Kenngo1969 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 At the risk of duplicating what Smac posts, above, here is the Deseret News article on the same subject: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865647627/Research-and-control-at-center-of-marijuana-debate-LDS-Church-issues-new-statement.html
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: : While someone may derive enough benefits from smoking marijuana that he concludes that it's the lesser of two evils, smoking marijuana is per se unhealthy, or at least, there are health risks involved in smoking (or otherwise taking in) marijuana that inhere to the substance; whether smoothies are unhealthy or not depends entirely upon what's in them: for example, I have a small store of bottled apricots. I can make a smoothie by simply pureeing this fruit. Nothing of that is relevant to my point, I am not talking about your special smoothies that you make at home. I am talking about anything that is very unhealthy, smoothies were just an example. I agree being addicted to marijuana is bad, but all addiction is bad! Marijuana is not that bad if you only smoke it once a month. I don't understand why our church is politically against marijuana, is our church politically against cheesy potatoes too? or to make it more simple, why is our church not politically against any type of addiction? Some people do have a serious addiction to cheesy potatoes, see Our church shouldn't get involved in politics, especially because there is evidence that the war on drugs creates drug cartels. Edited February 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Russell C McGregor Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 35 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Our church shouldn't get involved in politics, especially because there is evidence that the war on drugs creates drug cartels. Taking a public position on a moral issue isn't getting involved in politics; it's not even indirectly getting involved in politics, since nobody is campaigning on this issue. If the Church endorsed Bernie Sanders, that would be getting involved in politics. But would you still protest? Edited February 13, 2016 by Russell C McGregor 2
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Taking a public position on a moral issue isn't getting involved in politics; Our church wants marijuana to remain illegal, how is that not a political issue? 7 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: If the Church endorsed Bernie Sanders, that would be getting involved in politics. But would you still protest? Sanders wouldn't accept such endorsement! Is Marijuana Safe? " Although there isn't much evidence that the occasional toke leads to long-term health problems, researchers are concerned that long-term, heavy pot smoking can leave lingering effects. " http://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/marijuana-on-main-street/is-marijuana-safe-web The problem is addiction, so why is our church not politically against all addiction? Isn't that a moral issue? and what about the drug cartels? Isn't taking away their power a bigger moral issue? Edited February 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kenngo1969 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you. You keep moving the goal posts, demanding that everyone adopt your idiosyncratic use of language, engaging in faulty logic, and so forth. Knock yourself out. I'm out.
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 7 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Taking a public position on a moral issue isn't getting involved in politics; it's not even indirectly getting involved in politics, since nobody is campaigning on this issue. If the Church endorsed Bernie Sanders, that would be getting involved in politics. But would you still protest? 1. True 2. Yes I would.
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Our church wants marijuana to remain illegal, how is that not a political issue? Sanders wouldn't accept such endorsement! Is Marijuana Safe? " Although there isn't much evidence that the occasional toke leads to long-term health problems, researchers are concerned that long-term, heavy pot smoking can leave lingering effects. " http://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/marijuana-on-main-street/is-marijuana-safe-web The problem is addiction, so why is our church not politically against all addiction? Isn't that a moral issue? and what about the drug cartels? Isn't taking away their power a bigger moral issue? SEE https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/bc/content/arp/content/manuals/ARPGuide_English_36764.pdf
JAHS Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: The problem is addiction, so why is our church not politically against all addiction? Isn't that a moral issue? They have done that. In a 1971 statement about addiction to caffeinated drinks the first Presidency sent out this letter stating the official church position on addictive substances: "The leaders of the Church have advised, and do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in the acquiring of the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients that would be harmful to the body should be avoided." The obvious concern in this statement is acquiring an addiction. The NIH have stated that people can acquire an addition to it. "Because marijuana impairs short-term memory and judgment and distorts perception, it can impair performance in school or at work and make it dangerous to drive an automobile. It also affects brain systems that are still maturing through young adulthood, so regular use by teens may have a negative and long-lasting effect on their cognitive development, putting them at a competitive disadvantage and possibly interfering with their well-being in other ways. Also, contrary to popular belief, marijuana can be addictive, and its use during adolescence may make other forms of drug abuse or addiction more likely." Is Medical marijuana addictive? For these reasons and the fact that it is still against federal laws is the reason why the Church takes a stance on this. But all they have done is make a statement, no doubt after the media asked them for one. They have not put any pressure on anyone in government to prevent its legalization in Utah.
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you. You keep moving the goal posts, demanding that everyone adopt your idiosyncratic use of language, engaging in faulty logic, and so forth. Knock yourself out. I'm out. faulty logic? LOL
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 1 hour ago, JAHS said: They have done that. In a 1971 statement about addiction to caffeinated drinks the first Presidency sent out this letter stating the official church position on addictive substances: "do now specifically advise" That is not a political position 1 hour ago, JAHS said: For these reasons and the fact that it is still against federal laws is the reason why the Church takes a stance on this. But all they have done is make a statement, no doubt after the media asked them for one. They have not put any pressure on anyone in government to prevent its legalization in Utah. Sure, the church changed the mind of two Senators. Our church does have a lot of influence in the Republic of Utah.
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/bc/content/arp/content/manuals/ARPGuide_English_36764.pdf again, that is not a political position. Can you tell the difference between a religious position and a political position?
strappinglad Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 So if I have an opinion on a topic that's OK but if I dare to express that opinion to anyone , or present that opinion to the public in, say, a letter to the editor, then that is political and I am not allowed. Horsefeathers ! The Church has a right,nay a duty, to express its opinion for or against a particular law. The membership can agree or disagree as they see fit. The " Church " does not get a vote, individuals do. Is there ANY law proposed that you would agree that the Church should take a stance on? How about a law that legalized the death of all babies under the age of two? It's happened before you know. 2
Teancum Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 The principle of agency would suggest the Church should keeps it's overly large Utah influence nose out of this. But of course they won't because agency for the church means being obedient to the brethren even if they are wrong. And Utah is one place the can flex their puny muscle and impact things very much so. Any where else they are simply an anomaly. 1
JAHS Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 51 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: "do now specifically advise" That is not a political position Sure, the church changed the mind of two Senators. Our church does have a lot of influence in the Republic of Utah. It was still an official statement against addictive substances, which church members can follow or not. Of course the church has a lot of influence, since more than half the population is Mormon. Majority tends to rule in such situations. I wouldn't call it a political position. What it has said is the following: "there are a number of potential impacts that must be considered in any discussion about the legalization of medical marijuana, including balancing medical need with the necessity of responsible controls." http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-urges-cautious-approach-medical-marijuana-issue-utah Sounds like a reasonable request to me. The church has a legal right to voice its opinion on such issues and I hope it continues to do so. 3
Calm Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 Agency is about having the responsibilty to make a choice, it is not about being free from influences on that choice. In fact, how would we learn to use our agency wisely (a major part of mortality's purpose) without learning to deal with a variety of influences, even to the point at times of extreme pressure, even death? 2
ksfisher Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Our church does have a lot of influence in the Republic of Utah. Utah is a state, not a republic. Are you meaning this to be some kind of insult to the citizens of Utah?
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 2 hours ago, JAHS said: I wouldn't call it a political position. What it has said is the following: " the Church opposes SB 73," Yes, totally political. SB 73 is a bill. A bill is "draft of a proposed law presented to parliament for discussion." The church has NO political position on Abortion, but sadly it has a political position on marijuana. 3 hours ago, strappinglad said: The membership can agree or disagree as they see fit. The " Church " does not get a vote, individuals do. I totally disagree, the war on drugs gives power to drug cartels.
ksfisher Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: The church has NO political position on Abortion, but sadly it has a political position on marijuana. I'm not sure how you are differentiating between political and moral issues. I'm not sure that the Lord distinguishes between the two. The church has a very clear position on abortion and the use of drugs. I'm not sure why you would not expect the Lord's prophets to speak out on issues that affect our Heavenly Father's children. 1
JAHS Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: The church has NO political position on Abortion, but sadly it has a political position on marijuana. Yet in that same statement you refer to it says: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions." That is definitely a position against it whether it is considered political or not and would have just the same influence on the voting LDS public. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: faulty logic? LOL You find that amusing, do you? Oh. Okay.
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: You find that amusing, do you? Oh. Okay. Me: ... unhealthy for example smoothies You: It depends what they are made of Edited February 14, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 5 hours ago, JAHS said: That is definitely a position against it whether it is considered political or not and would have just the same influence on the voting LDS public. No! keep reading "The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion." 5 hours ago, ksfisher said: I'm not sure that the Lord distinguishes between the two. So you are saying the law of the Land has to be the law of God?
thesometimesaint Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 1 minute ago, TheSkepticChristian said: No! keep reading "The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion." So you are saying the law of the Land has to be the law of God? Articles of Faith # 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Articles of Faith # 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. nothing to do with what I am saying, I am talking about separation between church and state. The First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) stated the following in 1907: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of church authority in political matters
Russell C McGregor Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: nothing to do with what I am saying, I am talking about separation between church and state. The First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) stated the following in 1907: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of church authority in political matters Sigh. "Political matters" is generally understood to refer to such things as elections, not proposed laws.
Recommended Posts