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

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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.”

No, but he agreed to accept the calling, which is as a 24/7 representative of the Church even if he isn’t expected to do Bishop stuff the full time. With that callin come certain expectations of behaviour. If he doesn’t want to live them, he should have resigned before acting counter to those expectations.  At the very least he should have informed the SP and give the SP a chance to prepare for the fallout, possibly by having him released immediately if he wouldn’t delay the podcast or promise.
 

Now if he contacted his stake president and cleared it beforehand, that would change my opinion drastically. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, but he agreed to accept the calling and with it certain expectations of behaviour. If he doesn’t want to live them, he should have resigned before acting counter to those expectations. 

Where are those expectations laid out specifically? For example, bishops are specifically allowed to act in a political manner as follows:

Quote

 The policy is not directed to full-time Church employees.

"General Authorities and general officers of the Church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns, including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions.

"Since they are not full-time officers of the Church, Area Seventies, stake presidents and bishops are free to contribute, serve on campaign committees and otherwise support candidates of their choice with the understanding they:

• Are acting solely as individual citizens in the democratic process and that they do not imply, or allow others to infer, that their actions or support in any way represent the church.
• Will not use Church stationery, Church-generated address lists or email systems or Church buildings for political promotional purposes.
• Will not engage in fundraising or other types of campaigning focused on fellow Church members under their ecclesiastical supervision."

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/political-neutrality

[JustAnAustralian]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are acting solely as individual citizens in the democratic process and that they do not imply, or allow others to infer, that their actions or support in any way represent the church.

Using his church title doesn't allow others to infer his thoughts represent the church?

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Using his church title doesn't allow others to infer his thoughts represent the church?

No one who understands the Church believes that Bishops speak for the whole.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Using his church title doesn't allow others to infer his thoughts represent the church?

He didn’t use his church title, but did answer questions about his life including his time as a state legislator and his time as a bishop. The church is within their right to “cancel” him as they see fit, but the idea that he is leveraging his title of bishop to push an agenda doesn’t fit with these facts. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No one who understands the Church

That's kind of the issue though. A lot of people don't know about the church. A recent AP article called a clerk a "church official" for instance.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

That's kind of the issue though. A lot of people don't know about the church. A recent AP article called a clerk a "church official" for instance.

And the church claims clerks are members of the clergy and their presence at disciplinary hearings doesn’t invalidate the privilege present there. 

[Calm]

I am open to Daw not trying to use his calling to inflate his appeal as as guest, etc, but the podcaster sure did and it seems to me Daw holds some responsibility for that. 

When did he get called as a bishop?  (Bolding so question is seen and more likely to be answered.) I see one interview of him last year where there is no mention of that calling.

https://utahmarijuana.org/2021/09/17/utah-in-the-weeds-episode-71-former-state-rep-brad-daw/

First line of the promo and I see it in almost every version of googling “Brad daw” “ayahuasca” (of which there are a handful so far).  Many more on Daw as a state legislator.

“Brad Daw is an active bishop of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints that participated in an Ayahuasca Ceremony”

When it is the very first thing we learn about Daw, how is that not making him being a bishop a major point of the interview?

The other one is this one, which makes the fact he is a bishop central to its premise of growing acceptability:

”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.”

 

 https://www.marijuanamoment.net/mormon-bishop-and-former-gop-utah-rep-champions-ayahuasca-after-faith-affirming-psychedelic-experience/

 

Edited August 21, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

I am going to try and listen to the podcast today, not sure if I will be able to…I don’t know what is the issue, but something in the audio is putting me on edge (sometimes it is the tech sounds, sometimes voice quality) and today is not a great day for that kind of stuff (my ears are already practically singing the hallelujah chorus off key). But I should listen to see actual usage of his status by him and the podcaster. I may change my mind about him, doubt it will change about the podcaster given the promo and title makes sure we know he is a current Mormon bishop first thing. 

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And the church claims clerks are members of the clergy and their presence at disciplinary hearings doesn’t invalidate the privilege present there. 

I haven't seen them claim that anywhere, CFR that the church has tried to classify clerks as clergy.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I haven't seen them claim that anywhere, CFR that the church has tried to classify clerks as clergy.

Fife, who served as both a clerk and later a bishop’s counselor, was instructed by church attorneys during deposition that he should not answer certain questions due to the clergy privilege. 
 

https://fronterasdesk.org/content/1803689/judge-limits-privilege-defense-az-mormon-sex-abuse-case

 

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am going to try and listen to the podcast today, not sure if I will be able to…

If listening to the whole thing is too much, for you or for anyone else, here are a few "highlights":

Podcaster asks, Are you concerned with blowback from the Church?   And, If the Church came out against it, would you still advocate for it?  Bishop Daw responds, this part lasts for about three and a half minutes:  https://youtu.be/P_RbasQMV44?t=3515

Podcaster asks, How did taking ayahuasca change your relationship with God?   https://youtu.be/P_RbasQMV44?t=2748 , his response goes for about three minutes.

 

Why Bishop Daw did it, and what his experience was:  https://youtu.be/P_RbasQMV44?t=1461

 

And the first twenty-four minutes is more like relevant background, if you want to start there to get the whole picture. 

Edited August 21, 2022 by manol

[Calm]

Thanks, manol, that is very helpful. 

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Fife, who served as both a clerk and later a bishop’s counselor, was instructed by church attorneys during deposition that he should not answer certain questions due to the clergy privilege. 
 

https://fronterasdesk.org/content/1803689/judge-limits-privilege-defense-az-mormon-sex-abuse-case

 

That quote doesn't appear in the article, and doesn't seem to be claimed.

Quote

Cardinal’s order will require church official Richard Fife, a clerk who took notes during the excommunication hearing, to answer questions from the attorneys representing the Adams children. It will also require church officials to turn over records of the disciplinary council meeting.

The church has filed a legal motion asking Cardinal to delay implementing her order until it contests her findings with the Arizona Court of Appeals. Without the delay, church lawyers said, information it considers confidential under the clergy-penitent privilege would be released to attorneys for the Adams children and, potentially, the public.

All that says is that they say that the records of the disciplinary council meeting contain privileged information. I'd prefer to see exactly what phrasing the church used rather than an AP summary, since the records of the disciplinary council won't be a transcript. Unfortunately I can't find it on PACER.

[Calm]

I have a friend who looked up for me how long Daw has been a bishop. Apparently since Sept 2017…. means he was a bishop for this interview about medical marijuana and yet, they did not to mention that fact. It has a transcript, so I could quickly check. 
 

https://utahmarijuana.org/2021/09/17/utah-in-the-weeds-episode-71-former-state-rep-brad-daw/

[Ragerunner]

This was an interesting topic.

So it sounds like we have an active bishop that has used CBD as a sleep aid and done Ayahuasca.

Apparently the church was ok with his CBD use (from several years ago since he was not released) and it will be interesting to see how they respond or don’t respond to his Ayahuasca.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Ragerunner

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

This was an interesting topic.

So it sounds like we have an active bishop that has used CBD as a sleep aid and done Ayahuasca.

Apparently the church was ok with his CBD use (from several years ago since he was not released) and it will be interesting to see how they respond or don’t respond to his Ayahuasca.

I suspect the response will be a heartfelt and emphatic “Meh, whatever”.

[Tacenda]

I may have mentioned this in another thread, about a man that I use to babysit for when a teen. His grandson now works with my husband and mentioned that they visited him on a Sunday and he was in his recliner and saying that he must have taken a bit too much of a CBD gummy. He is a temple worker! 

Times are a changin!

Also, my good friend suffers from severe neuropathy and same with her sisters, they also have diabetes. I guess the one sister is also starting to take cbd gummies. So my friend has been getting her eyes open to using something like that to help her. She's been very hesitant, I don't blame her, but now that her sister is trying them, she may be changing her mind. I think the main thing on everyone's minds is in more study on how much to take for their ailment, much like with drug medication. Getting the science of the once touted drug to "just say no" to. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

Apparently the church was ok with his CBD use (from several years ago since he was not released) and it will be interesting to see how they respond or don’t respond to his Ayahuasca.

I think it will all depend on whether or not they believe he will try to encourage others to use it.  Having a member who uses something in the gray area of "ok" is a lot different than having a bishop publicly espousing using something in the gray area of "ok".

[Ragerunner]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it will all depend on whether or not they believe he will try to encourage others to use it.  Having a member who uses something in the gray area of "ok" is a lot different than having a bishop publicly espousing using something in the gray area of "ok".

It will be interesting to see if he is still a bishop in a few months. If he is then Nehor’s comment maybe spot on.

[bluebell]

Just now, Ragerunner said:

It will be interesting to see if he is still a bishop in a few months. If he is then Nehor’s comment maybe spot on.

Or, rather than it meaning the church doesn't care what he's using, it could mean that the church actually agrees with him about that substance.

But we will probably not know either way.  He's been a bishop for 5 years so he's due to be released regardless.

[Ragerunner]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I may have mentioned this in another thread, about a man that I use to babysit for when a teen. His grandson now works with my husband and mentioned that they visited him on a Sunday and he was in his recliner and saying that he must have taken a bit too much of a CBD gummy. He is a temple worker! 

Times are a changin!

Also, my good friend suffers from severe neuropathy and same with her sisters, they also have diabetes. I guess the one sister is also starting to take cbd gummies. So my friend has been getting her eyes open to using something like that to help her. She's been very hesitant, I don't blame her, but now that her sister is trying them, she may be changing her mind. I think the main thing on everyone's minds is in more study on how much to take for their ailment, much like with drug medication. Getting the science of the once touted drug to "just say no" to. 

From more research it does seem the church has ‘not prohibited’ CBD. But Ayahuasca may or may not run into the following quote in the strength of youth. 

“Avoid any drink, drug, chemical, or dangerous practice that is used to produce a ‘high’ or other artificial effects that may harm your body or mind.”

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

Apparently the church was ok with his CBD use (from several years ago since he was not released)

Unless he never told them.  Are bishops required to inform leaders of their prescription and over the counter,etc.

Is CBD illegal, is it mind altering…if either I think it falls under do not use for the Church per WoW.  If just mind altering, under a medical doctor’s care, not for recreational.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Calm

[OGHoosier]

I'm kinda hung up on the lobbyists part. 

As far as I'm aware the Church doesn't retain lobbyists in the state of Utah and doesn't engage in much formal lobbying. When they want to use influence they usually just release a statement, that carries enough weight. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm kinda hung up on the lobbyists part. 

As far as I'm aware the Church doesn't retain lobbyists in the state of Utah and doesn't engage in much formal lobbying. When they want to use influence they usually just release a statement, that carries enough weight. 

https://www.kuer.org/politics/2015-04-06/carl-wimmer-opens-up-about-lds-church-utah-legislature-relations?_amp=true