24 hours or(?) 2 meals

[Fether]

I know this isn’t much of a point to really fight over, mostly because fasting is between you and God, but this age old debate has always confused me.

There seemed to be two schools of thought.

1. The “or” signifies one or the other, that they are both different time frames that we can choose from

2. The “or” signifies another way of saying the exact same amount of time the fast ought to last.

I have always been under the second assumption, that 2 meals is indeed about a 24 hour period of time… yet I have, in the past, engaged in debates on this topic. Some seem to believe you can skip 2 meals and it be less than 24 hours. 
 

If I have breakfast, skip lunch, skip dinner, and eat breakfast… that is 24 hours… right? The only way I can justify the idea that it is two different time frames is if you have breakfast, snack till lunch, skip lunch, skip dinner, then start snacking. Or perhaps eat dinner at 6pm and snack till you go to sleep at 9pm, and then fast till the next day’s dinner at 1pm (which is the pattern I was raised on). Which is a 16 hour fast.

Idk… I am not really worried about people cutting their fasts shorter than I feel is appropriate… rather I just don’t like bad arguments and I feel like there is a bad argument here for the first school of thought.

[mikbone]

For clarification:

 

For members of the Latin Catholic Church, the norms on fasting are obligatory from age 18 until age 59. When fasting, a person is permitted to eat one full meal, as well as two smaller meals that together are not equal to a full meal. The norms concerning abstinence from meat are binding upon members of the Latin Catholic Church from age 14 onwards.

[LDSGator]

36 minutes ago, mikbone said:

For clarification:

 

For members of the Latin Catholic Church, the norms on fasting are obligatory from age 18 until age 59. When fasting, a person is permitted to eat one full meal, as well as two smaller meals that together are not equal to a full meal. The norms concerning abstinence from meat are binding upon members of the Latin Catholic Church from age 14 onwards.

Former Catholic here. While growing up, the lunches the school offered never had meat on Friday's during Lent. Vatican II made the “no meat in Fridays” rule only valid during Lent. I never understood (and still don’t) that. So, apparently people are condemned to Hell for eating meat on a Friday in 1951, but it’s a-ok in 1972. Strange.  
 

For fasting, people who get into asinine arguments. Three chips are okay but four aren’t. Peanut butter? Fine, but don’t you dare add jelly, heathen. I remember people arguing that a glass of orange juice for breakfast was “indulgent” and “not proper for fasting.” 

Edited October 1, 2021 by LDSGator

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

I know this isn’t much of a point to really fight over, mostly because fasting is between you and God, but this age old debate has always confused me.

There seemed to be two schools of thought.

1. The “or” signifies one or the other, that they are both different time frames that we can choose from

2. The “or” signifies another way of saying the exact same amount of time the fast ought to last.

I have always been under the second assumption, that 2 meals is indeed about a 24 hour period of time… yet I have, in the past, engaged in debates on this topic. Some seem to believe you can skip 2 meals and it be less than 24 hours. 
 

If I have breakfast, skip lunch, skip dinner, and eat breakfast… that is 24 hours… right? The only way I can justify the idea that it is two different time frames is if you have breakfast, snack till lunch, skip lunch, skip dinner, then start snacking. Or perhaps eat dinner at 6pm and snack till you go to sleep at 9pm, and then fast till the next day’s dinner at 1pm (which is the pattern I was raised on). Which is a 16 hour fast.

Idk… I am not really worried about people cutting their fasts shorter than I feel is appropriate… rather I just don’t like bad arguments and I feel like there is a bad argument here for the first school of thought.

I hope that my different views do not upset the forum but it is my understanding that fasting (according to what I have been taught as a Latter-day Saint) is not about food and water or going without eating or drinking - it is about making empirical (physical) sacrifices in order to become more open to spiritual promptings.   I believe fasting is a covenant of physical sacrifice for spiritual benefit and the benefit is not just for the individual fasting.   I can say with some experience that in general my fasting for the benefit of others has been more productive and rewarding that fasting for some individual need for myself.

I think someone has fallen very short when they abstain from food and drink for 24 hours but indulge in R rated movies or PG13 movies that aggrandize revenge and violence.   In general I believe that we should abstain from all shellfish physical desires and wants while fasting (not needs) - and that such abstinence is more important that going without food and drink.  I also think that fasting without prayer is illogical and next to worthless.   Another principle of fasting is to publicly witness (give testimony) to how one is blessed or given vision of miracles.   I do not want anyone to think I am criticizing fast and testimony meeting but often I have a feeling that some that express themselves at fast and testimony meeting do so with neglect to preparing by fasting and prayer - especially children that are encouraged to recite a testimony without any effort to fast and pray in preparation. 

Perhaps my most profound fasting experience was a 40 day fast.  It was not that I did not eat or drink for 40 days but rather I departed into a wilderness (wilderness meaning a place where there was no civilization) and there I only eat what G-d and nature provided.  I believe this is how Jesus and Moses fasted in the wilderness.  However, my experience was not at all like what was recorded for Moses and Jesus - I thought my whole experience was ruined by one particular event that took place.  It took over a decade to realize the profound blessing and miracle (even the one event) really was.  And the primary reason for my 40 day fast was not fully understood spiritually by me until just this year (50+ years later).

So after all this in my post - my advice to your @Fether is to concentrate more on the spiritual part of your covenant of fasting and prayer rather than the physical part of how much you ought to skip - which will take care of itself when the spiritual part is reached.

 

The Traveler

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I hope that my different views do not upset the forum but it is my understanding that fasting (according to what I have been taught as a Latter-day Saint) is not about food and water or going without eating or drinking - it is about making empirical (physical) sacrifices in order to become more open to spiritual promptings.   I believe fasting is a covenant of physical sacrifice for spiritual benefit and the benefit is not just for the individual fasting.   I can say with some experience that in general my fasting for the benefit of others has been more productive and rewarding that fasting for some individual need for myself.

I think someone has fallen very short when they abstain from food and drink for 24 hours but indulge in R rated movies or PG13 movies that aggrandize revenge and violence.   In general I believe that we should abstain from all shellfish physical desires and wants while fasting (not needs) - and that such abstinence is more important that going without food and drink.  I also think that fasting without prayer is illogical and next to worthless.   Another principle of fasting is to publicly witness (give testimony) to how one is blessed or given vision of miracles.   I do not want anyone to think I am criticizing fast and testimony meeting but often I have a feeling that some that express themselves at fast and testimony meeting do so with neglect to preparing by fasting and prayer - especially children that are encouraged to recite a testimony without any effort to fast and pray in preparation. 

Perhaps my most profound fasting experience was a 40 day fast.  It was not that I did not eat or drink for 40 days but rather I departed into a wilderness (wilderness meaning a place where there was no civilization) and there I only eat what G-d and nature provided.  I believe this is how Jesus and Moses fasted in the wilderness.  However, my experience was not at all like what was recorded for Moses and Jesus - I thought my whole experience was ruined by one particular event that took place.  It took over a decade to realize the profound blessing and miracle (even the one event) really was.  And the primary reason for my 40 day fast was not fully understood spiritually by me until just this year (50+ years later).

So after all this in my post - my advice to your @Fether is to concentrate more on the spiritual part of your covenant of fasting and prayer rather than the physical part of how much you ought to skip - which will take care of itself when the spiritual part is reached.

 

The Traveler

I’ve heard this before and I held a similar idea for a while… but I actually disagree entirely now. I think fasting from anything other than food is a poor substitute, A substitute when it is necessary (when pregnant or dealing with physical ailments), but a poor substitute non-the-less. I think those other aspects (living righteously)are expected when fasting, but the fast itself is food and water.