Fasting - some questions

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Fasting is not so much the action (though it incorporates the act of fasting) as much as it is the attitude.

I think I don't agree. I can't think of another law or commandment we have been given for which this would be true. "The law of chastity is not so much the action as much as it is the attitude." "The law of sacrifice is not so much the actions as much as it is the attitude." "The law of don't kill people is not so much the action as much as it is the attitude."

If we want to receive the benefits specific to fasting, there is only and exactly one way to receive them. We must fast.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Vort

[Vort]

Dupe.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Vort

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Vort said:

I think I don't agree. I can't think of another law or commandment we have been given for which this would be true. "The law of chastity is not so much the action as much as it is the attitude." "The law of sacrifice is not so much the actions as much as it is the attitude." The law of don't kill people is not so much the action as much as it is the attitude."

If we want to receive the benefits specific to fasting, there is only and exactly one way to receive them. We must fast.

It depends on what you consider a law or not.

For example, one Law that this holds true for many of the Saints today is the Law of Consecration.  This is a law that many still believe we should practice, and we do.  However, we do not do it literally, but we do it by our attitude.  Even though we do not give all we have to the church today, we must have the attitude that we are willing to do so and that we are willing to do all that is asked for us, even if it means our death.  We will give all that we have.  Most are not called upon to dedicate ourselves this way to the church today, but that does not mean we do not try to live this law.

For the Church today it is impractical to have this law, therefore we do not live it as a church as the whole.  However, this law is still very much in practice.  When one cannot practice certain aspects literally, we can still practice it spiritually.

One instance of this is when Alma and others are unable to pray aloud.  Despite not praying aloud, they say prayers in their hearts and spirit.  They pray, but not in the actions which normally accompany prayer as that would mean death to them in that instance. 

I would differ to you in another degree in that action without the attitude is far less than the attitude without the action.  In otherwords, if you fast for nothing, it warrants you nothing, even if you fast.  ON the otherhand, if you have the attitude or spirituality focused on the spirit of fasting, beginning and ending it with prayer, focusing on the Lord and the reasons of the fast, you will gain far more than if you did not.

Fasting is also to show that you put the Lord before physical needs or wants.  It is for this reason that you focus on the Lord more than on the physical desires.  However, the Lord never said to risk death to fast...I would actually say that's a severe misalignment of what the Lord wants and could break other commandments.

For those (which are a majority of those in the Church) who suffer no ill-effects from fasting this may be a hard concept to understand.  The Fast is NOT to risk life, limb, health, or death, but to focus on the Lord and put the desires of the spirit over the desires of the flesh or the physical.  There is no need to fast physically from those who are unable to do so.  However, they should still focus on the spirit of the fast and do the similar things one would do when fasting (and I would include a fast offering among the items of a fast).

I understand that there are many that could fast with no ill-effects long term that do not, and I'm not trying to excuse them.  I am not.  I am saying that for those who are unable to physically fast, that this does not mean they are excluded from the blessings that can come from a fast.  They can still obtain the blessings of the fast by committing themselves to the spirit of the fast and doing all they can in that spirit of keeping the fast, even if they cannot fast physically.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It depends on what you consider a law or not.

Not sure how. The law of the fast is without doubt a law, but even if you consider it a commandment rather than a law (as if there's some difference there), I still don't see how you can say it's less about the commandment and more about the attitude.

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

For example, one Law that this holds true for many of the Saints today is the Law of Consecration.  This is a law that many still believe we should practice, and we do.  However, we do not do it literally, but we do it by our attitude.  Even though we do not give all we have to the church today

Sure we do. Every one of us who receives his or her temple endowment, without exception, makes this covenant and gives all he or she has, or ever will have, to the Church. That is so explicitly stated that I don't see how it can be misunderstood.

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

we must have the attitude that we are willing to do so and that we are willing to do all that is asked for us, even if it means our death.  We will give all that we have.  Most are not called upon to dedicate ourselves this way to the church today, but that does not mean we do not try to live this law.

Again, I disagree strongly. We most certainly ARE called upon to dedicate ourselves this way. And the day will come when the bishop will require an accounting of our stewardship, including the rendering of all we have done with that stewardship. That is in our future. Whether or not we obey is another matter, but make no mistake, we have made that convenant and are bound under it, right now, today.

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

For the Church today it is impractical to have this law, therefore we do not live it as a church as the whole.  However, this law is still very much in practice.  When one cannot practice certain aspects literally, we can still practice it spiritually.

We very much do live this law.

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I would differ to you in another degree in that action without the attitude is far less than the attitude without the action.  In otherwords, if you fast for nothing, it warrants you nothing, even if you fast.  ON the otherhand, if you have the attitude or spirituality focused on the spirit of fasting, beginning and ending it with prayer, focusing on the Lord and the reasons of the fast, you will gain far more than if you did not.

In what sense is this differing with  me?

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Fasting is also to show that you put the Lord before physical needs or wants.  It is for this reason that you focus on the Lord more than on the physical desires.  However, the Lord never said to risk death to fast...I would actually say that's a severe misalignment of what the Lord wants and could break other commandments.

For those (which are a majority of those in the Church) who suffer no ill-effects from fasting this may be a hard concept to understand.  The Fast is NOT to risk life, limb, health, or death, but to focus on the Lord and put the desires of the spirit over the desires of the flesh or the physical.  There is no need to fast physically from those who are unable to do so.  However, they should still focus on the spirit of the fast and do the similar things one would do when fasting (and I would include a fast offering among the items of a fast).

Not sure why you find the concept so hard to understand, or think others do. It's pretty easy to understand. I daresay most children understand it perfectly. But the unchangeable fact is that blessings specific to the fast cannot be had, ever, under any circumstances, except by fasting. And that was my point.

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I understand that there are many that could fast with no ill-effects long term that do not, and I'm not trying to excuse them.  I am not.  I am saying that for those who are unable to physically fast, that this does not mean they are excluded from the blessings that can come from a fast.  They can still obtain the blessings of the fast by committing themselves to the spirit of the fast and doing all they can in that spirit of keeping the fast, even if they cannot fast physically.

There are many blessings that come from fasting. Some of them can be had in other ways. Others absolutely cannot. All blessings specific to the fast cannot, by definition, be had in any other way. To pretend otherwise is to do a disservice to those who might otherwise honor the law of the fast.

[JohnsonJones]

@Vort

At Vort, I suppose then we will disagree among ourselves...

I will leave this little bit here as well, though I'm sure you also may disagree with it.

Medical Conditions that do not allow one to fast from LDS.Org

Quote

It’s true that some people have different needs when it comes to fasting. But there are things you can do to make fast Sunday special even if you can’t go without food.

An important part of fasting is prayer with a purpose. Even though your medical situation means it would be unwise for you to go without food or drink, you can still focus on someone or something in particular to pray about throughout the day. You can focus on seeking inspiration in dealing with a specific situation, a desire to understand a gospel principle more fully, or expressing gratitude for your blessings. You can also commit to spending more time with the scriptures and in personal prayer and reflection.

Another way to bring the Spirit closer is to serve. Pause to help and lift someone. Consider donating additional money to fast offerings.

“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 or drink in order to accomplish this goal. One might abstain from television, movies, or sleeping in” (Malcolm S. Jeppsen, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Apr. 1979, 25).

If you invite the Spirit into your heart through your thoughts and actions, fast Sundays can be a special day to draw closer to the Lord through prayer and sacrifice.

 

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

@Vort

At Vort, I suppose then we will disagree among ourselves...

I will leave this little bit here as well, though I'm sure you also may disagree with it.

Medical Conditions that do not allow one to fast from LDS.Org

Quote

It’s true that some people have different needs when it comes to fasting. But there are things you can do to make fast Sunday special even if you can’t go without food.

An important part of fasting is prayer with a purpose. Even though your medical situation means it would be unwise for you to go without food or drink, you can still focus on someone or something in particular to pray about throughout the day. You can focus on seeking inspiration in dealing with a specific situation, a desire to understand a gospel principle more fully, or expressing gratitude for your blessings. You can also commit to spending more time with the scriptures and in personal prayer and reflection.

Another way to bring the Spirit closer is to serve. Pause to help and lift someone. Consider donating additional money to fast offerings.

“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 or drink in order to accomplish this goal. One might abstain from television, movies, or sleeping in” (Malcolm S. Jeppsen, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Apr. 1979, 25).

If you invite the Spirit into your heart through your thoughts and actions, fast Sundays can be a special day to draw closer to the Lord through prayer and sacrifice.

 

Just curious which part or parts you think I might disagree with.

[JohnsonJones]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Just curious which part or parts you think I might disagree with.

Considering it is just a restatment what I posted prior to it which you disagreed with...all of it???

 

Edit: I think you misunderstood my post that I was making an excuse for those who choose not to fast.  I was not.  I was restating what has been given us previously in relation to those who are unable to physically fast.  They can still have blessings from the fast by keeping the spirit of the fast.  (for example, if giving a generous fast offering, the blessings of helping those in need, or drawing closer to the Lord by focusing on him during the period where you have the spirit of the fast).

AS I said previously, it is better to have the spirit of the fast and not be able to fast, then to physically fast for nothing.  You will gain more from the former than the latter.

Edited January 21, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Considering it is just a restatment what I posted prior to it which you disagreed with...all of it???

I disagree with the idea that all blessings of the fast can be had without actually fasting. If you think that all blessings of the fast can be had even without fasting, then we are in disagreement. Otherwise, we may not be. It looks to me like you're seeing disagreement where there is none. Or perhaps you understand the teachings differently from me.

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Edit: I think you misunderstood my post that I was making an excuse for those who choose not to fast.  I was not.  I was restating what has been given us previously in relation to those who are unable to physically fast.  They can still have blessings from the fast by keeping the spirit of the fast.  (for example, if giving a generous fast offering, the blessings of helping those in need, or drawing closer to the Lord by focusing on him during the period where you have the spirit of the fast).

I did not misunderstand this. I understood it completely. I simply added to it the fact that we cannot receive blessings specific to the fast without fasting. Do you disagree with this?

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

AS I said previously, it is better to have the spirit of the fast and not be able to fast, then to physically fast for nothing.  You will gain more from the former than the latter.

I agree, but that has little to do with what I was saying.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

I disagree with the idea that all blessings of the fast can be had without actually fasting. If you think that all blessings of the fast can be had even without fasting, then we are in disagreement. Otherwise, we may not be. It looks to me like you're seeing disagreement where there is none. Or perhaps you understand the teachings differently from me.

I did not misunderstand this. I understood it completely. I simply added to it the fact that we cannot receive blessings specific to the fast without fasting. Do you disagree with this?

I agree, but that has little to do with what I was saying.

I would add to your comments - a scripture that says something along the line that all blessing are predicated on obedience.  

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

I disagree with the idea that all blessings of the fast can be had without actually fasting. If you think that all blessings of the fast can be had even without fasting, then we are in disagreement. Otherwise, we may not be. It looks to me like you're seeing disagreement where there is none. Or perhaps you understand the teachings differently from me.

I did not misunderstand this. I understood it completely. I simply added to it the fact that we cannot receive blessings specific to the fast without fasting. Do you disagree with this?

I agree, but that has little to do with what I was saying.

In some ways you were not specific other than stating that you disagreed.  Overall, however, the blessings that come from a fast in my opinion will NOT be denied (nor any other blessing) simply due to someone's disability.

Those who think the Lord limits his blessings only to those who are free of a disability and condemn those who have disabilities to not be able to enjoy the full blessings that he offers as long as they do as best they can to comply with his commandments (and we ALL are part of this, none of us keep the commandments perfectly as a whole) probably would disagree on that matter.

So, in that small matter we may disagree, though perhaps, from what you are saying you now feel that people at least can get blessings from following the spirit of the fast?

 

Edit: Then again, I also have a slight thought, based on his statements in the New Testament and Book of Mormon that he favors those who are in poverty and have disabilities FAR more in their ability to obtain heaven and glory more than those of us who have been blessed to not suffer from those tests in this life.  it is not that they we are less able, but they tend to be more humble and thus listen to him more easily than those who do not suffer from those tests.  I find that especially those with some disabilities have learned the law of sacrifice that fasting is teaching us FAR better than most of us can even comprehend, much less understand, and obtain FAR more blessings from following the spirit of the fast than we do, even while we can physically fast and they may not be able to.  They have sacrificed FAR more than many can even understand in this life...sometimes just in making it to a church meeting or less!

Saying they must risk DEATH or INJURY to fast shows a demand that they sacrifice FAR MORE than those who are able to fast easily and never worry about their health in such a manner.

So, I suppose on that point we would disagree, though the article I quoted states as much already when they suggest the goal can be met by other means other than simply fasting from two meals of food.  A suggestion I can assume from your statements you strongly disagree with...

Edited January 22, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In some ways you were not specific other than stating that you disagreed.  Overall, however, the blessings that come from a fast in my opinion will NOT be denied (nor any other blessing) simply due to someone's disability.

What you are saying here is incorrect, and "deny" is the wrong word. It's not a matter of the blessings being "denied", as though God sat on his throne in heaven with a big vat beside him labeled "Blessings", from which he scoops out blessings and ladles them onto his children at his good pleasure. This is what I have often called the I Dream of Jeannie model of God, and it is a false idea.

Every blessing from God—EVERY blessing, without exception—is conditioned (the scriptures use the word "predicated") upon some law. And every time we receive a blessing from God—EVERY time, without exception—it is because we have complied with that law. And if we do not comply with the law, we cannot receive the blessing predicated upon that law.

This is as true for the law of the fast as it is for the law of chastity or the law of sacrifice or the law of consecration or, for that matter, the law of gravity.

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Those who think the Lord limits his blessings only to those who are free of a disability and condemn those who have disabilities to not be able to enjoy the full blessings that he offers as long as they do as best they can to comply with his commandments (and we ALL are part of this, none of us keep the commandments perfectly as a whole) probably would disagree on that matter.

But of course, no one here has suggested any such absurd idea. Do you think I have? If so, I'd love to see the wording I used that caused you to draw such a conclusion.

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

So, in that small matter we may disagree, though perhaps, from what you are saying you now feel that people at least can get blessings from following the spirit of the fast?

Not sure what you're talking about. I have never maintained that those who are unable (or for that matter unwilling) to fast cannot gain any blessings. Such people can gain any number of blessings from God, even some blessings that we commonly associate with the fast. But they will never, never ever, worlds without end, gain the blessings of the fast if they do not fast, any more than the blind man can, by his own righteous will and efforts, see the rainbow.

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Saying they must risk DEATH or INJURY to fast shows a demand that they sacrifice FAR MORE than those who are able to fast easily and never worry about their health in such a manner.

Who do you think has said any such thing?

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

So, I suppose on that point we would disagree, though the article I quoted states as much already when they suggest the goal can be met by other means other than simply fasting from two meals of food.  A suggestion I can assume from your statements you strongly disagree with...

Not sure how to explain it more clearly. The scriptures are unambiguous: To gain the blessing from God, you must—no exceptions—keep the law upon which that blessing is predicated.

Why do you disbelieve the word of God on this matter as pertains to the fast?

[dprh]

I think it would be helpful if we established what the law/principle of fasting actually is.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-25-fasting?lang=eng

From my understanding, it is going without food or water for a period of time.  While it is common practice in the church to do a monthly fast of skipping two meals, I don't think that this is the law/principle.  

My dad likes to tell a story of when he was an Elder's Quorum President and was asked to meet with a general authority.  They were looking for a new stake presidency and other stake and ward callings.  In the invitation to the meeting, which was in an hour, he was asked if he was fasting.  He had not been previously.  He was told that it is not difficult to begin a fast.  You don't have wait until the end of a fast to receive the blessing of it.  He prayed, began his fast, did his interview, and didn't eat until the next day.

I see fasting as a corollary or appendage of the law of sacrifice. The Lord understands what I am sacrificing when I fast.  I believe if one is unable to fast for longer than a few hours, then finding another appropriate sacrifice will still bring blessings.  The blessings one person gets from fasting can be received by another person by obedience to a different law.  

 

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not sure how to explain it more clearly. The scriptures are unambiguous: To gain the blessing from God, you must—no exceptions—keep the law upon which that blessing is predicated.

Why do you disbelieve the word of God on this matter as pertains to the fast?

Some people might be confused by the idea that a blessing might be acquirable by obedience to several different laws.  For example the Law of the Fast has certain blessings..  No fasting no blessing from that law.  But the Law of Sacrifice also has blessings... Those blessing could very well over lap with Law of the Fast.  Thus a person who can't Fast but does a Sacrifice will get blessings... as far as they are concerned they are blessed... The law doing the blessing doesn't really matter to them.  However if they do not really understand that then your words might confuse them.

Others: I am getting blessed because I gave something up instead of fasting.

Vort: That is not a blessing from fasting.

Others:  But I was blessed.

Vort:  Not from Fasting.

Others:  You can't tell me I wasn't blessed because I know I was.

Vort: You were not blessed from something you did not do.

Me.  No they were not blessed from Fasting because they did not fast.. But Sacrifice is also a Law that gives blessing, and a Blessing from Sacrifice and a Blessing from Fasting can be a lot alike or otherwise just as good.

[mordorbund]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Overall, however, the blessings that come from a fast in my opinion will NOT be denied (nor any other blessing) simply due to someone's disability.

Let's talk about the blessings of baptism. And let's say that a person's disability is having died in 1720. Is that person denied any blessing simply due to that disability? Let's say the person is baptized vicariously inherits the Celestial kingdom. In that case there is no blessing in the eternities that will be denied this person. But any blessings baptism gives us in mortality has been denied this person because of this disability. The only way I can see to argue against it is to say that baptism does not uniquely provide any blessings in mortality.

I think @Vort is making a similar case for fasting.

[Vort]

42 minutes ago, dprh said:

I think it would be helpful if we established what the law/principle of fasting actually is.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-25-fasting?lang=eng

From my understanding, it is going without food or water for a period of time.  While it is common practice in the church to do a monthly fast of skipping two meals, I don't think that this is the law/principle. 

I think you are probably right. We have been instructed to participate (when we can) in 24-hour fasts, and I think obedience to legitimate authority is itself a divine law that brings forth blessings that we otherwise won't get. But fasting per se may not be time-dependent. The Lord fasted for very long periods, even 40 days at a time. Shorter fasts are obviously possible. In English, we commonly call our first morning meal breakfast because it breaks our overnight fasting.

If there are blessings associated specifically with fasting, which I believe there are, we cannot get those blessings in any other way except by fasting. Those who are physically unable to fast are therefore denied those blessings, just as the man missing his leg is denied the blessing of running a race. For some reason, this bothers people, but I don't understand why.

A blessing is predicated upon obedience to some certain law. If you follow the law, you get the blessing. If you don't follow the law, you don't get the blessing. Simple. Straightforward. What's to argue about?

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Some people might be confused by the idea that a blessing might be acquirable by obedience to several different laws.  For example the Law of the Fast has certain blessings..  No fasting no blessing from that law.  But the Law of Sacrifice also has blessings... Those blessing could very well over lap with Law of the Fast.  Thus a person who can't Fast but does a Sacrifice will get blessings... as far as they are concerned they are blessed... The law doing the blessing doesn't really matter to them.  However if they do not really understand that then your words might confuse them.

Others: I am getting blessed because I gave something up instead of fasting.

Vort: That is not a blessing from fasting.

Others:  But I was blessed.

Vort:  Not from Fasting.

Others:  You can't tell me I wasn't blessed because I know I was.

Vort: You were not blessed from something you did not do.

Me.  No they were not blessed from Fasting because they did not fast.. But Sacrifice is also a Law that gives blessing, and a Blessing from Sacrifice and a Blessing from Fasting can be a lot alike or otherwise just as good.

Well stated. I want to respond, "Yeah, that's what I said." But maybe your version of the explanation will somehow clear things up.

[dprh]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

A blessing is predicated upon obedience to some certain law. If you follow the law, you get the blessing. If you don't follow the law, you don't get the blessing. Simple. Straightforward. What's to argue about?

It gives the impression that if one doesn't fast, those blessings are unavailable.  It seems others are saying that at least some of those blessings can be obtained in other ways.

[Vort]

Just now, dprh said:

It gives the impression that if one doesn't fast, those blessings are unavailable.

It gives that impression because that's exactly what it means to say that "a blessing is predicated upon obedience to some certain law." If that is the case, then there is no other way to gain that blessing. Definition of words and all that.

1 minute ago, dprh said:

It seems others are saying that at least some of those blessings can be obtained in other ways.

If the others are talking specifically about blessings that are predicated on the law of the fast, then they are mistaken. If they are talking about blessings that are not specifically predicated upon the law of the fast, then of course they can obtain those blessings in other ways, because the blessings are not predicated upon the law of the fast.

[pam]

On 1/19/2020 at 12:12 PM, dahlia said:

I like the idea of abstaining from other worldly things. I'm going to think about that. I have a pile of books I have been trying to work through since I retired. Maybe no social media and just reading is an idea. Doing housework would probably be a better idea, but let's not go crazy. 

I just love you.     

[dprh]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

It gives that impression because that's exactly what it means to say that "a blessing is predicated upon obedience to some certain law." If that is the case, then there is no other way to gain that blessing. Definition of words and all that.

If the others are talking specifically about blessings that are predicated on the law of the fast, then they are mistaken. If they are talking about blessings that are not specifically predicated upon the law of the fast, then of course they can obtain those blessings in other ways, because the blessings are not predicated upon the law of the fast.

20 There is a ^alaw, irrevocably decreed in ^bheaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all ^cblessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any ^ablessing from God, it is by ^bobedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

These verses could be read as: There is one law that all blessings come from.  Any and all blessing comes from obedience to that law.  It's not the law of fasting, the law of tithing, the law of chastity.  I don't know what that law is, my guess is the law of obedience....

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, dprh said:

20 There is a ^alaw, irrevocably decreed in ^bheaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all ^cblessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any ^ablessing from God, it is by ^bobedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

These verses could be read as: There is one law that all blessings come from.  Any and all blessing comes from obedience to that law.  It's not the law of fasting, the law of tithing, the law of chastity.  I don't know what that law is, my guess is the law of obedience....

I recognize this possible reading, and I also grant that it's not an unreasonable interpretation. But I reject in based on verse 21: "And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." That wording doesn't make good sense if you're talking about one overarching law (obedience, or sacrifice, or whatever) that grants Every Single Blessing from God.

I would further note that our modern prophets have used this verse with an interpretation more like mine (which isn't really mine, it's the traditional reading). So I'm comfortable in stating that various blessings from God are each predicated upon some certain law, and that reception of those divine blessings is prima facie proof that the recipient of the divine blessing has fulfilled the concomitant law.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

What you are saying here is incorrect, and "deny" is the wrong word. It's not a matter of the blessings being "denied", as though God sat on his throne in heaven with a big vat beside him labeled "Blessings", from which he scoops out blessings and ladles them onto his children at his good pleasure. This is what I have often called the I Dream of Jeannie model of God, and it is a false idea.

Every blessing from God—EVERY blessing, without exception—is conditioned (the scriptures use the word "predicated") upon some law. And every time we receive a blessing from God—EVERY time, without exception—it is because we have complied with that law. And if we do not comply with the law, we cannot receive the blessing predicated upon that law.

This is as true for the law of the fast as it is for the law of chastity or the law of sacrifice or the law of consecration or, for that matter, the law of gravity.

But of course, no one here has suggested any such absurd idea. Do you think I have? If so, I'd love to see the wording I used that caused you to draw such a conclusion.

Not sure what you're talking about. I have never maintained that those who are unable (or for that matter unwilling) to fast cannot gain any blessings. Such people can gain any number of blessings from God, even some blessings that we commonly associate with the fast. But they will never, never ever, worlds without end, gain the blessings of the fast if they do not fast, any more than the blind man can, by his own righteous will and efforts, see the rainbow.

Who do you think has said any such thing?

Not sure how to explain it more clearly. The scriptures are unambiguous: To gain the blessing from God, you must—no exceptions—keep the law upon which that blessing is predicated.

Why do you disbelieve the word of God on this matter as pertains to the fast?

Lets see something

Quote

It’s true that some people have different needs when it comes to fasting. But there are things you can do to make fast Sunday special even if you can’t go without food.

An important part of fasting is prayer with a purpose. Even though your medical situation means it would be unwise for you to go without food or drink, you can still focus on someone or something in particular to pray about throughout the day. You can focus on seeking inspiration in dealing with a specific situation, a desire to understand a gospel principle more fully, or expressing gratitude for your blessings. You can also commit to spending more time with the scriptures and in personal prayer and reflection.

Another way to bring the Spirit closer is to serve. Pause to help and lift someone. Consider donating additional money to fast offerings.

“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 or drink in order to accomplish this goal. One might abstain from television, movies, or sleeping in” (Malcolm S. Jeppsen, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Apr. 1979, 25).

If you invite the Spirit into your heart through your thoughts and actions, fast Sundays can be a special day to draw closer to the Lord through prayer and sacrifice.

You disagree with this from the LDS site.

You repeatedly made it clear no other thing can accomplish this goal except fasting for two meals as per what I understand you have been saying.

That's fine to disagree with it.  If you do, as it appears you have been saying you do all along, I'm not sure why you would be disturbed if I acknowledge that you and I will disagree on this.

I do not disagree with the word of God on this subject, I find that my views are in line with that expressed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Now, if you are sticking that it has to be two meals over a 24 hour period...where do you get this from?

If it is from the Church's statements on fasting once a month...why do you stick with that only and not the other church statements?  Why disagree with the Church ideas placed above (and have been around as long as I can remember, though admittedly I am a convert and have only been a member for a little over 50 years)?

If it is from the Bible, where are you getting your definitions of what the ideas of fasting are?  There are several different types of fasting as exhibited anciently and scripturally.  Of these, you could abstain from food and drink, however you can also fast by abstaining from food but allowing yourself water (an ancient customary fast that is still the default type of fast today by some).  Other types of fasts are fasts from certain foods or drinks (as some have expressed in this thread as a way to also show a fast when one cannot go without food and drink).  It is by keeping the spirit of the fast and following the spirit of it that we keep a fast.  If we are merely only skipping two meals...it's not really that beneficial.  Why are you declaring something done on fast sunday as the only way to be obedient in fasting in direct contrast to what we know of the scriptures and anciently if you are going to cast aspersions that we are to follow some specific set of Laws of Fasting that apparently are not necessarily those expressed by the Church as well?

It is much like the Law of Consecration (and no, you are not keeping it.  Though if you want to donate ALL of what you have, and not just a pledge or symbolic thing, but LITERALLY, give it to the Church (meaning you will have no home, no car, no nothing unless the Church lets you have it back AFTER you GIVE it over to them legally and in whole) you are not living the Law of Consecration currently.  There ARE some in the church that currently live it, but it is not enacted that all are living it literally right now.  This is one reason we have Tithing these days.

However, we probably will disagree on this issue as well.  It is ironic that you demand people fast two meals literally, but then claim you, who have not legally and physically given all you have to the Church (and the Church probably wouldn't accept it making it an even greater impossibility for you to do so and live it these days) are living the Law of Consecration.

You DID state

On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2020 at 11:58 AM, Vort said:

3. Doing fine. It's great to see you again.

2. Tell them if you like. That's up to you. If you think it will benefit them to know, let them know.

1. I will voice the unpopular view.

 The blessings of the fast are found only through fasting, and in no other way. If you cannot fast, then so be it. Don't worry about it. Just do your best. But the blessings that pertain specifically to fasting won't come. That is not a punishment, just a fact of life.

I think the idea of sacrificing something in lieu of fasting is a worthy one. I think much good can be gained from following such a course. But it's not fasting, and it will not bring all of the blessings of fasting. So keep your expectations tempered.

Your statement implies, that one cannot gain any blessings without fasting (and in reference to the OP who was asking about the ability to fast as per stated by the Church on Fast Sunday).

As we disagree, we can ask what blessings are there that we think are specifically granted by keeping the fast, and which ones of those do you feel on who keeps the Spirit of the Fast, but who is unable to fast will not receive?

I feel one that who does the best of their ability and has faith in the Lord will be covered as in all things we do, and can receive the blessings as others do...if not more.

As you disagree with this, what blessings specifically do you feel one will not receive? 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Lets see something

You disagree with this from the LDS site.

Actually, I don't.

Quote

You repeatedly made it clear no other thing can accomplish this goal except fasting for two meals as per what I understand you have been saying.

What goal, @JohnsonJones? Tell me specifically: What goal do I think cannot be accomplished except through fasting? By answering that question, I think you will clear up this entire matter.

Quote

That's fine to disagree with it.  If you do, as it appears you have been saying you do all along, I'm not sure why you would be disturbed if I acknowledge that you and I will disagree on this.

I am not bothered by your disagreement, but by your mischaracterization of what I wrote.

Quote

I do not disagree with the word of God on this subject, I find that my views are in line with that expressed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When you state that the blessings that pertain to the law of the fast can be gotten in some other way besides conforming to the law of the fast, that seems to contradict Section 130.

Quote

Now, if you are sticking that it has to be two meals over a 24 hour period...where do you get this from?

Please demonstrate where I have ever said such a thing.

Quote

If it is from the Church's statements on fasting once a month...why do you stick with that only and not the other church statements?  Why disagree with the Church ideas placed above (and have been around as long as I can remember, though admittedly I am a convert and have only been a member for a little over 50 years)?

I don't disagree with the Church. Not sure why you keep insisting I do.

Quote

If it is from the Bible, where are you getting your definitions of what the ideas of fasting are?  There are several different types of fasting as exhibited anciently and scripturally.  Of these, you could abstain from food and drink, however you can also fast by abstaining from food but allowing yourself water (an ancient customary fast that is still the default type of fast today by some).  Other types of fasts are fasts from certain foods or drinks (as some have expressed in this thread as a way to also show a fast when one cannot go without food and drink).  It is by keeping the spirit of the fast and following the spirit of it that we keep a fast.  If we are merely only skipping two meals...it's not really that beneficial.  Why are you declaring something done on fast sunday as the only way to be obedient in fasting in direct contrast to what we know of the scriptures and anciently if you are going to cast aspersions that we are to follow some specific set of Laws of Fasting that apparently are not necessarily those expressed by the Church as well?

I don't understand what you're trying to ask.

Quote

It is much like the Law of Consecration (and no, you are not keeping it.  Though if you want to donate ALL of what you have, and not just a pledge or symbolic thing, but LITERALLY, give it to the Church (meaning you will have no home, no car, no nothing unless the Church lets you have it back AFTER you GIVE it over to them legally and in whole) you are not living the Law of Consecration currently.  There ARE some in the church that currently live it, but it is not enacted that all are living it literally right now.  This is one reason we have Tithing these days.

You are not in a position to say whether or not I am living the law of consecration. Take my word for it: I am, or at least am striving to.

Quote

However, we probably will disagree on this issue as well.  It is ironic that you demand people fast two meals literally, but then claim you, who have not legally and physically given all you have to the Church (and the Church probably wouldn't accept it making it an even greater impossibility for you to do so and live it these days) are living the Law of Consecration.

Please demonstrate the truthfulness of your charges against me. I say they are false.

Quote

You DID state

  On 1/19/2020 at 10:58 AM, Vort said:

3. Doing fine. It's great to see you again.

2. Tell them if you like. That's up to you. If you think it will benefit them to know, let them know.

1. I will voice the unpopular view.

 The blessings of the fast are found only through fasting, and in no other way. If you cannot fast, then so be it. Don't worry about it. Just do your best. But the blessings that pertain specifically to fasting won't come. That is not a punishment, just a fact of life.

I think the idea of sacrificing something in lieu of fasting is a worthy one. I think much good can be gained from following such a course. But it's not fasting, and it will not bring all of the blessings of fasting. So keep your expectations tempered.

Indeed I did.

Quote

Your statement implies, that one cannot gain any blessings without fasting (and in reference to the OP who was asking about the ability to fast as per stated by the Church on Fast Sunday).

My statement implies no such thing.

Quote

As we disagree, we can ask what blessings are there that we think are specifically granted by keeping the fast, and which ones of those do you feel on who keeps the Spirit of the Fast, but who is unable to fast will not receive?

I don't know. That's beside the point.

Quote

I feel one that who does the best of their ability and has faith in the Lord will be covered as in all things we do, and can receive the blessings as others do...if not more.

Then it looks to me as if you disbelieve D&C 130. Or is there some way you can rectify "all blessings from God come from obedience to the law upon which the blessing was predicated" with "you don't actually have to obey a given law to get the predicated blessing, because some other law will do just fine"?

Quote

As you disagree with this, what blessings specifically do you feel one will not receive? 

As I said, I don't know. But that is utterly irrelevant. Any and all blessings specific to the law of the fast will be received only (note the word: ONLY) through obeying the law of the fast. There exists no other way that God will (OR CAN) give you those blessings. Period.

At least, that is what I understand Section 130 to say. If you disagree, please explain what you think it means.

My apologies for being unkind in the original version of this response. I have tried to dial it back a bunch.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Vort

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

Actually, I don't.

What goal, @JohnsonJones? Tell me specifically: What goal do I think cannot be accomplished except through fasting? By answering that question, I think you will clear up this entire matter.

I am not bothered by your disagreement, but by your mischaracterization of what I wrote.

When you state that the blessings that pertain to the law of the fast can be gotten in some other way besides conforming to the law of the fast, that seems to contradict Section 130.

Please demonstrate where I have ever said such a thing.

I don't disagree with the Church. Not sure why you keep insisting I do.

I don't understand what you're trying to ask.

You are not in a position to say whether or not I am living the law of consecration. Take my word for it: I am, or at least am striving to.

Please demonstrate the truthfulness of your charges against me. I say they are false.

Indeed I did.

My statement implies no such thing.

I don't know. That's beside the point.

Then it looks to me as if you disbelieve D&C 130. Or is there some way you can rectify "all blessings from God come from obedience to the law upon which the blessing was predicated" with "you don't actually have to obey a given law to get the predicated blessing, because some other law will do just fine"?

As I said, I don't know. But that is utterly irrelevant. Any and all blessings specific to the law of the fast will be received only (note the word: ONLY) through obeying the law of the fast. There exists no other way that God will (OR CAN) give you those blessings. Period.

At least, that is what I understand Section 130 to say. If you disagree, please explain what you think it means.

My apologies for being unkind in the original version of this response. I have tried to dial it back a bunch.

As I know most of whom are currently living the Law of Consecration, I'm pretty certain you are not in that specific group, though I could be surprised.  As I said, there are requirements such as giving ALL your physical property to the Church, both legally and wholly.  Normally, those who are under the law currently also are full time working for the Church (not as employees as such, but volunteers).  That's related to the topic (as in, the Law of Tithing in regards to the Law of Consecration...those living the Law of Consecration pay no tithing...while those who cannot or do not live it are under the Law of Tithing presently...and this is also indirectly related to the Law of the Fast in regards to Fast offerings these days as well) and though I brought it up, a side note.

In regards to Fasting...

I have simply restated the Church's position and what they've stated multiple times.

You disagreed with that. 

I have no problems that you disagree with that. 

I've posted and even bolded the items you disagreed with and at least one of your statements where you state such.

The biggest disagreement is that you feel that the Lord with withhold blessings from those unable to do certain physical acts.  I've given examples of when that is not necessary.

Other examples would be Children able to go to the Celestial Kingdom without being Baptized or that those with mental or physical disabilities will be barred from all the blessings and entitlements that they would have earned had they been fully able.

My impression from your statements seem to indicate that you believe the Lord will refuse blessings from people simply due to a disability of their own to do certain actions or acts.  You feel that the Lord punishes them by refusing to give the same blessings upon them as he would any of his other children simply due to their lack of ability.

If this is not what you mean, you have had a strange way throughout the thread of representing this.  You have disagreed with me upon this facet in most of your posts.

If you did NOT mean you disagree, then why post...that you disagree with that idea.

If you DO disagree, then we can start with the Law of the Fast.  You state that they cannot receive blessings.  What blessings are those that you are stating they cannot receive if they fulfill the Spirit of the Fast but cannot physically fast?  You are the one that claimed they cannot receive certain blessings...not I.

Asking you to specify those blessings then should be upon the one claiming such, as I have no idea (nor hold to the idea that they will be denied blessings) should be a simple task of specifically stating which blessings they are to be denied because they are physically unable to fast for two meals.

The blessings I've found seem to be...

The blessing that have generally been specified include

Law of the Fast PDF from churchofjesuschrist.org

Quote

The Lord has established the law of the fast and fast offerings to bless His people and to provide a way for them to serve those in need" (Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 6.1.2).

••"Blessings associated with the law of the fast include closeness to the Lord, increased spiritual strength, temporal well-being, greater compassion, and a stronger desire to serve" (Handbook 2, 6.1.2).

 

Also Taylor Conference Oct 74

Quote

“Whatever its origin, it is significant to note that several virtues are attached to the observance of the custom. … All the principles associated with fasting seem to point to the fact that it produces, first, physical well-being; [then, self-mastery; next, an opportunity to help others, and finally,] spiritual strength.

“But the greatest of all [the] benefits [from fasting is] the spiritual strength derived by the subjection of physical appetite to the will of the individual.” (See David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 208–213.)

Those unable to physically fast but follow what the Lord/Church has instructed for them in keeping the Spirit of the Fast can also have these blessings.  A sacrifice of (to use an example from a poster above) not drinking flavored drinks on fast Sunday but who cannot fast otherwise, may be putting a serious thought into what they are abstaining from.  Focusing on the Lord in prayer and meditation, paying a generous fast offering, and doing as the Church has instructed can (not definitely, but possibly) have the same blessings as you or I when we Fast in the manner prescribed for most (and most can keep the fast, my focus is specifically on those who cannot).

The Lord is not expecting people to DIE from trying to follow a minor instruction.  Focusing on the specific idea of missing two meals, rather than the bigger picture can sometimes paint us into the corner where we start saying we can only walk 500 steps on the Sabbath or we are breaking it and other such restrictions given in the past.

You quote section 130 of the D&C, but that is not what is stating. 

In proper context it states...

Quote

18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

You feel it means specifically things we label as the Law of the Fast singularly, while I feel such things fall under a greater umbrella (for example, the Law of Tithing is unnecessary when one is living under the Law of Consecration, and the Law of Sacrifice is subsumed under the Atonement of the Lord) where such blessings can be granted by following the higher laws thereof.

in that light, I obviously feel differently than you, and as you have stated that others cannot have the blessings of the Fast without following the rules prescribed to fast for two meals...what specific blessings are you stating they will not receive.  The onus is on you as you are the one claiming such things.  The Brethren have never claimed this.  The Lord has not claimed this as far as I see when reading it within the context of the scripture.  Obedience comes to the law upon which it is predicated, but what exactly does that mean?

[estradling75]

17 hours ago, Vort said:

Well stated. I want to respond, "Yeah, that's what I said." But maybe your version of the explanation will somehow clear things up.

It appears not