Fasting kidney problem

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I think you're overreacting a bit.  I was merely posting the standard disclaimer that any website such as this would and SHOULD post regarding medical issues:  Seek the advice of a competent professional.  This is doubly so when someone says effectively "Don't do what your doctor told you to do."

Particularly when fasting by Mormon definition seems to include skipping water, when most will agree that dehydration can significantly exacerbate kidney stones.

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Fasting each first Sunday is considered "A Practice."  This practice seems to have benefits both physical and spiritual.  Personally, I've never seen this as "A Commandment."

As such, it is more subject to the standard of "reasonableness" than other things that we know to be commandments.

That was my understanding until I was interviewed for baptism.  It's entirely possible that I'm misremembering the interview as I don't see this listed anywhere officially, but I could have sworn part of the questioning was my willingness to follow the law of tithing and contribute fast offerings.  That's why I understood it to be a covenant.  I'll ask my interviewer if he remembers.  

I'm not attempting to be stirring things up, just sorting them out in my own mind.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That was my understanding until I was interviewed for baptism.  It's entirely possible that I'm misremembering the interview as I don't see this listed anywhere officially, but I could have sworn part of the questioning was my willingness to follow the law of tithing and contribute fast offerings.  That's why I understood it to be a covenant.  I'll ask my interviewer if he remembers.  

I'm not attempting to be stirring things up, just sorting them out in my own mind.  

Fast offerings?  That seems odd.  I don't recall that being part of the interview.  Tithing, yes.  That is a commandment.  But I've sat in at least three bishop's offices and a couple stake presidents for a temple recommend.  When they got to the tithing question, I'd say that I was a faithful tithe payer, but often missed doing fast offerings.  They universally responded that fast offering was different and not a part of the interview.

Perhaps baptismal interviews are different?  Perhaps this is a recent change?  I don't know.  I don't recall this ever being part of our covenants.

ALSO, one who has medical issues preventing them from fasting can also contribute a fast offering to help the needy.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Guest

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Fast offerings?  That seems odd.  I don't recall that being part of the interview.  Tithing, yes.  That is a commandment.  But I've sat in at least three bishop's offices and a couple stake presidents for a temple recommend.  When they got to the tithing question, I'd say that I was a faithful tithe payer, but often missed doing fast offerings.  They universally responded that fast offering was different and not a part of the interview.

Perhaps baptismal interviews are different?  Perhaps this is a recent change?  I don't know.  I don't recall this ever being part of our covenants.

I did a cursory search on LDS.org and didn't see fast offerings mentioned in the interview questions.  It may have been my imagination or more likely part of a side-bar conversation that stemmed from one of my convoluted answers.

[Vort]

19 hours ago, Grunt said:

Wow.  I’ll have to ponder this.  However, where does it say “health comes first”.  Isn’t dehydration in general unhealthy?

Grunt, here's the dirt. In my experience, somewhere around 25%-50% of active Latter-day Saints claim one reason or another why they "can't" do a regular 24-hour fast -- pregnancy, nursing, Type II diabetes, low blood sugar, it's hot, they're feeling sick, etc. ad nauseam. And remember, these are the active Saints.

I am in no position to refute any of these arguments on a personal basis, but when a huge percentage of members are claiming this, something is badly wrong. From a statistical point of view alone, it's clear that Latter-day Saints are looking to circumvent the law of the fast because they find it uncomfortable. There is no other reasonable conclusion -- unless you want to posit for serious consideration that we as a people are substantially physically weaker than our great-grandparents, weaker to the point that a fast that would have been healthy for them is dangerous for us.

Personally, I wish we would see much less of Latter-day Saints trying to excuse themselves from fasting and much more of earnest striving to fulfill a law and commandment (note the words) that bring tremendous blessings for only moderate discomfort -- a discomfort that eases the more you practice fasting.

This is not a new issue. Back in the nineteenth century, President Woodruff addressed the Saints as follows:

Quote

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 twenty-four 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.

I wholeheartedly endorse President Woodruff's teachings on this matter. I myself am not great at fasting. But that is not because I'm so physically frail that a simple 24-hour fast would endanger my health. It's because I'm undisciplined. I intend to discipline myself in this matter, and I won't start down that road by excusing my poor performance.

Fasting is an obligation and also a blessing. I cannot believe for a moment that the human body was designed to get sick or harmed by not eating or drinking for a day. Such humans may have existed, but the merciless Darwinian forces of life killed them off long, long ago. We each come from long lines of hardy ancestors who regularly fasted for 24-hour periods without blinking an eye over the "deprivation". When there's no food to be had, you fast. It's that simple. Our overfed society has lost track of this simple truth.

There are blessings of the fast that will come in no other way. (See Section 130.) If we truly cannot fast, God will certainly excuse us from that obligation --  but we will not receive the blessings that the fast offers. That's the bottom line. How much worse, then, when we simply don't fast because it's too uncomfortable, thus not only refusing to follow God's commandment but depriving ourselves of the very real blessings that come to us only by fasting!

Vort's bottom line: Don't listen to those who want to excuse themselves (or you) from fasting. Unless you have a serious and present health condition that makes fasting a bona fide endangerment of your health, fast away, at least once a month, by abstaining from both food and drink (including water) for 24 hours.

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Vort's bottom line: Don't listen to those who want to excuse themselves (or you) from fasting. Unless you have a serious and present health condition that makes fasting a bona fide endangerment of your health, fast away, at least once a month, by abstaining from both food and drink (including water) for 24 hours.

 

I think that is my exact point.  I too agree with President Woodruff's sentiment.  That was one of the reasons I spent so much time studying before I accepted baptism.  I had to know this to be true, because I knew there would be things that would be asked/required of me that would prove difficult.  Fasting wasn't one of them, I fast all the time for health benefits AND because I'm too lazy to cook for myself when my wife is away, but tithing is still a tough pill for me to swallow.  If the Law stated "10% unless there is something else you'd rather buy" then it would be an easy decision.  If fasting ISN'T a directive, then I wouldn't give it as much though immediately, I'd just do it or not as I saw fit.  If it IS a directive, as I understood it to be (without any research) then the suggestion made earlier to use our judgment whether or not to follow it seems odd.  

[Vort]

On 1/26/2018 at 4:13 AM, xpluto said:

I am 29 year old boy and also I am healthy but I had many kidney stones in past. My doctor told me to drink at least several glasses of water each day.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on the internet. If you look to me for medical advice, you are acting in a foolish manner.

Having said that, I seem to remember a recent (within the last ten years) article saying that no statistical correlation was found between fluid intake and kidney stone development. In some cases, it actually appeared the increased fluid intake contributed to stone formation.

A quick Google search did not produce the relevant paper, but the first hit was exactly contrary to what I just wrote, citing observational studies. I notice that it claims chronic dehydration as the culprit in starting kidney stones. A 24-hour fast per month is not chronic dehydration. There is no doubt that the current "common wisdom" is what your doctor said: Drink water to avoid kidney stones. There is also no doubt at all that the vast majority of US doctors are extremely conservative in their approach to medical issues -- "conservative" in the sense that they want to do what others have done in the past and definitely NOT do what has not been done. That is the nature of modern medicine.

Here is a study that turns the above wisdom on its head: http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/6/11/2558.full. Note one sentence in particular: "Observational studies may demonstrate associations that may or may not be true." A classic understatement.

You do what you feel is best. My own anonymous internet opinion is that your health will not likely be endangered by a 24-hour fast.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Personally, I wish we would see much less of Latter-day Saints trying to excuse themselves from fasting and much more of earnest striving to fulfill a law and commandment (note the words) that bring tremendous blessings for only moderate discomfort -- a discomfort that eases the more you practice fasting.

@Grunt  I stand corrected.  It is indeed a law.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/the-law-of-the-fast-a-personal-responsibility-to-care-for-the-poor-and-needy?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/the-law-of-the-fast?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/04/the-law-of-the-fast?lang=eng

Quote

6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bandsof wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

Isaiah 58:6-7

Good thing I haven't been the type to get too lawyerly about it.  That does change my mind about just when I'm excused and when I'm not.

[Guest]

I think it appropriate to share an experience I had while fasting. I decided that for me the fast was only truly kept when the Sabbath was also strictly kept.

1. Actually physically fasting for a full 24 hours.
2. Following D&C 59:23

Quote

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.

Context of "none other thing" indicates that we do those things we're supposed to do on the Sabbath.

I have successfully refrained from eating and drinking for 24 hours on many occasions.  But the second part really takes concentration and dedication that I have only achieved once in my life.  That may sound pathetic, but it was quite memorable.

At some point, I physically and spiritually felt "elevated."  I know that is not a very specific term.  But I don't know how to describe it better.  I also had some highly "elevated" insights during that time.  Sorry I can't really describe any better than that. 

I really wish I could duplicate it.  But one of my weaknesses, I'm afraid, is that I get distracted far too easily.

[brlenox]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I think you're overreacting a bit.  I was merely posting the standard disclaimer that any website such as this would and SHOULD post regarding medical issues:  Seek the advice of a competent professional.  This is doubly so when someone says effectively "Don't do what your doctor told you to do."

If you're going to play the hypocrisy card, make sure you're not the pot.  -- Too late.

You've been posturing for so long it just comes natural to you. Do you represent the website so that what you post would be considered indemnifying? No you do not.  Did your statement rise to the standard required by law to indemnify this site if you had been considered a legal representative. Not even close, The verbiage must read to the effect of:

Quote

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SERVICE IS NOT INTENDED NOR IMPLIED TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ADVICE. ALWAYS SEEK THE ADVICE OF YOUR PHYSICIAN OR OTHER QUALIFIED HEALTH PROFESSIONAL PRIOR TO STARTING ANY NEW TREATMENT OR WITH ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING A MEDICAL CONDITION. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE SERVICE IS INTENDED TO BE FOR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT.

OR something to the effect of:

Quote

The Food and Drug Administration has not evaluated any health related statements that may appear on this site. The information presented on this site is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

So does your effort at "posting the standard disclaimer" even come close.  No you are just making up crud to make it look like you are above a standard to which you frequently fail to achieve.

His doctor told him to drink water -pretty generic advice.  Still not the kind of advice anyone would say don't do this.  Perhaps you can show me where I said that he should not drink water.  I was precise and clear on where I thought his doctor had failed him, which was in the incomplete nature of his efforts to assist the young man understand the potential issues related to his condition of kidney stones.

I genuinely wish to hear anything you have of worth and value, something that contributes in a positive way but I'm not impressed by posers.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, brlenox said:

You've been posturing for so long it just comes natural to you.

I must have touched a nerve.  Oh my.  Whatever shall I do?

I'm honestly having difficulty figuring out why you took offense to what I posted in this thread.  I even paid you a compliment.  But in your blindness, you chose to ignore it in favor of seeing it as an attack on you.  It wasn't.  It was an honest attempt to make a clarification, which you, in turn, confirmed needed to be made by posting essentially the same thing later.

If you'd like me to apologize, just ask.  But I'd ask, what exactly did I do that was so offensive?  Explain that to me without being offensive yourself and I'll gladly apologize.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Guest

[Vort]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

You've been posturing for so long it just comes natural to you.

Man, Carb. You really suck.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Man, Carb. You really suck.

So I've been told.

[Grunt]

Triggered

[seashmore]

On January 26, 2018 at 6:13 AM, xpluto said:

Hello,

 I am a new member and I Had a question about fasting.

I am 29 year old boy and also I am healthy but I had many kidney stones in past. My doctor told me to drink at least several glasses of water each day.

I really want to fast but I am afraid it can cause problems for me. Do you think is it possible that I fast without eating but I drink at least a half glass of water in middle of my fasting ?

I am sure my doctor does not know the answer, becuase he is not familiar with church.

 

Not having read any other replies, allow me to share my story. I experience seasonal depression that can last any time from Sept-Mar. Over time, I recognized my symptoms get worse if I get dehydrated. After making that connection, I pondered and prayed to come up with a solution that would work for me. At the start of a winter fast, I fill up a water bottle and allow myself up to that much water throughout the course of the fast. Some months I need the whole bottle (like when I did a lot of walking and other physical labor while at work on Saturday nights), but some I don't need any. 

Doctors are familiar with the concept of fasting (some blood tests require a 12 hour fast), so don't be afraid to run anything by him. Explain you would like to fast for 24 hours or two meals once a month for religious reasons and ask if not drinking any water during that time would increase your risk for kidney stones. If he says yes, take your compromise of half a glass (or whatever you come up with) to the Lord in prayer for His approval. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by seashmore