What constitutes a Fast on Good Friday?

[Anonymous]

First I want to say, I applaud the call of the Prophet to fast this coming Good Friday. He said the following:

On Saturday evening, the Church President taught that a customary fast is two meals or a period of 24 hours.

Quote:

“But you decide what would constitute a sacrifice for you, as you remember the supreme sacrifice the Savior made for you,”

he said. “Let us unite in pleading for healing throughout the world.

The thought came to me, if we can decide what constitutes a fast based on our own individual circumstances,

why can’t we decide what constitutes a tithe offering based on our own individual circumstances?

I’m not trying to lead a rebellion only ask a question.

[Anonymous]

I think we can. I’ve heard the stories of the rogue bishops, but they are the exception.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

How do we fast? Two meals or a period of 24 hours is customary. But you decide what would constitute a sacrifice for you, as you remember the supreme sacrifice the Savior made for you. Let us unite in pleading for healing throughout the world.

Emphasis added.

I really like this. It sounds like opening up what we think of as a traditional fast to be more like something people do for Lent. A lot of us simply can’t skip two meals due to health concerns. It’s nice to open up our definition of fast to be a more general sacrifice that allows more people to participate in a “fast.”

Minyan Man wrote:

…why can’t we decide what constitutes a tithe offering based on our own individual circumstances?

My interpretation of the church’s official position on tithing is just that. As far as I know, the letter from the First Presidency on March. 19, 1970 is still binding (emphasis added):

Quote:

For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

My interpretation of the church’s official position on tithing is just that. As far as I know, the letter from the First Presidency on March. 19, 1970 is still binding (emphasis added):

Quote:

For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.

Nibbler, thanks for the clarification. I don’t think I’ve seen this before. Maybe that is the issue I’m having problems with. I’ve seen statements

from the church regarding how fasting can be interpreted differently based on your age & physical condition. But, I don’t remember the

church making as clear a statement regarding how tithing can be interpreted differently based on your income, assets, debts & liabilities.

In my life time it seems to be gross pay times 10% = tithing obligation.

Maybe I’m overly sensitive about the difference.

If I went to a TR interview & explained why I can’t fast for a full 24 hrs it would probably be accepted with little discussion.

If I went to a TR interview & explained why or how I calculated my tithing obligation as less than the gross pay times 10% example,

I would expect at best a harsher discussion & corresponding judgement. Or am I wrong?

[Anonymous]

That’s an interesting juxtaposition.

The tithing thing will come down to leadership roulette, which is why the advice that’s usually given is to decide what tithing means for yourself, keep it between you and the lord, and only answer, “Yes.” when asked, “Are you a full-tithe payer?” and leaving it at that. Absolutely no explanation or questions, just, “Yes.” That way there’s no opportunity for harsh discussions.

Leadership roulette: my experience was that I was always explicitly taught at the local level that 10% on net wasn’t a full tithe, a tithe was 10% on gross, a penny less than that was not a full tithe. It wasn’t until I chanced upon Rock Waterman’s article, “Are We Paying Too Much Tithing?” that I heard that there were people out there that payed 10% on net and still considered themselves a full tithe payer. My first reaction was, “Wait. What?”

I mentioned this before, but my best guess as to why I only ever heard paying 10% on gross was because at one point in the 1960s the official policy in the church handbook of instructions for leaders defined tithing this way. Then we probably did what we usually do when things change, quietly move to a different policy. Most people don’t notice so the old ways persist.

[Anonymous]

I think what you say about tithing is true, Nibbler, and we have a guy in our ward who no matter how many times he’s been corrected (even by leadership) cannot pass up the opportunity to teach tithing on gross.

Nevertheless, I don’t really know anyone who actually pays on gross. Granted I don’t make it a regular topic of discussion, but the people I know who are closest to paying on gross still deduct FICA with the explanation that they will tithe that when they receive their social security, and that will also cover any part they get that they did not actually contribute. I know people who do that with 401K contributions as well.

MM, to your fasting question, I have not encountered a bishop who does not understand that health prevents certain people from the “no food or drink for 24 hours” kind of fast. Some also believe that the fast does not necessarily have to be 24 hours or include not drinking. Outside of leadership some people I know seem to be as liberal with fasting as they are with tithing. Personally I don’t worry about the clock, and it usually involves a late lunch (I don’t normally have breakfast most days). I don’t refrain from drinking. My fast yesterday was not from food, I sacrificed something else and I’m not ready to say what that was.

[Anonymous]

I’m sure I could of presented this discussion better. The main point I was trying to bring out is, when it comes to Fasting, the church

seems to be more inclusive. When it comes to the principle of Tithing, not so much. For that reason, when it comes to the TR

interview, I answer yes or no with absolutely no explanation, discussion or hint than I may have an alternate definition.

IMO the interview is a time for our leadership to get to know the membership in a more intimate way. Without judgement.

It doesn’t work that way. In a TR interview, there is always judgement. For that reason, I am considering not going through that

process again. At this stage of my life, I don’t really need a TR. Because of the distance, we rarely go & it is emotionally draining

for my wife.

[Anonymous]

I wish we could move away from temple recommends, worthiness interviews, and even the word “worthy” or any of its variants (qualified, drawing distinctions between worthiness and worth, etc.).

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I wish we could move away from temple recommends, worthiness interviews, and even the word “worthy” or any of its variants (qualified, drawing distinctions between worthiness and worth, etc.).

This is the best thing I think the church could learn from. If god is all loving, why does he care so much about the most first world-like commandments that we have culturally evolved into hard letter of the law regulations?

I never fasted growing up. I was taught all it did was make people hungry and give the church money. My dad paid his tithing annually. The end of the year bishop meeting he’d give a check to the bishop. He had figured out how much tithing he ‘owed’ each paycheck and hid it. When I was newly married I had some struggles with self-harm and went to my local bishop at the time for help. He refused to help me, saying I had to demonstrate at minimum 3 months of consistent fully active membership involvement before he’d “start thinking about” giving me the help I was asking for. He even said he might have to remove my recommend if I’m struggling with sins.

The church should just be a vehicle to get to heaven. You can walk or run or jog to heaven, but you shouldn’t need the church. because leadership in lower and higher levels are convinced and teach that you cannot make it without the church, we get an unfair culture that is toxic. It’s why so many of us end up leaving or going inactive.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I wish we could move away from temple recommends, worthiness interviews, and even the word “worthy” or any of its variants (qualified, drawing distinctions between worthiness and worth, etc.).

I am so with you on that. It’s one thing to try to be obedient, but to have everything we do measured to see if it’s “enough” just doesn’t sit well with me.

[Author]

Posts