Calm Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, rongo said: What if the Church does come out with a statement? Should people just keep it to themselves because it's "legal and prescribed" then? Or should they be honest in their interview? If the Church changes the rules, sure.
rongo Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 Just now, Calm said: If the Church changes the rules, sure. Well, until then, if and when we are told by people (or we smell weed on them ) about their drug use, then we take it on a case-by-case basis.
pogi Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 19 minutes ago, rongo said: I agree, but that standard puts us back where we started: if someone is abusing a drug (opioid or marijuana or whatever) in the eyes of a priesthood leader, but he insists that it was legally procured and that he isn't abusing it because he really needs it . . . then the priesthood leader is evil for making a judge in Israel judgment call with respect to temple worthiness. I am not sure if that is a call that a priesthood leader can make. They are not trained medical professionals (most). They should not be required to play doctor.
rongo Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, pogi said: I am not sure if that is a call that a priesthood leader can make. They are not trained medical professionals (most). They should not be required to play doctor. Well, it's the overlap with the Word of Wisdom and worthiness that is the source of the issue --- not trying to dispense medical advice. I agree that there hasn't been very much by way of explanation or clarification on the Word of Wisdom for a long time now. I welcome a Church statement, if and when it comes out.
Calm Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, pogi said: I am not sure if that is a call that a priesthood leader can make. They are not trained medical professionals (most). They should not be required to play doctor. My bishop who was a medical doctor and a good one said he wasn't about to play that role as a bishop. 3
Calm Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, rongo said: Well, it's the overlap with the Word of Wisdom and worthiness that is the source of the issue --- not trying to dispense medical advice. Unless bishops start telling people who have been advised by their doctors to use medical marijuana that they can't take it and be temple worthy...that implies taking it is sinful, the wrong choice, and therefore is offering medical advice. Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm 1
rongo Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Calm said: Unless bishops start telling people who have been advised by their doctors to use medical marijuana that they can't take it and be temple worthy...that implies taking it is sinful, the wrong choice, and therefore is offering medical advice. They can still take it, they just may not be temple worthy. It comes down to whether the priority is temple worthiness or heeding what they consider to be sound medical advice. Elders Schweizer and Clayton were concerned about jurisdictions where a doctor is not required (i.e., there are different standards for obtaining a medical marijuana card, some of which are very easy and don't require a doctor or are very easy to circumvent and still legally have one). I'm not convinced that it is ever necessary to smoke it. I am much more open to pills or oil, but I find that the people who want to argue about it want to smoke it. And in my judgment, they aren't as incapacitated without smoking it as they insist. The problem is when they want to get a recommend. As said, all of these people I have personally worked with are also not attending church or paying tithing, so it's not as if the marijuana is the only issue keeping them out of the temple.
pogi Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, rongo said: Well, it's the overlap with the Word of Wisdom and worthiness that is the source of the issue --- not trying to dispense medical advice. I agree that there hasn't been very much by way of explanation or clarification on the Word of Wisdom for a long time now. I welcome a Church statement, if and when it comes out. The more medicine and society evolves, and the more we clarify, it seems inevitable that the more complicated blurred the lines will become. I hope that it will eventually just go back to the original (not likely to happen, I know). I feel fairly confident the original was the will of God; I am not so certain about the non-canonical evolution however. I know that Brigham Young put forward a motion to the church to "leave off" specific elements in the WoW after hearing patriarch Smith speak on the WoW; and I know that it was sustained. So, it seems evident that it was the will of men, but I am not certain that it was the will of men working in conjunction with the will of God outlined in our canon. But as with all things, I will be patient on the Lord - and my own potential lack of understanding in this matter. Edited March 27, 2018 by pogi
strappinglad Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) Hopefully , as MJ gets off the schedule 1 ? restrictions, much more substantial research can and will be done on the medicinal effects and side effects of various kinds of cannabis . It took a long time before the real hazards of tobacco came to the fore . That said, if a statement does come out about cannabis from the Church , it will become a measure of obedience to comply just as the WoW is now. We currently get battling studies about the value of coffee and alcohol and tea etc. If any of those were ' prescribed ' would that make a difference in the TR interview ? A comp in the mission was prescribed a small hot toddy and the MP concurred. Didn't seem to affect his worthiness. Hmmmm ! Edited March 27, 2018 by strappinglad
The Nehor Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 20 minutes ago, rongo said: They can still take it, they just may not be temple worthy. It comes down to whether the priority is temple worthiness or heeding what they consider to be sound medical advice. Elders Schweizer and Clayton were concerned about jurisdictions where a doctor is not required (i.e., there are different standards for obtaining a medical marijuana card, some of which are very easy and don't require a doctor or are very easy to circumvent and still legally have one). I'm not convinced that it is ever necessary to smoke it. I am much more open to pills or oil, but I find that the people who want to argue about it want to smoke it. And in my judgment, they aren't as incapacitated without smoking it as they insist. The problem is when they want to get a recommend. As said, all of these people I have personally worked with are also not attending church or paying tithing, so it's not as if the marijuana is the only issue keeping them out of the temple. Pills are much more addictive if there is serious pain and oil only works when consecrated. Most of the rest of the oils being sold are at best a placebo or are actively dangerous.
Calm Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, rongo said: They can still take it, they just may not be temple worthy. It comes down to whether the priority is temple worthiness or heeding what they consider to be sound medical advice. Elders Schweizer and Clayton were concerned about jurisdictions where a doctor is not required (i.e., there are different standards for obtaining a medical marijuana card, some of which are very easy and don't require a doctor or are very easy to circumvent and still legally have one). I'm not convinced that it is ever necessary to smoke it. I am much more open to pills or oil, but I find that the people who want to argue about it want to smoke it. And in my judgment, they aren't as incapacitated without smoking it as they insist. The problem is when they want to get a recommend. As said, all of these people I have personally worked with are also not attending church or paying tithing, so it's not as if the marijuana is the only issue keeping them out of the temple. That was what the opening post link was all about...having to choose between choices that helped with health and being seen as less than worthy, sinful by others if one refuses to suffer over the top or can't obey for life altering (in bad ways) reasons. I had a bishop in Canada who approved a smoker (pack a day) to be baptized because his doctors not only stated he used smoking as part of his pain routine (Iow he would have had to increase other pain meds much higher dosages and likely worse side effects), but it could very well kill him to go into withdrawal. I am grateful that bishop was willing to buck the written rules and live by the Spirit in this case. It was a real joy to welcome this man fully into our ward family, to know he knew he belonged. They had to use the local hospital's therapy pool to baptize him and he died three months later. Some might see it as better he was required to wait, the Lord wouldn't had held it against him and it wasn't for very long. I see it as giving him (and us) a huge blessing that raised the quality of his life in multiple ways while alive---and he certainly could use and deserved anything offered from what I could see---and helping him look on the future with less fear. Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm 2
Calm Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Pills are much more addictive if there is serious pain and oil only works when consecrated. Most of the rest of the oils being sold are at best a placebo or are actively dangerous. Consecrated or concentrated?
juliann Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 25 minutes ago, rongo said: And in my judgment, they aren't as incapacitated without smoking it as they insist. The problem is when they want to get a recommend. As said, all of these people I have personally worked with are also not attending church or paying tithing, so it's not as if the marijuana is the only issue keeping them out of the temple. Wow. No prejudice involved here at all. 1
Calm Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) Let's see...I could function as a mother or be seen as temple worthy. I can care for my mother or have a temple recommend. I can throw myself out of my bed all day long, functioning on a half an hour sleep here and there or I can have a temple recommend (because I am sure not going to be able to go to the temple if I am puking from lack of sleep...but it is all worth it to be seen by the bishop as not sinning by taking a drug my doctor approved of). I am grateful the Church and my bishops have never demanded I make that kind of choice. Given the number of health issues older people have to deal with and the number of medical doctors in our leadership, I rather doubt legally prescribed meds will ever be part of the temple recommend interview. We are looking forward to research and legalization of medical marijuana for my daughter because so far there are signs it will likely help with her sleep issues and anxiety, maybe even allowing her to get off a drug that is likely aggravating her issues long term (it is awful when you have to live hoping the damage the 'cure' does to your body has its own cure by the time it gets to much too bear or kills you, I had to take the wrong medication for 9 years because my doctors/country refused to give me a drug that worked without aggravation or side effects and now I am likely at least 10 years ahead in terms of degeneration...I can understand at least because the research wasn't well known, but if the research is there and the Church refuses to allow it...I find that unbelievable as that is not their track record in general even if some rare rogue leaders might go there). If a bishop ever told my daughter she needs to go without sleep or she couldn't get a temple recommend, I would ask him if he thinks the Church approves suicide now or if he endorsed unwilling euthanasia. Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm 1
The Nehor Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 8 minutes ago, Calm said: Consecrated or concentrated? Consecrated. I believe Priesthood blessings work. I don’t believe the huckster essential oils do.
Calm Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 9 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Consecrated. I believe Priesthood blessings work. I don’t believe the huckster essential oils do. Okay, we were thinking of different things.
Tacenda Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Consecrated. I believe Priesthood blessings work. I don’t believe the huckster essential oils do. I don't know, I'm getting over my shingles pretty well by putting my CBD oil on them and it nearly stopped them in their tracks. And I've used it for growths on my leg and back that looked iffy, completely got rid of them. Luckily my husband witnessed it so I know I'm not losing it. I still have pain on my nerve endings that are painful at night, but was amazed how quickly my rash from the shingles went away. Of course I'm using oil that has 50/50 in it, meaning there is the THC in it. But doesn't make me high at all. I also am taking Oregano oil and tablets for other problems I'm having and now I stink, haha. My husband hates essential oils because his very TBM mother uses them constantly.
Calm Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 30 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Hopefully , as MJ gets off the schedule 1 ? restrictions, much more substantial research can and will be done on the medicinal effects and side effects of various kinds of cannabis . It took a long time for the real hazards of tobacco came to the fore . That said, if a statement does come out about cannabis from the Church , it will become a measure of obedience to comply just as the WoW is now. We currently get battling studies about the value of coffee and alcohol and tea etc. If any of those were ' prescribed ' would that make a difference in the TR interview ? A comp in the mission was prescribed a small hot toddy and the MP concurred. Didn't seem to affect his worthiness. Hmmmm ! Coffee and alcohol are in studies seen as preventatives of usually old age illnesses with other equally useful preventatives available. At least some of their useful components can be removed or synthesized outside of talking the proscribed substance. While tobacco was touted by some as healthy, again there were other options. There may be no other options available for many for pain outside of narcotics or options that have as few side effects or long term harm as medical marijuana. Tons more research needs to be done on marijuana, making it legal would help with that immensely. 1
will227457 Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Calm said: Let's see...I could function as a mother or be seen as temple worthy. I can care for my mother or have a temple recommend. I can throw myself out of my bed all day long, functioning on a half an hour sleep here and there or I can have a temple recommend (because I am sure not going to be able to go to the temple if I am puking from lack of sleep...but it is all worth it to be seen by the bishop as not sinning by taking a drug my doctor approved of). I am grateful the Church and my bishops have never demanded I make that kind of choice. Given the number of health issues older people have to deal with and the number of medical doctors in our leadership, I rather doubt legally prescribed meds will ever be part of the temple recommend interview. We are looking forward to research and legalization of medical marijuana for my daughter because so far there are signs it will likely help with her sleep issues and anxiety, maybe even allowing her to get off a drug that is likely aggravating her issues long term (it is awful when you have to live hoping the damage the 'cure' does to your body has its own cure by the time it gets to much too bear or kills you, I had to take the wrong medication for 9 years because my doctors/country refused to give me a drug that worked without aggravation or side effects and now I am likely at least 10 years ahead in terms of degeneration...I can understand at least because the research wasn't well known, but if the research is there and the Church refuses to allow it...I find that unbelievable as that is not their track record in general even if some rare rogue leaders might go there). If a bishop ever told my daughter she needs to go without sleep or she couldn't get a temple recommend, I would ask him if he thinks the Church approves suicide now or if he endorsed unwilling euthanasia. This seems very extreme, very black and white way of viewing things. There has to be a balance, for the record if your health issues prevent you from being fully participatory in the church I don't see that as a problem exceptions should be made on individual basis'. A reasonable person would never demand that you make the choices that you are outlining and I don't think that anyone who has posted is saying that either.
Calm Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, will227457 said: This seems very extreme, very black and white way of viewing things. There has to be a balance, for the record if your health issues prevent you from being fully participatory in the church I don't see that as a problem exceptions should be made on individual basis'. A reasonable person would never demand that you make the choices that you are outlining and I don't think that anyone who has posted is saying that either. You haven't been following the discussions about medications. "They can still take it, they just may not be temple worthy. It comes down to whether the priority is temple worthiness or heeding what they consider to be sound medical advice." Edited March 28, 2018 by Calm 1
juliann Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 36 minutes ago, will227457 said: This seems very extreme, very black and white way of viewing things. There has to be a balance, for the record if your health issues prevent you from being fully participatory in the church I don't see that as a problem exceptions should be made on individual basis'. A reasonable person would never demand that you make the choices that you are outlining and I don't think that anyone who has posted is saying that either. A reasonable person being key and someone has said that.
Nofear Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 Opioids are the only good option for a percentage of the population. They may take amounts that in another's body would be substance abuse. Accupuncture or chiropracty works in a percentage of the population. For others it is a placebo or does nothing. Marijuanna seems to be efficacious for a percentage of the population. For many or most it just wouldn't be helpful. Long story short, the church seems reticent to call out blanket rules beyond the current ones. A particular substance could be outright abuse in one person and in the same amounts a medical marvel in another. When one makes a blanket pronunciation for all on things like this, I can usually just ad hominem discount their comments. 1
will227457 Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Calm said: You haven't been following the discussions about medications. "They can still take it, they just may not be temple worthy. It comes down to whether the priority is temple worthiness or heeding what they consider to be sound medical advice." Who said that? since when are bishops doctors? if your doctor prescribed medical marijuana and it was legal in your state why would you not be able to hold a temple recommend? For the record I am talking about prescribed medication. Edited March 28, 2018 by will227457
pogi Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 New Utah poll on medical marijuana use: Quote 77 percent of respondents answered that they were in favor when presented with a question about whether they supported "legalizing doctor-prescribed use of non-smoking medical marijuana for certain diseases and pain relief... ...The new poll found that 66 percent of Latter-day Saints who identify as "very active" are in favor of medical marijuana legalization https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46289073&nid=148&title=more-than-3-in-4-utahns-support-medical-marijuana-new-poll-shows It seems that no matter what the church decides, it will be a fairly unpopular decision with "very active" members - 34% vs 66%. If you include less active/inactive members, I imagine the the stats shift dramatically towards favoring medical marijuana though.
Tacenda Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46289073&nid=148&title=more-than-3-in-4-utahns-support-medical-marijuana-new-poll-shows KSL posted this article and I read through the comments. Here are a couple that stuck out... "Good job, Utah! It's finally happening! This is truly how we care for our fellow man, and ease human suffering. My LDS Aunt died from Prescription pain drug overdose, leaving behind her 5 kids. I can't help but wonder if she'd still be here if she was prescribed cannabis for her pain, instead." And this one too... "I support medical cannabis. Several years ago, the doctors told me I had dementia and left me to rot with no treatment. I googled and found that the Israeli Government used cannabis to treat dementia. At the time, I also had diabetes with an A1C of 10. While treating myself for dementia, the Doctors asked me what I've been doing since my A1C went from 10 to 5.4. I was able to get rid of 14 mg of Insulin and over 1000 mg of Metformin. At the time, I was severely obese and weight close to 400 lbs on a 5'9" frame." Edited March 28, 2018 by Tacenda
Recommended Posts