulfill the law of the fast, for example.

But I would agree with a statement more like, "Many people think that fasting will harm them, when in fact it will not do them any harm past getting a headache or feeling bad for a while."

The link you provided a document that suggested that if god asks of one to fast, that he then makes it possible, and you should just push ahead (I reserve the right to have mistated this because it's not right in front of me)

Right reservation noted, and you have indeed misstated President Woodruff's point. I interpreted it as more along the lines of "Fasting won't kill you, so fast even if it gives you a headache."

But basically after reading that I made me feel like I was supposed to be ashamed of not being able to fast.

Glad that we have that misunderstanding straightened out, then.

The reason I requested clarification was because, in my opinion that is an offensive position to take.

So your opinion is that my opinion offends you?

I'm offended.

You could easily end up sending someone into an emergency kind of situation using guilt to make them fast when they shouldn't be.

I doubt I have any such magical ability. And I also doubt that the tiny minority of people for whom a short, 24-hour fast presents physical danger are going to rush to fasting because they read the opinion of some random guy on the internet and a single quote by a prophet with little context.

As for the much larger portion of Saints who don't fast because it makes them feel bad, many of whom perhaps claim some physical handicap as their excuse -- if my words somehow "guilt" them into fasting, then that can only be a good thing. Right?

I agree with you that there are probably some people who don't fast and they don't do it simply because they don't want to, but they say it is for medical reasons. I agree that those people could/should be guilted into participating

Actually, I don't agree. I'm not much into motivation by guilt, at least if the guilt is coming from an external source. (God excepted -- he's allowed to "guilt" anyone he wants, with no correction from Vort.)

And I took it as a personal afront because it was in a thread in which we were discussing my personal situation. I don't think it was a good idea to start making broad generalizations when it felt aimed at me.

Again, you mean that you took offense at my opinion. How offensive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of medical reasons I have NEVER been able to enjoy the blessings of a fast.

I am wondering if anyone out there has found a 'substitute' for fasting, for those who have to eat (low blood sugar=very bad!). It has been suggested things like 'no TV' or something like that, but for some reason, no TV doesn't seem as spiritual as no food.

Any ideas?

Do what sacrifice you can, God is aware of our limits and does not want us to endanger our lives needlessly. If you can't go without food for 24 hours can you do 12 hours safely? If so, would it still be an effort on your part? Or another option would be to consume the minimal amount to keep your body functioning properly but not what would be a normal full meal for you.

The main thing is it is supposed to be a sacrifice, I wouldn't consider TV an option as it is not necessary for staying alive. (perhaps if one is addicted to TV and is trying to get off it, then it might be good to have that as part of the fast... but thats about the only thing in regards to TV where it might come into play as a good sacrifice)

SOme reasons we fast is that we show God that we are willing to overcome the natural man in order to come closer to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you blackmarch... I have never even attemped a fast like activity, because I just thought it wasn't for me. But lately I really feel like I need to try on some level to experience those blessings, and at least try something. I was hoping that asking this question would help me get some good ideas about how to do something like a fast that didn't endanger my health... I am interested in understanding better what a fast feels like... is it a spiritual high? how long does it last? how does it make you feel (besides hungry)? Because I don't think I will ever be able to truly experience that, I want to get as close to it as I can!

thank you guys for all your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, actually, my response implied nothing of the sort. Rather, you inferred those things. Let me address them:

I agree with this.

This particular piece was neither implied nor inferred; it was stated openly.

No, I disagree with this. Specifically, the "regardless of the consequences" part is foolhardy; God certainly does not expect us to die to fulfill the law of the fast, for example.

But I would agree with a statement more like, "Many people think that fasting will harm them, when in fact it will not do them any harm past getting a headache or feeling bad for a while."

Right reservation noted, and you have indeed misstated President Woodruff's point. I interpreted it as more along the lines of "Fasting won't kill you, so fast even if it gives you a headache."

Glad that we have that misunderstanding straightened out, then.

So your opinion is that my opinion offends you?

I'm offended.

I doubt I have any such magical ability. And I also doubt that the tiny minority of people for whom a short, 24-hour fast presents physical danger are going to rush to fasting because they read the opinion of some random guy on the internet and a single quote by a prophet with little context.

As for the much larger portion of Saints who don't fast because it makes them feel bad, many of whom perhaps claim some physical handicap as their excuse -- if my words somehow "guilt" them into fasting, then that can only be a good thing. Right?

Actually, I don't agree. I'm not much into motivation by guilt, at least if the guilt is coming from an external source. (God excepted -- he's allowed to "guilt" anyone he wants, with no correction from Vort.)

Again, you mean that you took offense at my opinion. How offensive!

I'm sorry Vort, I'm just not in the mood to really try and untangle all of this. I guess my point is just that generalizing and saying that very very few people are unable to fast is inaccurate. There ARE a lot of people who could be harmed by fasting, and I think that your post about it made some people feel uncomfortable about not being able to fast, me among them. You are welcome to your opinion, and I am welcome to take offense at it. And I do. I hope that helps clairify my concerns to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There ARE a lot of people who could be harmed by fasting, and I think that your post about it made some people feel uncomfortable about not being able to fast, me among them.

I propose it made an unspecified number of lurkers wail and gnash their teeth. Also some Guatemalan children laughed in joy and a family in Wisconsin is now depressed because of what Vort wrote. I also suspect this post will give an unknown number of Victorian women the vapors.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sister_in_faith, you are the only person that truly knows your body and your issues. You have to do what you think is best. :)

About Vort, don't sweat it. Sometimes (heck, most times), he can be a pain in the....well, you get it... but I don't think he meant any harm. He just seems to feel strong about most points he makes and of course, people should just take it as what it is, his personal opinion and nothing more. Therefore, I don't think anyone should feel guilty after reading his posts or any other post from any other member for that matter. We are just random folks using the internet and trying to sound intelligent. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Vort, I'm just not in the mood to really try and untangle all of this.

Not sure what there is to untangle. I didn't hide any deep meanings in my writing. Pretty much WYSIWYG.

I guess my point is just that generalizing and saying that very very few people are unable to fast is inaccurate.

How do you know this? I don't believe it. On the contrary, throughout human history, people who are damaged by a short, 24-hour fast typically don't survive long enough to reproduce. In other words, they die out quickly. We who live today come from a very, very, very long line of ancestors, almost all of whom were perfectly capable of fasting for 24 hours without any harm whatsoever.

There ARE a lot of people who could be harmed by fasting,

Do you have any evidence of this?

You are welcome to your opinion, and I am welcome to take offense at it.

Not really. But you certainly have the right to take offense wherever you wish. If you wish to take offense at a non-offensive statement like "most people can fast 24 hours without suffering any lasting harm", I think it's an unwise thing to do, but do as you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know this? I don't believe it. On the contrary, throughout human history, people who are damaged by a short, 24-hour fast typically don't survive long enough to reproduce. In other words, they die out quickly. We who live today come from a very, very, very long line of ancestors, almost all of whom were perfectly capable of fasting for 24 hours without any harm whatsoever.

So am I understanding correctly that you think that as long as a fast doesn't kill someone then it is appropriate to do? I think this point may be where we differ. I wholeheartedly agree that a 24 hour fast will kill very very few people. Just because a fast won't kill someone doesn't mean they should do it.

Do you have any evidence of this?

I have common sense. Off the top of my head here is a list of people that could be harmed by a 24 hour fast...

-pregnant women

-nursing mothers (I have heard some people say that not eating can cause a release of toxins [as a result of the body starting to eat stored fat] which are released into the breast milk... not sure if that's true, but like I said this is off the top of my head)

-cancer patients undergoing treatment (chemo often causes severe nausia, and keeping even a little bit of food down can be a huge deal. putting yourself 24 hours behind the ball, so to speak, can be a really big deal)

-people who take medication (often it is required that you eat when you take certain medications - skipping even one dose of medication can be harmful to someone, and I would not advise it)

-diabetics (for blatently obvious reasons)

I just found this: from 'fasting.com' and I don't think I could have said it better...

"THESE SHOULD NOT FAST

SCIENTIFIC FASTING, or any other type of fasting, whether juice fasting or water fasting, is contraindicated for children under 18 (because they're still forming bone and teeth); pregnant and nursing mothers (since their own detoxification would toxify their child, through their umbilicus or milk); insulin-dependent Type I diabetics (Type 2 diabetics may do our Waivered Program; those with laboratory tests revealing significant liver (eg., cirrhosis) or kidney disease (including renal failure patients--those who've been hospitalized with kidney failure and placed on dialysis, even if not currently on it); alcoholics (advanced stage), and those with hyperthyroidism and advanced thyroid malfunctions.

Likewise, fasting is contraindicated for those suffering irreversible wasting diseases such as AIDS (advanced stage), tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases which must be reported such as advanced SARS and H5N1 Avian influenza or other lethal bird flus; extensive carcinomas and metastatic cancers (when fasting would contribute to their malnourished state, perhaps resulting in an earlier death); atrial fibrillation; cardiovascular diseases such as advanced old age, marked vascular diseases with poor circulation to various parts of the body (eg., smoker's leg), and cerebral degeneration due to arteriosclerosis (a.k.a. organic brain syndrome) or Alzheimer's disease; serious cardiac diseases including heart failure, severe cardiac rhythm disturbances, post-myocardial infarction, and severe cardiomyopathy and valvular heart defects.

Additionally, fasting is contraindicated for those who are severely weak and debilitated, or with diseases caused by undernourishment or malnutrition, severe anemia and porphyria (a hereditary defect of blood pigment metabolism); bleeding disorders of the stomach and intestines; FSGS (familial focal segmental glomerulosclerosis); psychiatric disorders including severe manic-depressive illness (a.k.a bipolar disorder) and/or taking Lithium, schizophrenia, severe neuroses, severe anorexia nervosa or severe bulimia, and finally, those with insufficient understanding of the fasting process leading to their perceived inability to do without solid food for a prolonged period (despite countless hundreds of millions having done so before us).

Similarly, FCI does not accept, as clients, those taking anti-convulsant or anti-epileptic drugs to control grand mal, psychomotor, myoclonic, and focal seizures, nor do we accept clients on diuretics (egs., Furosemide, Lasix or Spironolactone), anticoagulants (egs., Coumadin or Plavix), or drugs for congestive heart failure (eg., Digoxin) "

And that list is off a website that PROMOTES fasting.

So let's take a look at the above list, and then let's see if this list represents a 'very very' small segment of society.

Humm. Nope. Looks like a lot of people to me.

Not really. But you certainly have the right to take offense wherever you wish. If you wish to take offense at a non-offensive statement like "most people can fast 24 hours without suffering any lasting harm", I think it's an unwise thing to do, but do as you wish.

What are you even trying to say? That you don't have the right to your own opinion? You say that I am wrong in saying that you are welcome to your opinion and I am welcome to be offended, and then you say that I DO have the right to be offended, so by process of elemination you must be objecting to me saying you the right to your own opinion. I disagree, but then again, that means that you have the right to the opinion that you don't have the right to your opinion... ugh. Okay, whatever.

My problem is that there are a lot of people who could be harmed by fasting. And when anyone trys to make this group of people feel bad about not fasting, that sucks. I think the whole "you probably won't die" line of thought is offensive. I have experienced severe health problems in my short life. I have been through times where due to the PTSD and medications I was taking I couldn't keep food down for long periods of time. A couple of years ago I went a couple of months where I would eat and then sit in front of the toilet trying to keep it down just a few more seconds so that my body could extract as much nutrition as possible before I vomited it into the toilet. I was so dehydrated that I had to go to the hospital for infusions to get SOME fluids in my system.

At that time, I COULD have fasted if I wanted to. It wouldn't have killed me. But it would have hurt me. The doctor finally gave me marinol to try and give me the munchies. All that did was make me eat a lot of popcorn while my boyfriend laughed at me. The popcorn kernels hurt my throat when I threw them up later.

I take a lot of medications that require that I eat food with them to take them. I used to take a diabetes medication that eating without food was like torture. Seriously. They finally took me off it the effects were just too much. If I had chosen to fast I would have had to not take that medication. Not taking that medication would cause my blood sugar to drop, and not eating would cause my blood sugar to drop. That combination could put me in the hospital, or worse yet, yes... It COULD kill me.

These are just a FEW examples of why I shouldn't fast. It is difficult enough for me to go through life dealing with the medical issues I am dealing with, and the guilt I put on MYSELF for not being able to participate in fasting. I know I am missing out on blessings. Why do you think I started this thread in the first place? Then on top of all this, I have people like you saying things along the lines that make me feel like you frown on people who don't fast, and think they could just buck up and do it! It won't kill them after all! That is such an unloving position to take. Rather than guilt tripping people who can't fast (and yes, there are a lot of us) why can't you support us with understanding and kindness? We have a difficult enough road to travel without people like you guilt tripping us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the text off this page... on lds.org

I Have a Question - Ensign Apr. 1979 - ensign

"Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy.

I am an insulin-dependent diabetic and cannot fast, but I feel guilty teaching my Beehive class about fasting when I can’t. What should I do?

Malcolm S. Jeppsen, M.D., Regional Representative The question as to whether one can safely fast as a diabetic must, of course, be answered by the person’s physician. Many diabetics are in the early or mild stage of the diabetic process and can fast with complete safety for a time shorter than the customary twenty-four hours. Others, with the approval of their physicians, can observe a partial fast, such as abstaining from all food except orange juice or soft drinks every two hours, to maintain an acceptable blood sugar level.

There are those who have determined that they cannot safely fast. I believe these individuals should keep several things in mind. First of all, since fasting is not required of those whose physical condition does not allow it, such a person should not feel guilty about being unable to fast.

President Joseph F. Smith stated, “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; … 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. Many are subject to weakness, others are delicate in health, and others have nursing babies; of such it should not be required to fast.” (Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1977, p. 244.)

Those who cannot fast could draw close to the Lord in other ways. One of these is scripture study. The scriptures contain the mind and will of the Lord, not only for his people of ancient times, but also for us today. There is no surer way to draw close to the Lord than by regular and serious study of the scriptures.

One may also give more emphasis to prayer by praying more often and by making his prayers more meaningful. The Savior told the Nephites: “Ye must always pray unto the Father in my name” (3 Ne. 18:19). He was speaking also to our day.

We sometimes overlook the power of meditation in helping us feel close to the Lord. I have found it very important to ponder the things of God, my relationship to him, and his love for me. Meditation is especially valuable when it is accompanied by prayer and when it is done in solitude.

Renewing our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament can surely draw us closer to the Lord, as can attempting to keep those covenants by serving others. We should also take care to meet our church financial obligations, share the gospel with others, do temple and genealogy work, and strive daily to follow the example of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Fasting embodies a principle of sacrifice—that of denying oneself something so that he or she can become a more spiritual individual. Perhaps one could sacrifice something other than food and drink in order to accomplish this goal. One might abstain from television, movies, or sleeping in. One can also sacrifice by paying a generous fast offering.

Finally, it occurs to me that this sister might be able to use her situation as an object lesson for her Beehive class, pointing out to her students that they should be grateful for their ability to fast."

I think this part bares repeating... 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. Many are subject to weakness, others are delicate in health, and others have nursing babies; of such it should not be required to fast.

That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. There are people (more than a very very few) who the church does not require to fast. Duh. I can't believe that this has been this difficult to prove. Ugh. seriously. :banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another aspect of choosing what type of fast you should do is whether or not it harms your ability to perform a church responsibility, calling, or other commandment of God. For example, during the summer months on my mission, my mission president told all the missionaries to drink water during the monthly fast because too many people were getting severely dehydrated and were out for a couple days afterward.

I think everybody can agree that if your fasting does bodily harm or keeps you from doing other things that God has asked you to do, then you're doing it wrong. As to whether or not fasting causes a certain person bodily harm, only their doctor/health professional can accurately determine that.

Edited by LittleWyvern
grammar fail!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another aspect of choosing what type of fast you should do is whether or not it harms your ability to perform a church responsibility, calling, or other commandment of God. For example, during the summer months on my mission, my mission president told all the missionaries to drink water during the monthly fast because too many people were getting severely dehydrated and were out for a couple days afterward.

I think everybody can agree that if your fasting does bodily harm or keeps you from doing other things that God has asked you to do, then you're doing it wrong. As to whether or not fasting causes a certain person bodily harm or not, only their doctor/health professional can accurately determine that.

that is a very good point. in some areas it is just too hot to not drink water unless you stay inside all day with good air conditioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So am I understanding correctly that you think that as long as a fast doesn't kill someone then it is appropriate to do?

No, s_i_f. As has been evidenced this entire thread, you appear not to understand me, no matter how carefully I try to explain. Even if I start my response off by saying, "I can't speak to your particular situation," your response is something like "Why are you saying that I should be fasting?!" When I say "A" and you insist I mean "Not A", I don't know how to communicate in such a situation.

I have common sense. Off the top of my head here is a list of people that could be harmed by a 24 hour fast...

Anyone "could be harmed by" a 24-hour fast, just as anyone "could be harmed by" a mosquito bite. "Could be harmed by" is a poor standard for judging whether people should fast. Using that standard, literally no one should ever fast.

-pregnant women

Nah. Pregnant women can fast if they feel up to it. As long as they are being properly nourished and are not under a lot of physical stress, a short 24-hour fast will harm neither them nor their baby. (The baby won't get harmed in any case; it's the mother that will feel the fast. The baby takes what it needs.)

-nursing mothers (I have heard some people say that not eating can cause a release of toxins [as a result of the body starting to eat stored fat] which are released into the breast milk... not sure if that's true, but like I said this is off the top of my head)

Nursing mothers have more of a case to avoid fasting than pregnant mothers, I think. Pregnant women nourish their (fetal-sized) child directly from their bloodstream; nursing mothers nourish their (usually much larger) child by turning the nutrients into milk, which then gets digested by the baby, a small percentage of it being retained. Nursing is a great deal less efficient and more energy-consuming than pregnancy (though by most accounts far less uncomfortable). The old adage about a woman losing a tooth for every child originates in the effects of nursing, not of pregnancy.

-cancer patients undergoing treatment (chemo often causes severe nausia, and keeping even a little bit of food down can be a huge deal. putting yourself 24 hours behind the ball, so to speak, can be a really big deal)

This one is pretty obvious.

-people who take medication (often it is required that you eat when you take certain medications - skipping even one dose of medication can be harmful to someone, and I would not advise it)

Yes, some medications suggest or even require they be taken with food. Setting aside for the moment that our society is absurdly overmedicated, if you are supposed to take medication that requires or suggests food, this might limit your ability to fast 24 hours at a time.

-diabetics (for blatently obvious reasons)

My diabetic uncle fasts. I don't think the reasons are as "blatantly obvious" as you suppose.

I just found this: from 'fasting.com' and I don't think I could have said it better...

"THESE SHOULD NOT FAST

SCIENTIFIC FASTING, or any other type of fasting, whether juice fasting or water fasting, is contraindicated for children under 18 (because they're still forming bone and teeth);

Do you believe this? You think my teenage children should not fast, despite the clear teachings of the prophets, and despite the obvious spiritual growth they experience in learning to discipline their appetites?

I disagree. I don't see "fasting.com" as any sort of reliable authority on the topic.

So let's take a look at the above list, and then let's see if this list represents a 'very very' small segment of society.

Humm. Nope. Looks like a lot of people to me.

Not to me. Take the "pregnant and nursing mothers" out of the picture, and the largest group is probably those with Type I diabetes, which represents 5% of 8.3%, or about 0.4% of the population. The second-largest group is probably those with AIDS, representing about 0.3% of the population. Yes, I would say this is a very small segment of the population.

What are you even trying to say? That you don't have the right to your own opinion?

Not sure what to tell you, s_i_f. I despair at the idea of writing anything to you, knowing that you are almost sure to misunderstand what I'm saying.

My problem is that there are a lot of people who could be harmed by fasting.

Yes. Like, anyone. But of course, anyone could be harmed by a mosquito bite or by eating a candy bar, too. The standard of "could be harmed by" is not useful.

And when anyone trys to make this group of people feel bad about not fasting, that sucks.

Just curious: Does it suck when someone tries to make another feel bad for trying to make others feel bad? How about false accusations? Do those suck?

I think the whole "you probably won't die" line of thought is offensive.

I gather you're rather easily offended.

I have experienced severe health problems in my short life. [etc]

Not sure why you're telling me this. If you feel the need to explain your situation to me, you should perhaps reread the first sentence of my original response. Not that rereading it will do any actual good, of course...

It is difficult enough for me to go through life dealing with the medical issues I am dealing with, and the guilt I put on MYSELF for not being able to participate in fasting. I know I am missing out on blessings. Why do you think I started this thread in the first place?

I assumed you wanted to know what you could do instead of fasting that would give you the same, or an equivalent, spiritual experience. I made this assumption based on what you wrote in your original post.

Then on top of all this, I have people like you saying things along the lines that make me feel like you frown on people who don't fast, and think they could just buck up and do it!

If I write things that overtly attack others and seek to engender feelings of inadequacy and shame, that is my problem.

If I explicitly disclaim some particular behavior and yet you insist on attributing that behavior to me despite my words, that is your problem.

And if I write my opinions on a discussion board and you dislike my opinions, then expect me to shut up because you don't like what I say, you might want to rethink the dynamics of participation on a discussion board.

That is such an unloving position to take.

Seriously?

Who are you to judge whether I am "unloving"?

Rather than guilt tripping people who can't fast (and yes, there are a lot of us) why can't you support us with understanding and kindness? We have a difficult enough road to travel without people like you guilt tripping us.

Rather than wrongly condemning me for actions you insist on attributing to me despite my clear denial of them, why can't you accept that not everyone shares your worldview? That I don't agree with you doesn't make me bad, or mean, or unkind, or even <gasp> wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simple. Possibly, most people can or they are able to fast, doesn't mean that in all cases they should.

Little children, pregnant women, convalescents, and persons with chronic illness (such as diabetes) should not undertake long fasts and in some cases should not fast at all.

Staying Healthy: Welfare Services Suggests How - Liahona Sept. 1981 - liahona

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never having fasted before, I really don't know what it 'feels' like, or what feelings I'm trying to evoke. I'm gussing it's a little more complicated than just being hungry. Or maybe I'm wrong?

I used to have no problem fasting. If accompanied by prayer and sincerity there is a feeling of strength, not hunger. There is the opportunity for the spirit to become closer.

Twenty four years ago I got sick. I've had health issues every since. I find it very difficult to fast, let alone fast and attend meetings. I have to take meds. I get sick. Without food I start throwing up, sometimes I get dizzy and often it starts a migraine that lasts for days.

It bothered me that I couldn't fast. I kept trying and failing. I used to beat myself up about it for a long time.

I was studying the Plan of Salvation in depth. I was also listening to a talk on CD by Gene R. Cook. It is entitled Receiving Answsers to Prayer. I finally realized something very important: Fasting is about sacrifice.

Christ sacrificed for us. He asks us to sacrafice to remember him.

Sacrifice. Instead of asking what you can do instead of fasting, which sounds like a substitute. Ask... what can I sacrifice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share