Do you fast?

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

@Vort-does the rule on fasting apply to children and the elderly? While growing up the fasting rules in Catholicism didn’t apply to those over 65 or under 8.  

As far as I know, we don't really have rules as such. Small children are never expected to fast. (I daresay most parents will not allow their small children to fast more than a short time, if at all. I personally never asked or even suggested that my small children fast.) Pregnant and nursing mothers, those of particularly delicate heath, and those who have a specific physical condition that prevents safe fasting are usually counseled not to fast. Fasting brings blessings, including some blessings that can be received in no other way; but as President Joseph F. Smith taught,

"There is such a thing as overdoing. A man may fast and pray till he kills himself; and there isn’t any necessity for it; nor wisdom in it. … The Lord can hear a simple prayer, offered in faith, in half a dozen words, and he will recognize fasting that may not continue more than twenty-four hours, just as readily and as effectually as He will answer a prayer of a thousand words and fasting for a month. … The Lord will accept that which is enough, with a good deal more pleasure and satisfaction than that which is too much and unnecessary" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1912, 133–34).

Most Latter-day Saints start fasting around the age of twelve, though I know of no written counsel that mandates or even suggests this. I know of no upper age limit; on the contrary, I suspect the apostles and other general authorities, mostly older men, fast quite a lot.

Again, in my personal experience, most Saints never quite avail themselves of the potential blessings awaiting them through observance of the law of the fast. I would bet a considerable sum on the idea that, as a rule, the Saints fast too little rather than too much.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Over the years, I have heard literally dozens of Saints claim that they cannot fast without grave risk of injury or death. In my experience, you can probably find a half-dozen or more in the average ward. I have my private doubts in many cases, but it's not my judgment to make. If one truly cannot fast without risk of serious injury or death, that person had probably best not fast, even if it means not receiving the blessings specific to the fast. That's all I meant.

I would posit that if one legitimately cannot fast from food that one can fast in other ways and still receive the blessings of fasting. I agree with you that I have my private doubts in many a case... But I also know people who legit cannot. Not fully. I do not believe they will lose any blessings if they are otherwise faithful and do what they can to fast elsewise.

I have never come across one before, however, who simply cavalierly casts aside fasting whilst still claiming to be faithful. It is a bit of a strange position to take. Most people at least make an excuse of some sort.

Edited July 18, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

33 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not fully. I do not believe they will lose any blessings if they are otherwise faithful and do what they can to fast elsewise.

Based on D&C 130:21-22, I do.

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

As far as I know, we don't really have rules as such. Small children are never expected to fast. (I daresay most parents will not allow their small children to fast more than a short time, if at all. I personally never asked or even suggested that my small children fast.) Pregnant and nursing mothers, those of particularly delicate heath, and those who have a specific physical condition that prevents safe fasting are usually counseled not to fast. Fasting brings blessings, including some blessings that can be received in no other way; but as President Joseph F. Smith taught,

"There is such a thing as overdoing. A man may fast and pray till he kills himself; and there isn’t any necessity for it; nor wisdom in it. … The Lord can hear a simple prayer, offered in faith, in half a dozen words, and he will recognize fasting that may not continue more than twenty-four hours, just as readily and as effectually as He will answer a prayer of a thousand words and fasting for a month. … The Lord will accept that which is enough, with a good deal more pleasure and satisfaction than that which is too much and unnecessary" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1912, 133–34).

Most Latter-day Saints start fasting around the age of twelve, though I know of no written counsel that mandates or even suggests this. I know of no upper age limit; on the contrary, I suspect the apostles and other general authorities, mostly older men, fast quite a lot.

Again, in my personal experience, most Saints never quite avail themselves of the potential blessings awaiting them through observance of the law of the fast. I would bet a considerable sum on the idea that, as a rule, the Saints fast too little rather than too much.

 

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I would posit that if one legitimately cannot fast from food that one can fast in other ways and still receive the blessings of fasting. I agree with you that I have my private doubts in many a case... But I also know people who legit cannot. Not fully. I do not believe they will lose any blessings if they are otherwise faithful and do what they can to fast elsewise.

I have never come across one before, however, who simply cavalierly casts aside fasting whilst still claiming to be faithful. It is a bit of a strange position to take. Most people at least make an excuse of some sort.

Thanks guys. 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Based on D&C 130:21-22, I do.

If one is doing all they can then they are being obedient to the law upon which the blessings are predicated.

[Vort]

47 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If one is doing all they can then they are being obedient to the law upon which the blessings are predicated.

If the blessing is predicated on the law of the fast, then by definition you must fulfill the law of the fast to receive the blessing. Simply trying hard, or even doing "all you can", is not sufficient to receive the blessing predicated on the law. You must obey the law. Period. That is my understanding of what the words mean.

You don't receive the blessings predicated on living the law of chastity by simply trying really hard to live the law of chastity. Even doing the best you can will be insufficient if you fail to actually live the law of chastity. You must actually live the law of chastity to receive the blessings predicated on that law. Same with the law of the fast. You must actually live that law, which means you must fast. Simply wanting to or trying to or doing your best (if "your best" is something other than fasting) is not sufficient.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

If the blessing is predicated on the law of the fast, then by definition you must fulfill the law of the fast to receive the blessing. Simply trying hard, or even doing "all you can", is not sufficient to receive the blessing predicated on the law. You must obey the law. Period. That is my understanding of what the words mean.

You don't receive the blessings predicated on living the law of chastity by simply trying really hard to live the law of chastity. Even doing the best you can will be insufficient if you fail to actually live the law of chastity. You must actually live the law of chastity to receive the blessings predicated on that law. Same with the law of the fast. You must actually live that law, which means you must fast. Simply wanting to or trying to or doing your best (if "your best" is something other than fasting) is not sufficient.

Well, we don't seem to agree here.

I think this one-to-one, if you don't do this you don't get that, approach runs too close to the concept of trying to earn our own salvation. Clearly there are some points where such is the case (baptism, for example), but I don't see everything as that concrete.

And, to my thinking, your example of chastity doesn't exactly work. If one tries to live the law of chastity they will. But that doesn't mean they won't be exposed to explicit content or even, potentially, sexually abused or raped. Being raped or sexually abused or exposed to explicit sexual content isn't breaking the law of chastity. Living the law of chastity is obviously, to my thinking, more than just the concrete fact that one's eyes never see and body never touches a being sexually that isn't one's legal spouse. Will matters. And neither do I believe that the law of the fast is as concrete as what you're implying. Of course even my comparison fails a bit, because being forced fed food against our will isn't exactly what we're talking about. The plain fact is the two laws aren't perfectly comparable and so the analogies will break down.

So really where I primarily disagree is in the idea that doing "all you can" is insufficient. I believe it is. I believe that that is exactly what is being asked of us. I believe that is exactly why the Atonement was made. And if someone literally tries their best to keep the law of chastity (or any other law), but literally cannot then one will not be held accountable for that. Of course, as you suggest, everyone just makes that excuse ("I couldn't help myself") and it's generally bogus, because they actually could but they would not. But if they actually can't...it's a different matter.

I believe if one has a legitimate condition where one cannot fully fast for 24 hours refraining entirely from all food and drink, but they do what they can, in humility and faith, no blessings will be lost.

Some stuff I came across reading up and researching on the matter...:

I liked the idea given here from Mosiah 4:26 "for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2007/09/fast-enough?lang=eng

And here where it states: "Those with a medical condition that would be worsened by fasting should exercise wisdom and modify their approach." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2012/06/fasting-strengthens-us-spiritually-and-temporally?lang=eng

And this article was helpful too: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2008/09/to-the-point/i-have-a-medical-condition-that-keeps-me-from-fasting-but-i-still-want-fast-sunday-to-be-special-how-can-i-bring-the-spirit-closer-to-me-on-fast-sundays?lang=eng

These aren't given to try and say I'm right and you're wrong. Just some stuff I came across while looking into it.

On a side note: I'm actually grateful for this thread. It's forced me to reconsider my commitment to fasting and to admit that I have not had the right attitude about it for some time. I need to improve.

Another thought as I read: In D&C 59 it says:

13 And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full.

14 Verily, this is fasting and prayer, or in other words, rejoicing and prayer.

At first I felt a bit confused because I know we should rejoice while fasting, but defining fasting as rejoicing didn't click. So I clicked on the link for the word fasting and got:

IE hungering and thirsting after righteousness; see Matt. 5:6; 3 Ne. 12:6. TG Fast, Fasting.

Matthew 5:6

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

3 Nephi 12:6

6 And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost.

And I was struck by the idea that fasting is an ensample of just this.... hungering and thirsting after righteousness. It is, perhaps, meant to connect us in that manner. Our strong desire for food when we are physically hungry is meant to be related to the strong desire we should have for righteousness and knowing our Father in Heaven. I have been mindful of the idea of hungering and thirsting after righteousness for a time now, and so connecting fasting to that was insightful to me.

[Carborendum]

On 7/17/2023 at 6:02 PM, Vort said:

If one truly cannot fast without risk of serious injury or death, that person had probably best not fast, even if it means not receiving the blessings specific to the fast. That's all I meant.

On 7/17/2023 at 7:52 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I would posit that if one legitimately cannot fast from food that one can fast in other ways and still receive the blessings of fasting.

I would liken the blessings of fasting to the benefits of (wait for it...) food.

Food has a variety of macronutrients and micronutrients.  You need all different kinds of foods to provide total nutrition.  Fasting is just one type of "spiritual food".  And it will provide a variety of blessings (nutrients).  One could have a complete diet based on a limited cusine. After all, most people don't eat the wide ethnic cuisines that the US does.  Many peoples have a limited diet of 10 to 12 foods (or less) which happen to provide all they need.   But if you lack one of those types of foods, you will definitely lose those nutrients.  There is no way around that fact of life.  You can't just go around eating strawberry ice cream and chocolate cake because it has all four food groups.

However, there are substitutes.  Other foods can be eaten in order to obtain the necessary nutrients.  But the problem is that if we're used to a certain diet, we often don't go outside our regular cuisine to obtain the missing nutrients.

When it comes to spiritual things, fasting certainly provides blessings that are not easily obtained by other means.  But it would seem reasonable that if some people cannot fast due to medical conditions beyond their control, then the Lord must provide a work around.  SOME other option must be provided to obtain the necessary nutrients.

But since the spirit of man is so much more complex and not enough scientific inquiry has been done to analyze the RDA of the array of spiritual blessings, it will be really difficult for an individual to determine what he needs to do in order to obtain the missing nutrients.

One thing is for certain (in my book):  The Lord has designated fasting as a primary means of obtaining certain blessings.  As one who has made a modification to the practice, myself, I must determine what I'm missing by falling short of complete compliance, and figure out what to "add to my diet" to obtain the missing nutrients.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Carborendum

[CV75]

On 7/17/2023 at 6:42 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

I grew up fasting for a full 24 hours every Fast Sunday, and I hated it. So much so, that in my fifties I finally decided I would no longer subject myself to monthly headaches and irritability.

I still pay my fast offering contributions, but I no longer torture myself.

What about you?

I do both because I am willing and able to do both. Hopefully whatever we do is in concert with the Lord's will for us and in the right spirit, especially when exceptions need to be made.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

When it comes to spiritual things, fasting certainly provides blessings that are not easily obtained by other means.  But it would seem reasonable that if some people cannot fast due to medical conditions beyond their control, then the Lord must provide a work around.  SOME other option must be provided to obtain the necessary nutrients.

This does not jibe with my understanding of D&C 130:21-22. If there are blessings specific to the fast—and I believe there are—there can be no other way to receive those blessings but by fasting. That is the meaning of "specific to".

[Vort]

On 7/18/2023 at 8:50 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

And if someone literally tries their best to keep the law of chastity (or any other law), but literally cannot then one will not be held accountable for that.

I disagree. Of course they will be held to account for it. We must all of us account to God for our actions. Little children are not held to account, according to our teachings. But we are. If we are forced, then our accounting will consist of reporting, "I was forced." If we are enslaved to our appetites such that we no longer have the ability to resist evil, that will be our account. If we are blameless, then there will be no blame. But account we will.

And based on D&C 130:21-22, my understanding remains most firmly that when certain blessings are conditioned on observing a law, then those blessings cannot be obtained except by keeping the law upon which they were predicated, not now and not in eternity. So in effect, what you and Carb seem to be saying is, "There are no blessings predicated upon keeping the law of the fast." I concede this is a possibility, but I do not believe it. I suppose there is another possibility: The law of the fast does not include actual fasting; therefore, it is possible to observe the law of the fast without fasting. I reject this for obvious semantic reasons, but again, I concede it's possible.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

This does not jibe with my understanding of D&C 130:21-22. If there are blessings specific to the fast—and I believe there are—there can be no other way to receive those blessings but by fasting. That is the meaning of "specific to".

Where are the words "specifc to" in D&C 130?

[zil2]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Where are the words "specifc to" in D&C 130?

 

Quote

D&C 130:20 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.

Sorry, but this wording clearly supports @Vort's interpretation.  However, it's imprecise enough that we can theorize the following relationships between blessings and laws (where "M" is "Many"):

1:1 (One law offers one blessing)

1:M (One law offers many specific blessings)

M:1 (Many specific laws offer this same blessing)

M:M (Many specific laws offer these many specific blessings)

I expect that @Vort is considering the fact that there are natural physical consequences to fasting.  These consequences are at least some of the blessings.  Therefore, if you don't fast, you cannot get those blessings (unless God interferes and triggers whatever physiological things would have happened had you fasted).  Presumably, there are other blessings beyond the physical side-effects, otherwise we wouldn't distinguish between starving oneself and fasting.  Whether fasting is the only "trigger" for these other blessings, I won't venture to guess.

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Where are the words "specifc to" in D&C 130?

D&C 130:21—"...when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."

All blessings from God are predicated upon a law. This is implicit in the wording of v. 20. Verse 21 asserts that the reception of the predicated blessing happens only when the corresponding law is obeyed; in fact, it asserts that obedience to the law is the mechanism through with the blessing is granted.

Are there any blessings predicated upon the law of the fast? If so, then obedience to the law of the fast is requisite in order to receive those blessings.

POSSIBILITY #1: There are (as yet unspecified, at least in this thread) blessings predicated upon the law of the fast. Therefore, in order to receive those blessings, one must keep the law of the fast.

POSSIBILITY #1a: The law of the fast requires fasting. Therefore, one can receive the blessings predicated upon the law of the fast only by fasting.

POSSIBILITY #1b: The law of the fast doesn't actually require any fasting. In other words, one can comply with the law of the fast without fasting. Therefore, one can receive the blessings predicated upon the law of the fast without fasting.

POSSIBILITY #2: There are no blessings predicated upon the law of the fast. Therefore, any and all blessings that can be received by fasting can also be received without fasting.

POSSIBILITY #3: The law mentioned in D&C 130:20-21 does not mean an individual law for each blessing or set of blessings, but an overarching "law that you must obey to receive divine blessings". It does not refer specifically to the law of the fast or the law of chastity or anything like that, but is instead the Law of Good Enough to Receive Divine Blessings. Anyone who obeys this law, which is apparently a pretty low bar, thus qualifies to receive divine blessings.

I believe Possibility #1, specifically #1a. I disbelieve Possibilities #1b, #2, and #3. I concede they are indeed possibilities, but I reject them for semantic, doctrinal, or philosophical reasons. I do not recognize any other possibilities outside of those mentioned above. I am willing to be educated.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Vort

[zil2]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

I do not recognize any other possibilities outside of those mentioned above. I am willing to be educated.

The other possibility is that there are blessings predicated on the law of the fast, but there is some other law upon which those same blessings are predicated.  Thus, you can get them by obeying the law of the fast, or by obeying [some other law].  The wording of the verse makes this a little bit of a stretch, but I don't think we can entirely rule it out.  I think more likely there are overlapping sets of blessings and some of the blessings which come from fasting also come from other laws, but I doubt that you can get the entire set any other way.

PS: I've been breaking the law of feline-induced paralysis and Klaw is not pleased.  I shall now repent.

Edited July 19, 2023 by zil2

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, zil2 said:

The other possibility is that there are blessings predicated on the law of the fast, but there is some other law upon which those same blessings are predicated.  Thus, you can get them by obeying the law of the fast, or by obeying [some other law].  The wording of the verse makes this a little bit of a stretch, but I don't think we can entirely rule it out.  I think more likely there are overlapping sets of blessings and some of the blessings which come from fasting also come from other laws, but I doubt that you can get the entire set any other way.

Yes, I appreciated your database-like M:M relationship possibility. IMO, verse 21's wording precludes this as a general rule. But when it comes to interpreting the specific nuances of scripture, I'm no more nor less qualified than anyone else here. So I grant the possibility that a given blessing might be separately predicated upon N laws (where N>1), and thus perhaps every blessing offered by heaven can be received through various pathways and is not dependent upon obeying one given law. But if this is the case, I wonder that the Lord bothered revealing D&C 130:20-21, since even if it is true by definition, in practice it really is not.

[Carborendum]

7 minutes ago, zil2 said:

The other possibility is that there are blessings predicated on the law of the fast, but there is some other law upon which those same blessings are predicated.  Thus, you can get them by obeying the law of the fast, or by obeying [some other law].  The wording of the verse makes this a little bit of a stretch, but I don't think we can entirely rule it out.  I think more likely there are overlapping sets of blessings and some of the blessings which come from fasting also come from other laws, but I doubt that you can get the entire set any other way.

PS: I've been breaking the law of feline-induced paralysis and Klaw is not pleased.  I shall now repent.

Thanks, I was getting pretty verbose in my response.  But you put it much more succinctly.

I tend to believe that there are macronutrients that are primarily gotten from certain sources, and some are better than others.  Then there are micronutrients that can be had by a variety of foods.

Some things are absolutely exclusive.  These have been specifically spelled out.  Anything which denotes a covenant (baptism, endowment, celestial marriage) are things for which there is no substitute.  You HAVE to do those things and those things only in order to obtain specific blessings.

Other things are more generalized.  And fasting is a principle with among the most bounteous blessings in both degree and diversity.  If you don't get all those blessings from fasting, you will need to do quite a bit of other stuff in order to fulfill the nutrient requirements.

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, I appreciated your database-like M:M relationship possibility. IMO, verse 21's wording precludes this as a general rule. But when it comes to interpreting the specific nuances of scripture, I'm no more nor less qualified than anyone else here. So I grant the possibility that a given blessing might be separately predicated upon N laws (where N>1), and thus perhaps every blessing offered by heaven can be received through various pathways and is not dependent upon obeying one given law. But if this is the case, I wonder that the Lord bothered revealing D&C 130:20-21, since even if it is true by definition, in practice it really is not.

OK.  I'm going to put on my lawyer hat.  What is "law" in v. 21?

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

OK.  I'm going to put on my lawyer hat.  What is "law" in v. 21?

You have a lawyer hat?

I understand "law" to mean an eternal, inexorable permanent truth, a clear statement about the way the universe operates. Obedience to a law suggests conforming one's actions to accord with the observation about how reality works. A non-spiritual example would be a rocket kick motor to put a second stage into a circularized orbit, without which the satellite would simply reenter the atmosphere and lose its position in the heavens.

[Carborendum]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

You have a lawyer hat?

Yes, I'm charging one jar of kim chee for this conversation.  Not the tiny ones that you get at your local grocery store.  The gallon jar at the H-Mart.

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

I understand "law" to mean an eternal, inexorable permanent truth, a clear statement about the way the universe operates. Obedience to a law suggests conforming one's actions to accord with the observation about how reality works. A non-spiritual example would be a rocket kick motor to put a second stage into a circularized orbit, without which the satellite would simply reenter the atmosphere and lose its position in the heavens.

And what does it mean in V 20?

Do those two uses of the word "law" refer to the same specific law?

Edited July 19, 2023 by Carborendum

[zil2]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, I appreciated your database-like M:M relationship possibility. IMO, verse 21's wording precludes this as a general rule. But when it comes to interpreting the specific nuances of scripture, I'm no more nor less qualified than anyone else here. So I grant the possibility that a given blessing might be separately predicated upon N laws (where N>1), and thus perhaps every blessing offered by heaven can be received through various pathways and is not dependent upon obeying one given law. But if this is the case, I wonder that the Lord bothered revealing D&C 130:20-21, since even if it is true by definition, in practice it really is not.

It's also possible that we (mortals as a whole) tend to be too literal or precise in these things, wanting to strictly delineate what exactly is law and what exactly is blessing and so our perception differs from reality - not that the Lord doesn't set specific bounds, but his bounds may not match our bounds...

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

It's also possible that we (mortals as a whole) tend to be too literal or precise in these things, wanting to strictly delineate what exactly is law and what exactly is blessing and so our perception differs from reality - not that the Lord doesn't set specific bounds, but his bounds may not match our bounds...

That, and even attempting virtue and failing is better than not trying. President Sam Kimball said he “liked the smell of tobacco smoke in church because it means people are trying.” I think smoking cigarettes is repulsive, but I’d rather you keep trying to quit rather than just giving up. 

[Vort]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

I understand "law" to mean an eternal, inexorable permanent truth, a clear statement about the way the universe operates. Obedience to a law suggests conforming one's actions to accord with the observation about how reality works. A non-spiritual example would be a rocket kick motor to put a second stage into a circularized orbit, without which the satellite would simply reenter the atmosphere and lose its position in the heavens.

And what does it mean in V 20?

Do those two uses of the word "law" refer to the same specific law?

It means that blessings from heaven are predicated upon the structure of the very fabric of the universe, and when we receive a blessing from heaven, it is because we've operated within the bounds of the immutable spiritual physics that governs that blessing. I believe the word "law" in v. 21 refers to the same example law as proposed in v. 20.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, zil2 said:

It's also possible that we (mortals as a whole) tend to be too literal or precise in these things, wanting to strictly delineate what exactly is law and what exactly is blessing and so our perception differs from reality - not that the Lord doesn't set specific bounds, but his bounds may not match our bounds...

I certainly do not disagree. The problem with this attitude is that it seems to encourage people not to read or consider closely. Instead, they just read quickly and go with whatever their first impression is. This might actually work out well at times, but in general, I trust Joseph Smith's teachings: "The things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out."

[LDSGator]

30 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

President Sam Kimball

Spencer Kimball. Sorry.