worldwide leadership training

[CardiacCoug]

I find it fascinating the way the Church decides to word things in the handbook and other correlated publications.

Here is an example where I would expect the average non-lawyer, lay person would perceive that it says something very different than it actually says.

Fast Day

A proper fast day observance typically includes abstaining from food and drink for two consecutive meals in a 24-hour period, attending fast and testimony meeting, and giving a generous fast offering to help care for those in need.

If you asked 100 average church members to read that and repeat it in their own words, I bet more than half would say that you are supposed to not eat or drink for 24 hours. A lawyer or somebody else who makes a living reading precise contract language would immediately see that that's not what it says at all.

Is the intent of this language to please both sides -- 1. the mullahs who think a fast is strictly 24 hours (and will read it that way) and 2. other people who think it's the spirit of the fast that counts and not the number of hours? Because both of those groups will like what they read there.

Yeah, I tend to overanalyze stuff like this.

[smokymountainrain]

If you asked 100 average church members to read that and repeat it in their own words, I bet more than half would say that you are supposed to not eat or drink for 24 hours. A lawyer or somebody else who makes a living reading precise contract language would immediately see that that's not what it says at all.

I think I disagree. It seems pretty clear that it's a two meal fast, not a 24 hour fast. I say I think I disagree because it is nearly impossible to know how other people would read that, but I can see where you're coming from as well.

A bold stance on my part, I know.

[CardiacCoug]

I think I disagree. It seems pretty clear that it's a two meal fast, not a 24 hour fast. I say I think I disagree because it is nearly impossible to know how other people would read that, but I can see where you're coming from as well.

A bold stance on my part, I know.

OK, but why do they put the 24-hour part in then?

You skip two consecutive meals -- of course those meals would be over a 24-hour period. Why put in something completely redundant except to please the more fundamentalist element in the Church that believes strongly in the importance of a full 24-hour fast?

[TripletDaddy]

I appreciate the literalist approach to fasting. I generally eat 5 or 6 times a day. So 2 consecutive meals is really only around 4 hours for me. I don't get the 24 hr thing.

[smokymountainrain]

OK, but why do they put the 24-hour part in then?

You skip two consecutive meals -- of course those meals would be over a 24-hour period. Why put in something completely redundant except to please the more fundamentalist element in the Church that believes strongly in the importance of a full 24-hour fast?

Good point. I can't think of any reason they would put that in there. I guess I would hope they wouldn't do it just to please the mullahs - but you're probably right.

[Moliere]

OK, but why do they put the 24-hour part in then?

You skip two consecutive meals -- of course those meals would be over a 24-hour period. Why put in something completely redundant except to please the more fundamentalist element in the Church that believes strongly in the importance of a full 24-hour fast?

I actually saw that paragraph before you quoted it and thought the same thing when I first read it. However, I think your interpretation is not fully correct as I honestly think the intention is that the fast go 24 hours. I'm not a 24 hour stickler (frankly I physically struggle with fasting) but there was a recent GC talk where the 24 hour fast was mentioned. Of course it was only a 70 that gave the talk so interpret that how you want.

[Pheidippides]

OK, but why do they put the 24-hour part in then?

You skip two consecutive meals -- of course those meals would be over a 24-hour period. Why put in something completely redundant except to please the more fundamentalist element in the Church that believes strongly in the importance of a full 24-hour fast?

Maybe they're trying to confuse the crazy people who only eat once a day?

[CardiacCoug]

Good point. I can't think of any reason they would put that in there. I guess I would hope they wouldn't do it just to please the mullahs - but you're probably right.

I'm not saying it's some type of conspiracy or carefully studied market research thing -- but I do think that the wording is intentionally ambiguous.

Otherwise it would just say "Members should abstain from food and drink for a 24-hour period."

[Pheidippides]

I'm not saying it's some type of conspiracy or carefully studied market research thing -- but I do think that the wording is intentionally ambiguous.

Otherwise it would just say "Members should abstain from food and drink for a 24-hour period."

The other option - in all seriousness - is that somebody who is otherwise thoughtful about wording didn't realize that two consecutive meals are of course in a 24 hour period. Wouldn't be the first time.

[CardiacCoug]

I actually saw that paragraph before you quoted it and thought the same thing when I first read it. However, I think your interpretation is not fully correct as I honestly think the intention is that the fast go 24 hours. I'm not a 24 hour stickler (frankly I physically struggle with fasting) but there was a recent GC talk where the 24 hour fast was mentioned. Of course it was only a 70 that gave the talk so interpret that how you want.

If the person who wrote that meant to clearly define a proper fast as a full 24-hour period, then that person deserves an F.

I think they are purposefully leaving some wiggle room for frequent small-meal types like DDD. I mean, the way it is worded you could skip the meals but have a few snacks in between.

[CardiacCoug]

The other option - in all seriousness - is that somebody who is otherwise thoughtful about wording didn't realize that two consecutive meals are of course in a 24 hour period. Wouldn't be the first time.

Sure, that is definitely possible.

I would love to know more details of how stuff like this is vetted before publication.

[Donuthole]

If the person who wrote that meant to clearly define a proper fast as a full 24-hour period, then that person deserves an F.

I think they are purposefully leaving some wiggle room for frequent small-meal types like DDD. I mean, the way it is worded you could skip the meals but have a few snacks in between.

I actually think it's worded the way it is to make it clear that fanatical fasting is not what is asked or recommended. And by fanatical, i mean skipping an entire day's worth of meals and not eating or drinking for 36 hours.

[CardiacCoug]

I actually think it's worded the way it is to make it clear that fanatical fasting is not what is asked or recommended. And by fanatical, i mean skipping an entire day's worth of meals and not eating or drinking for 36 hours.

OK, that makes sense, too. I remember new members of the Church on the mission assuming you shouldn't eat or drink at all on Fast Sunday, which would end up amounting to 30+ hours.

[PaloAltoCougar]

As a student in the dorms at BYU, I was vexed and befuddled by the Sunday meal schedule, which always excluded breakfast. On typical Sundays, we were fed lunch and dinner. But on Fast Sundays, we were fed lunch only. Thus, with no breakfast and no dinner, we missed two meals within a 24-hour period, and our dining schedule was CHOI-approved!

[creekster]

From the link, regarding book 2 and inside book 2...

but it's on-line! they clearly expect people to read it.