Story on Brad Daw: "Mormon Bishop [] Champions Ayahuasca After Faith-Affirming Psychedelic Experience"

[smac97]

From "MarijuanaMoment.com": Mormon Bishop And Former GOP Utah Rep. Champions Ayahuasca After Faith-Affirming Psychedelic Experience

Quote

Although psychedelics policy reform has already found support across the ideological spectrum, a new ringing endorsement from an active Mormon bishop—who is also a former Republican Utah state representative—indicates an ever-growing acceptance for entheogens in American society.

Earlier this month, Brad Daw appeared on the Jimmy Rex Show podcast to recount his own experience at an ayahuasca ceremony in Costa Rica, and how it served to strengthen his faith.

The "active Mormon bishop" part caught my eye, so I looked him up and - sure enough - Brad Daw is the current bishop of the Orem 3rd Ward:

Quote

More from the article:

Quote

“Why would [psychedelics] not have a place in the church if we believe in using the best medicine that science has available?” Daw said on the podcast.
...
As for his own experience with ayahuasca, the GOP former lawmaker explained that he was turned on to the naturally-occurring psychedelic when another member of the church revealed her own positive experiences with it to him; a church lobbyist subsequently condoned her actions. “That put a lot of comfort with her. And it also gave me a lot of comfort,” Daw said.
...
Daw ended up attending a five-day ayahuasca ceremony in Costa Rica. There, he observed that much of the experience proved to be profound and that he “felt the presence of God.”
...
While the Mormon bishop has become a proponent of psychedelic use, his relationship to marijuana is a bit more nuanced. While he told Jimmy Rex that learning about CBD-focused strain Charlotte’s Web led him to appreciate the medical benefits of marijuana, he remains “against” recreational cannabis.

The article also points to a YouTube video featuring an interview with Brad Daw and his perspective about psychedelics: Mormon Bishop Shares Ayahuasca Experience

I am a big proponent of Free Speech, but I think it is very problematic for currently-serving bishop in the Church to trade on his calling to publicly advance sociopolitical ideas which may not accord with the doctrines and policies of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

I would not be surprised if he isn't the bishop of that ward for much longer.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would not be surprised if he isn't the bishop of that ward for much longer.

I was going to say he's probably going to hear from his stake president shortly. 

[katherine the great]

That’s a novel way to get released from a calling!

[blackstrap]

Strychnine is a natural plant based substance that will bring one into the presence of God, but it has its down side. Does this bishop support ayahuasca for medicinal use only? I understand there are studies about its use with PTSD patients. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

That’s a novel way to get released from a calling!

This is my take.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

to trade on his calling to publicly advance sociopolitical ideas which may not accord with the doctrines and policies of the Church.

Did he do that?

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

That’s a novel way to get released from a calling!

 

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is my take.

My thoughts as well.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Did he do that?

Sure looks like it.

[pogi]

Quote

As for his own experience with ayahuasca, the GOP former lawmaker explained that he was turned on to the naturally-occurring psychedelic when another member of the church revealed her own positive experiences with it to him; a church lobbyist subsequently condoned her actions. “That put a lot of comfort with her. And it also gave me a lot of comfort,” Daw said.

What does this mean that a "church lobbyist subsequently condoned her actions"?  Are they talking about a political lobbyist for the church?  Can these lobbyists speak for the church's position on these matters?  Why would that give him comfort?

I do support further research into psychedelic's as medicine and treatment for depression/anxiety/PTSD.  I feel confident that as it becomes legalized under the supervision of trained medical professionals, the church will be ok with it.  The data is pretty strong on its benefits (psilocybin).

I occasionally see travelers going to the jungles of Peru (no Costa Rica yet) for an ayahuasca experience.  I have also studied how dangerous it can be.

Edited August 19, 2022 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sure looks like it.

I guess I saw an advocacy website “trade on his calling to publicly advance sociopolitical ideas”, but the website is not him. The website didn’t even report talking to him. The website listened to a podcast and reported on that. So it seems premature to say this man is trading on his calling to publicly advance his ideas. Did you listen to the podcast? Is it possible for someone who is a bishop to publicly express his own ideas or is he at all times a spokes person for the church?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I guess I saw an advocacy website “trade on his calling to publicly advance sociopolitical ideas”, but the website is not him. The website didn’t even report talking to him. The website listened to a podcast and reported on that. So it seems premature to say this man is trading on his calling to publicly advance his ideas. Did you listen to the podcast? Is it possible for someone who is a bishop to publicly express his own ideas or is he at all times a spokes person for the church?

If he mentions he is a bishop, he is choosing to be a spokesperson.  There is no requirement for him to share the fact he is a bishop or even a Saint, after all.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

From "MarijuanaMoment.com": Mormon Bishop And Former GOP Utah Rep. Champions Ayahuasca After Faith-Affirming Psychedelic Experience

The "active Mormon bishop" part caught my eye, so I looked him up and - sure enough - Brad Daw is the current bishop of the Orem 3rd Ward:

More from the article:

The article also points to a YouTube video featuring an interview with Brad Daw and his perspective about psychedelics: Mormon Bishop Shares Ayahuasca Experience

I am a big proponent of Free Speech, but I think it is very problematic for currently-serving bishop in the Church to trade on his calling to publicly advance sociopolitical ideas which may not accord with the doctrines and policies of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would be interested in hearing how his use of and experience with ayahuasca strengthened his faith in Jesus Christ. Was is a short-term psychological aid like Joseph's use of a seer stone, or a religious practice like ministering, the sacrament or temple worship with geometrically expanding benefits derived from disciplined repetition?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

If he mentions he is a bishop, he is choosing to be a spokesperson.  There is no requirement for him to share the fact he is a bishop or even a Saint, after all.

Is that only a religious standard? If a high school teacher is asked about his life, and she mentions a she’s a teacher, does that make what she says a spokesperson for the school?

Edited August 20, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is that only a religious standard? If a high school teacher is asked about his life, and she mentions a he’s a coach, does that make what she says a spokesperson for the school?

I would say it is for any association that is voluntary and voluntarily shared.   I was forced to go to certain schools.  I don’t think students should have to care about representing their schools in considering how to behave unless they have chosen to become known as part of a team, etc. to benefit by that.
 

If they just say a “coach”, one wouldn’t know what organization they work for.  That is generic enough not to be a problem.  If you lived in a part of the world where bishop meant several different roles and one couldn’t figure out which from context, I don’t think it would matter is someone was introduced as a bishop…though Catholics and Anglicans might care.  
 

If, however, it is mentioned they work for such and such a school, then their behaviour will reflect on the school.  May not be fair, but if it is the reason why people are interested in hearing their POV, if they are benefitting by the association, then they need to accept the other side of the coin, the consequence of advertising the relationship.  IOW, even if someone says they are not acting as a spokesperson (which I do btw when people write into FAIR, I say my comments are my own, etc), what they say and do if they proclaim they are a part of _______ will be seen as related and have an impact on the perception of the school, church, family, company for good or bad.  If you don’t want to be responsible for an association, then don’t publicly associate yourself.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I guess I saw an advocacy website “trade on his calling to publicly advance sociopolitical ideas”, but the website is not him.

But the YouTube interview is him.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The website didn’t even report talking to him.

The guy on the YouTube video did.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The website listened to a podcast and reported on that. So it seems premature to say this man is trading on his calling to publicly advance his ideas.

Not really.  As soon as he went on a podcast and publicly traded on his status as a bishop, he was “trad{ing} on his calling to publicly advance sociopolitical ideas."

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Did you listen to the podcast?

Some of it (it's quite long, and I am not a big fan of podcasts).

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it possible for someone who is a bishop to publicly express his own ideas or is he at all times a spokes person for the church?

Look at the YouTube vid at about 14:16 (to about 17:20).

Yes, it's possible for him to have his own ideas and speak in his own voice.  But when he holds himself out as a bishop, that changes the calculus.

Again, I'm a big fan of Free Speech, but appropriating the calling of a bishop to advance ideas of this sort is, in my view, pretty problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

My thoughts as well.

He mentions that he's been the bishop for 5 years, so ....

[DT_]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am a big proponent of Free Speech, but I think it is very problematic for currently-serving bishop in the Church to trade on his calling to publicly advance sociopolitical ideas which may not accord with the doctrines and policies of the Church.

DMT is more successful than religion in converting people, "More than half of those who identified as atheist before the experience no longer identified as atheist afterwards. The experiences were rated as among the most meaningful, spiritual, and psychologically insightful lifetime experiences, with persisting positive changes in life satisfaction, purpose, and meaning attributed to the experiences. " https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345112/

The church has no official position on DMT. Ayahuasca is legal in many places.

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Did he do that?

I don't think so.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But the YouTube interview is him.

The guy on the YouTube video did.

Not really.  As soon as he went on a podcast and publicly traded on his status as a bishop, he was “trad{ing} on his calling to publicly advance sociopolitical ideas."

Some of it (it's quite long, and I am not a big fan of podcasts).

Look at the YouTube vid at about 14:16 (to about 17:20).

Thank you. I listened for a bit. The interviewer (an exmormon) asked him about his experiences as a bishop. (Interviewer brought it up, not the other way around)I continued to listen for quite a while. His time as Bishop was described. At no point did I hear him leverage his experience as bishop to advance sociopolitical ideas. 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it's possible for him to have his own ideas and speak in his own voice.  But when he holds himself out as a bishop, that changes the calculus.

Again, I'm a big fan of Free Speech, but appropriating the calling of a bishop to advance ideas of this sort is, in my view, pretty problematic.

Personally I don’t see how free speech enters into it. Any bishop, teacher, coach, and many other positions inherently represent the organization, and I fully support the speech rights of the organization to censor its representatives as they see fit. I just didn’t see him leverage his position (as in “I’m a bishop so you should trust me.” Or “I’m a bishop so you know the church is cool with this”). I guess we view the act of “appropriating” one’s position differently. 

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

👍

[SeekingUnderstanding]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would say it is for any association that is voluntary and voluntarily shared.   I was forced to go to certain schools.  I don’t think students should have to care about representing their schools in considering how to behave unless they have chosen to become known as part of a team, etc. to benefit by that.
 

If they just say a “coach”, one wouldn’t know what organization they work for.  That is generic enough not to be a problem.  If you lived in a part of the world where bishop meant several different roles and one couldn’t figure out which from context, I don’t think it would matter is someone was introduced as a bishop…though Catholics and Anglicans might care.  
 

If, however, it is mentioned they work for such and such a school, then their behaviour will reflect on the school.  May not be fair, but if it is the reason why people are interested in hearing their POV, if they are benefitting by the association, then they need to accept the other side of the coin, the consequence of advertising the relationship.  IOW, even if someone says they are not acting as a spokesperson (which I do btw when people write into FAIR, I say my comments are my own, etc), what they say and do if they proclaim they are a part of _______ will be seen as related and have an impact on the perception of the school, church, family, company for good or bad.  If you don’t want to be responsible for an association, then don’t publicly associate yourself.

I don’t disagree with anything you write. I think the church may release him and I don’t have any issues with them doing so. So called “cancel culture” is replete with organizations firing high ranking people for acting in ways contrary to organizational norms. I have no issue with any of that. 
 

I think that even if he didn’t mention being a bishop, it would still be just fine for the church to discipline him. He is clearly advocating for things that the brethren likely disagree with. 
 

What I disagree with is the idea that he leveraged or appropriated (“take (something) for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.”) in order to push an agenda. All I heard was a guy talking about his life. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Bernard Gui]

This comment seems inappropriate to me for a bishop to say about the Church:

“‘Why would [psychedelics] not have a place in the church if we believe in using the best medicine that science has available?’ Daw said on the podcast.”

I can think of a few reasons. For one, equating the Spirit of Christ and the Gift of the Holy Ghost with chemically induced influences on the brain would have serious theological consequences (although there might be an interesting discussion about the physical mechanisms that are in play when those eternal powers are manifested in an individual).

Second, I know a person extremely well who had a remarkable life-changing experience with psilocybin mushrooms. It did not result in a testimony of Christ, but of some unidentified benevolent force, but it did dramatically change the course of his life. However, he recommends not using them unless you are with someone who knows what they are doing because things can go very wrong.

Using psychedelic substances can have unpredictable and serious side effects. It may not be wise to recommend them to the Brethren as a substitute or enhancement for the Church missionary efforts.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The interviewer (an exmormon) asked him about his experiences as a bishop. (Interviewer brought it up, not the other way around)I continued to listen for quite a while.

It is possible that it was the interviewer who was trying to appropriate his status as bishop in order to achieve something. Even so, the bishop allowed it to be done instead of stipulating that if he was interviewed, the subject of him being a bishop would not come up or even being a Saint and instead he would just speak of being religious and his specific beliefs, etc. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

It is possible that it was the interviewer who was trying to appropriate his status as bishop in order to achieve something. Even so, the bishop allowed it to be done instead of stipulating that if he was interviewed, the subject of him being a bishop would not come up or even being a Saint and instead he would just speak of being religious and his specific beliefs, etc. 

 

 

The church doesn’t own his life experiences. Those are his own. Talking about his life is not “taking (something) for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.”

Edited August 20, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

though Catholics and Anglicans might care.

And Mennonites! 😀 My wife's great-grandfather was a Mennonite bishop!

[Calm]

I was too lazy to look it up yesterday. My apologies.