My Challenge To All Non-Lds Readers

[KevinG]

The snide and sarcastic tone of your reply aside... Other commandments are enforced in the sense that they are a part of Personal worthiness interviews. Obviously the individual can choose whether or not he responds honestly but he is still asked if he tithes and follows the law of chastity. I have never been asked about fasting.

The issue that I think is frustrating mfbukoswski and often frustrates me is that Rob, ignorant of how the LDS culture encourages personal accountability for commandments and does not rely on external motivation as much as internal motivation, implied in his opening post that we do our fasting in public contrary to Matthew's admonition.

That was either a grave misunderstanding of LDS practices or a low blow trying to make a positive into a negative. A generous portion of Rob's career is to act as a counter-cult researcher in order to disprove Mormonism. While some of his arguments against the LDS Church may have merit this one was a real stretch, as shown by Zerinus, mfbukowski and others.

Rob bristled at my suggestion he get more familiar with real world LDS practices and not depend on his knowledge gained from the internet, symposia and published sources only; however this is one case where a working knowledge of how the Saints implement their doctrines would save him the embarrassment of making ignorant statements about our fasting, prayer and charitable giving practices and the personal and private way we conduct them - in very good alignment with the admonition of Matthew.

I don't cut Rob much slack on his preaching about Mormonism, but he does advertise himself and the ministry he works for as being expert in what we believe vs. what we will tell investigators vs. what we really teach.

Spend some time at the Institute for Religious Research and look at the articles on Mormons (I cannot link it due to Temple content) to see what Rob's work is all about. You may get a better understanding of mfbukowski's defensive tone.

[Rob Bowman]

Saints Alive,

You wrote:

And why is it not possible for God to ask us to fast?

Er, I don't recall suggesting that it was not possible. However, if God issues a commandment, he is not asking, he is telling. The Ten Commandments take the form "You shall not," not "If you please, try not."

You also wrote, in a separate post:

That is where you differ from mormons, Mormons believe a man's sins are between him and God and only his bishop is authorized to mediate.

I just checked. Matthew 18:15-17 is in your Bible. Do you agree with it or not?

[KevinG]

Saints Alive- to your point. No one is arguing we don't have personal worthiness interviews. What we were trying to explain is that those interviews are voluntary and based on self report.

No Bishop "enforces" fasting, tithing or other commandments without personal admission to sins. Even then the Bishops role is provide inspired counsel and support to help the member succeed in keeping the commandments of God.

Even when fasting is done in a group setting like our first Sunday no child or adult is required to fast. No Saint who is not a Stake President or Bishop in an interview situation, would inquire of their Brother or Sister in the Gospel if they were keeping the commandments or not. The even more egregious gossiping about other behavior is a sin in and of itself. No enforcement mechanism other than personal conviction enforces observation of that commandment. No one is denied entrance to the Temple or other worship opportunities if they choose not to fast for personal, health or other reasons.

Those who cannot fast for health or personal reasons are still invited to participate fully in our Fast and Testimony Sundays, have an attitude of fasting and share their testimony with others.

Of course you know these things, but after repeated explanations I have yet to see Rob admit he was mistaken to imply the LDS were not in accordance with Matthew, instead he chose to lecture us for not being clear enough in our explanations or argue over fine points he himself misunderstood.

After some history discussing Mormonism with Rob this is a clear pattern. Understandable since his primary frame of reference is that we are a form of false Christianity that somehow needs opposing, but while I can understand why he has his point of view- I am obliged to oppose lies about my faith (intentional or unintentional).

Edited December 8, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

Matthew 18:15 ¶Moreover if thy brother shall ^atrespass against thee, go and ^btell him his ^cfault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three ^awitnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the ^achurch: but if he ^bneglect to hear the ^cchurch, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

We absolutely agree with this. Private sins are dealt with privately. Pubic sins are dealt with publicly. All are dealt with in a merciful and Christ directed manner.

Rob what can you tell me about LDS disciplinary counsels and how they operate?

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell,

You wrote:

Unless the sin was a serious one, i would tell myself that God gave the person permission to do it. That way i'm not tempted to judge in matters where i probably don't have enough information to do so righteously.

I've got enough beams in my own eyes to worry about.

I'm not advocating judging my brother when I observe him committing sin. I understand Matthew 18:15-17 to teach that I should approach my brother in Christian love, express my concern, and see what he says. If he appears intransigent (unrepentant) over real sin, I am to follow the steps that Jesus laid out.

It doesn't make sense, as I see it, to say that God commands every healthy adult to fast and at the same time to say that God might give a healthy adult permission to break that fast. Again, there seems to be some inconsistency in how this supposed commandment is regarded. You don't go along with this sort of inconsistency on acts traditionally recognized as sin. For example, I'm sure you don't think that God gives some men permission to commit adultery. The belief that "You shall not commit adultery" is indeed a divine command expressing God's moral standard precludes the idea that God permits some people to commit adultery. If God commands his people to skip lunch on Sunday and give the money to charity, then there should not be any exceptions other than exemptions built into the principle (e.g., children and those in fragile health are exempt).

[Saints Alive]

Matthew 18:15 ¶Moreover if thy brother shall ^atrespass against thee, go and ^btell him his ^cfault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three ^awitnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the ^achurch: but if he ^bneglect to hear the ^cchurch, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

We absolutely agree with this. Private sins are dealt with privately. Pubic sins are dealt with publicly. All are dealt with in a merciful and Christ directed manner.

Rob what can you tell me about LDS disciplinary counsels and how they operate?

Thanks DaddyG, I have bolded the important part.

If a Brother is Smoking or eating out on fast sunday (or any sunday for that matter) the sin is against God not Me so I feel no compulsion to "tell him his fault" I am sure he already knows.

[bluebell]

I just checked. Matthew 18:15-17 is in your Bible. Do you agree with it or not?

Those verses are talking about trespasses against ourselves, not God.

If someone injuries us in some way, then we have an obligation to go to them to try to get it cleared up before going to a third person. These verses are not about holding other people accountable to whether or not they are sinning in ways that has nothing to do with us personally. Most sins are between God and the person alone.

[KevinG]

bluebell,

You wrote:

I'm not advocating judging my brother when I observe him committing sin. I understand Matthew 18:15-17 to teach that I should approach my brother in Christian love, express my concern, and see what he says. If he appears intransigent (unrepentant) over real sin, I am to follow the steps that Jesus laid out.

It doesn't make sense, as I see it, to say that God commands every healthy adult to fast and at the same time to say that God might give a healthy adult permission to break that fast. Again, there seems to be some inconsistency in how this supposed commandment is regarded. You don't go along with this sort of inconsistency on acts traditionally recognized as sin. For example, I'm sure you don't think that God gives some men permission to commit adultery. The belief that "You shall not commit adultery" is indeed a divine command expressing God's moral standard precludes the idea that God permits some people to commit adultery. If God commands his people to skip lunch on Sunday and give the money to charity, then there should not be any exceptions other than exemptions built into the principle (e.g., children and those in fragile health are exempt).

Let me try to make this clear.

God commands every healthy adult to fast.

We as Mormons don't compel adults to keep the commandments by external or coercive measures.

If a man sins he does so at his own peril unless he repents.

The Bishop is an agent that a man can go to voluntarily with his struggles and sins to receive counsel and support in repenting and obeying commandments in the future.

Serious sins such as adultery, partaking of forbidden substances like drugs and alcohol or failing to meet obligations to one's family can result in being barred from the Temple - mostly to keep the person from taking on condemnation for not keeping serious covenants.

All sin is looked upon as grievous, and we are encouraged to repent of all sins. The last Temple recommend interview question covers "any other sin or misdeed" not covered in the earlier interview questions.

The only sins where one is compelled to come up to a church disciplinary counsel (please look this up as part of your research) are those that include predatory behavior or public apostasy. Even in these cases the counsel is private and the church including the counsel members are never to reveal in public.

Edited December 8, 2011 by DaddyG

[Saints Alive]

bluebell,

You wrote:

I'm not advocating judging my brother when I observe him committing sin. I understand Matthew 18:15-17 to teach that I should approach my brother in Christian love, express my concern, and see what he says. If he appears intransigent (unrepentant) over real sin, I am to follow the steps that Jesus laid out.

It doesn't make sense, as I see it, to say that God commands every healthy adult to fast and at the same time to say that God might give a healthy adult permission to break that fast. Again, there seems to be some inconsistency in how this supposed commandment is regarded. You don't go along with this sort of inconsistency on acts traditionally recognized as sin. For example, I'm sure you don't think that God gives some men permission to commit adultery. The belief that "You shall not commit adultery" is indeed a divine command expressing God's moral standard precludes the idea that God permits some people to commit adultery. If God commands his people to skip lunch on Sunday and give the money to charity, then there should not be any exceptions other than exemptions built into the principle (e.g., children and those in fragile health are exempt).

Except that MAT 18:15-17 is clearly talking about how you react to someone who sins against you personally and is not referring to a person who sins in the general sense of the word. I am not sure how you can read it any other way.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Saints Alive

[KevinG]

Here are the first articles to pop up on LDS.org with the following key words. I have not read proofed them to see if they support my ideas shared above, but I'm pretty confident they will shed light on our beliefs in a helpful way.

Disciplinary Counsels

Bishops Interview

Agency

[bluebell]

bluebell,

You wrote:

I'm not advocating judging my brother when I observe him committing sin. I understand Matthew 18:15-17 to teach that I should approach my brother in Christian love, express my concern, and see what he says. If he appears intransigent (unrepentant) over real sin, I am to follow the steps that Jesus laid out.

It doesn't make sense, as I see it, to say that God commands every healthy adult to fast and at the same time to say that God might give a healthy adult permission to break that fast.

It's completely consistent with God's character to apply certain commandments differently depending on individual circumstances. If someone was under immense emotional despair, for example, for some reason, and they did not fast because they forgot it was the first sunday, i don't believe God would consider the individual sinful for the omission.

Again, there seems to be some inconsistency in how this supposed commandment is regarded.

The inconsistence comes from your misunderstanding of our doctrine, not our doctrine.

You don't go along with this sort of inconsistency on acts traditionally recognized as sin. For example, I'm sure you don't think that God gives some men permission to commit adultery.

Did you miss the part where i specifically said "unless it's a serious sin" or are you willfully ignoring it because it would negate your whole point?

[KevinG]

The blessings of a proper fast (counsel to the Saints)

Fast Day Teaching from a Prophet about the Fast

[Rob Bowman]

I think this discussion has gotten off track because my first post here has been badly misunderstood, and that's probably because I did not elaborate sufficiently or clearly enough. I was not suggesting that all or most Mormons are a bunch of hypocrites doing their charitable deeds only for show. I definitely do not think that is the case. I was expressing my opinion that the LDS Church, by mandating a fast on a specific day of the month and requiring the money saved to be donated for charity, compromises the voluntary aspect of fasting and giving that is assumed by Jesus' comments in Matthew 6. The policy, if taken seriously, would seem to open the door to members feeling that they need to observe the fast for the sake of appearance if nothing else. Ironically, what I have been hearing from most of the respondents here suggests that the policy is not taken that seriously; it may be called a commandment but doesn't seem to be treated as such.

Truth is, I'm far more concerned about the claim that this practice is a commandment of God than I am whether Mormons might be doing it for show. As I have said, I don't suspect most Mormons of hypocrisy in this matter. I apologize for not doing enough to ward off that perception. My main concern has to do with the LDS Church itself, not the rank and file members, and that concern is that the religion is mandating what should be voluntary.

Other issues have come up in the back-and-forth that really are tangential to that concern (especially how members respond when observing a fellow member violating a commandment). I prefer to drop that part of the discussion because it's really off topic in this thread.

Finally, I would repeat that I don't view this issue as significant as far as the truth claims of the LDS Church are concerned. It isn't from my point of view an apologetic issue or one where I am trying to "score points" against the LDS religion.

[Saints Alive]

Rob,

I sincerely think you are overlooking the responses to the questions you raise.

I was expressing my opinion that the LDS Church, by mandating a fast on a specific day of the month and requiring the money saved to be donated for charity, compromises the voluntary aspect of fasting and giving that is assumed by Jesus' comments in Matthew 6.

It is not the church that is mandating, from our perspective it is a commandment from God. “Whether from my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same”

At the same time, we are encouraged to fast beyond the commanded once a month, at our own discretion, in the manner that Jesus suggests.

The policy, if taken seriously, would seem to open the door to members feeling that they need to observe the fast for the sake of appearance if nothing else.

And as other posters have said, it would be nye impossible to tell if someone was fasting or not, so why would they “[feel]the need to observe the fast for the sake of appearance” if there is no appearance of fasting?

My main concern has to do with the LDS Church itself, not the rank and file members, and that concern is that the religion is mandating what should be voluntary.

Except the we LDS members believe it is God mandating the fast NOT religion. As I quoted before, we believe “Whether from my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same”

[Scott Lloyd]

Except the we LDS members believe it is God mandating the fast NOT religion. As I quoted before, we believe “Whether from my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same”

This was in reply to Rob's statement:

My main concern has to do with the LDS Church itself, not the rank and file members, and that concern is that the religion is mandating what should be voluntary.

Perhaps to further this discussion along, we can set aside "the LDS Church itself" for the moment and get Rob to sincerely and unequivocally answer the following question:

Rob, do you think it would be inappropriate, out-of-character, or in any way un-God-like for Jesus Christ to command his followers to do such things as pray, fast, give offerings to the poor and needy and do other such things?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

I think this discussion has gotten off track because my first post here has been badly misunderstood, and that's probably because I did not elaborate sufficiently or clearly enough. I was not suggesting that all or most Mormons are a bunch of hypocrites doing their charitable deeds only for show. I definitely do not think that is the case. I was expressing my opinion that the LDS Church, by mandating a fast on a specific day of the month and requiring the money saved to be donated for charity, compromises the voluntary aspect of fasting and giving that is assumed by Jesus' comments in Matthew 6.

We don't believe it's a mandate of the church but a commandment of God.

The policy, if taken seriously, would seem to open the door to members feeling that they need to observe the fast for the sake of appearance if nothing else. Ironically, what I have been hearing from most of the respondents here suggests that the policy is not taken that seriously; it may be called a commandment but doesn't seem to be treated as such.

How does a commandment to fast open the door to people feeling that they need to observe the fast for the sake of appearance any more than a commandment to pray open the door to people feeling like they need to pray for the sake of appearances? This objection doesn't seem to make any sense, given that you yourself have a belief system that also believes God commands certain things.

Besides that, no one can tell at church if someone else is fasting, so it's impossible to fast for the sake of appearances anyway.

Your accusation that we don't take the commandment seriously is completely baseless. Just because we don't see it the way you think we should, does not mean we don't take it seriously.

Truth is, I'm far more concerned about the claim that this practice is a commandment of God than I am whether Mormons might be doing it for show.

What's the concern?

[Calm]

Ironically, what I have been hearing from most of the respondents here suggests that the policy is not taken that seriously; it may be called a commandment but doesn't seem to be treated as such.

CFR that all commandments are to be treated the same way demonstrated from the scriptures. Considering how those who have punishments listed alongside the commandment have varied punishments and restitutions attached, I think this may be difficult.

My main concern has to do with the LDS Church itself, not the rank and file members, and that concern is that the religion is mandating what should be voluntary.

Hopefully you will avoid such digressions into commenting about rank and file members' behaviour including those who post on this board then in the future.

Personally I don't understand the rationale that first condems a group for not treating commandments seriously enough and then justifies their own group's lack of attention to such things by trumpeting the fewer number of commandments among their own as if not having commandments was something that had merit in and of itself.

[zerinus]

You've got me totally wrong. I have absolutely no objection to the idea of skipping a meal and giving the money to charity. You make an excellent point about the many charities that recommend people do this. But that's not the issue I raised.

Well, where did they get that idea from, if not from LDS? Show me when charities starting advocating this idea before LDS did? How come it is a great idea for the charities, but not so good for the people who invented that idea in the first place? There seems to be something odd about that.

Rather, the issue I raised was requiring all (healthy adult) members of one's religion to do it, supposedly as a commandment of God.

I thought you were a “sola scriptura” guy. Do you deny that fasting as an act of devotion was practised extensively by all the ancient prophets, Apostles, and holy men in Old as well as New Testament times? Did you know that it is actually commanded in the Bible? Did you know that there are many instances of feastings being done by “proclamations” in the Bible; and that the Jews had special days in the year when they were required to fast? How is that different from what the LDS Church is doing in our day?

[mfbukowski]

bluebell,

You wrote:

I'm not advocating judging my brother when I observe him committing sin. I understand Matthew 18:15-17 to teach that I should approach my brother in Christian love, express my concern, and see what he says. If he appears intransigent (unrepentant) over real sin, I am to follow the steps that Jesus laid out.

It doesn't make sense, as I see it, to say that God commands every healthy adult to fast and at the same time to say that God might give a healthy adult permission to break that fast. Again, there seems to be some inconsistency in how this supposed commandment is regarded. You don't go along with this sort of inconsistency on acts traditionally recognized as sin. For example, I'm sure you don't think that God gives some men permission to commit adultery. The belief that "You shall not commit adultery" is indeed a divine command expressing God's moral standard precludes the idea that God permits some people to commit adultery. If God commands his people to skip lunch on Sunday and give the money to charity, then there should not be any exceptions other than exemptions built into the principle (e.g., children and those in fragile health are exempt).

What you don't understand is that you have 10 commandments and we have- who knows- possibly hundreds depending on how you look at it.

It's a little more difficult for ordinary humans like us to live standards in which we attempt to become like God, than it is to "confess Jesus" and be saved and then be "not perfect, just forgiven". It is not our aim to be "not perfect"- indeed we attempt to follow Jesus COMMANDMENT to "be ye therefore perfect".

How are y'all don' on that one?

We of course recognize that no one is perfect in this life- at least not in all things. But that is the standard we TRY to achieve. A standard must be high or it is not a standard at all.

We actually have a lower standard for what you call "salvation"- ie: resurrection into "heaven"- since we believe that even those who do not "confess Jesus" in this life will be saved in at least the telestial kingdom.

So our salvation is a sliding scale, and guess what- so are our commandments. The most difficult commandments correspond to a greater reward. That is what it means that we are REWARDED (not "saved") according to our works.

That is why we have Temple Recommend interviews- because those define the LOWEST level of "commandment keeping" which is acceptable to enter the temple. That is also why many including Blake Ostler say that we don't have "doctrine" - we believe in "orthopraxis"

The word of wisdom is an example of this blended approach to commandments- technically it is not a "commandment" according to the D&C- because part of it is "for the weakest of the Saints"- but yet of course observing it IS on the temple recommend interview.

Yet no one expects that one will abstain from meat except during winter to receive a Temple Recommend.

It is not that God gives a commandment and then gives one permission to break it- it is that some commandments are for the weak and others for the strong as we grow closer to God.

Fast offerings are not mentioned on a TR recommend interview - but tithing is. This alone should be ample evidence that tithing is a "lower" commandment than fasting and contributing fast offerings.

10% is a lot to pay- 11 or 12 or 15% is more than 10, and so is harder.

I guess that is not clear to some.

[mfbukowski]

The policy, if taken seriously, would seem to open the door to members feeling that they need to observe the fast for the sake of appearance if nothing else. Ironically, what I have been hearing from most of the respondents here suggests that the policy is not taken that seriously; it may be called a commandment but doesn't seem to be treated as such.

This is where you go wrong because you have no understanding of the culture itself.

You could sit in the foyer and munch a sandwich on fast sunday and no one would bat an eyelash. You really need to attend some meetings and sit through Sunday School and Priesthood and get to know some actual Saints.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

Your comments appear below with my responses following.

CFR that all commandments are to be treated the same way demonstrated from the scriptures. Considering how those who have punishments listed alongside the commandment have varied punishments and restitutions attached, I think this may be difficult.

I don't claim that all commandments are treated the same way in terms of severity of punishment for disobedience. I simply maintain that all commandments should be treated as commandments!

Hopefully you will avoid such digressions into commenting about rank and file members' behaviour including those who post on this board then in the future.

I don't think I commented on the behavior of board posters, but if that's the way something came across, I regret it.

Personally I don't understand the rationale that first condems a group for not treating commandments seriously enough and then justifies their own group's lack of attention to such things by trumpeting the fewer number of commandments among their own as if not having commandments was something that had merit in and of itself.

"My group" does not lack attention to charitable giving. We just keep it voluntary, as we see it taught in the New Testament. And please: nothing I said suggests or implies that not having commandments is itself meritorious. It is not having man-made commandments that are mistakenly regarded as divine commandments and that seemingly cannot be treated consistently as commandments that I happen to think is a good thing.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Well, where did they get that idea from, if not from LDS? Show me when charities starting advocating this idea before LDS did? How come it is a great idea for the charities, but not so good for the people who invented that idea in the first place? There seems to be something odd about that.

There's nothing wrong with the idea. What's wrong is claiming it is a commandment from God, if it isn't, and then confusedly not treating it consistently as a divine commandment.

I thought you were a “sola scriptura” guy. Do you deny that fasting as an act of devotion was practised extensively by all the ancient prophets, Apostles, and holy men in Old as well as New Testament times? Did you know that it is actually commanded in the Bible? Did you know that there are many instances of feastings being done by “proclamations” in the Bible; and that the Jews had special days in the year when they were required to fast? How is that different from what the LDS Church is doing in our day?

The New Testament never commands Christians to fast, let alone to fast at a specific time. Imposing a fast as a divine commandment is a reversion to a mode of religion that was superseded by the new covenant in Christ.

[bluebell]

"My group" does not lack attention to charitable giving. We just keep it voluntary, as we see it taught in the New Testament.

So, in your belief, charity towards the poor is an option, not a commandment?

[Vance]

As usual Bowman neglects some important things.

Jesus said, (Matt 6:16) ¶ Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Sounds like Jesus is commanding that fasting occur.

Jesus said, (Matt 9:15) Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. (Also see Luke 5:35)

It is too bad that the NT isn't complete enough to provide the details. Thank goodness for continuous revelation.

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell,

You asked:

So, in your belief, charity towards the poor is an option, not a commandment?

No. I think I've been clear on this point. What I say is not a commandment is that everyone is to fast on a particular day (even specifying how many meals are to be skipped) and that the money saved from the fast is to be given to a specific charity.