- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There still are some things I see as issues, but the general movement to individual decisions is excellent. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/07/31/lds-church-tweaks/ Yeah, I just saw it on the church’s website. Thank God there at some good changes made to the handbook. I have a few misgivings about the statements it now makes about medical cannabis. I used cannabis for the very first time several years ago to fight my prostate cancer. I used cannabis oil, typically called RSO or FECO, and when I did the standard 60-gram protocol it brought my PSA *way* down, lower than anything the doctors had been able to accomplish. Unfortunately I had to return to my home state and lost access. Then two years ago I had to go through chemo and I was able to access a very limited supply, so I used it during chemo to abate the nausea. The pills the doc gave me for that didn’t touch it, but the oil, taking a very small dose every 8 hours, worked very well. In the second half of my chemo the side-effects got worse and I started having some break-through nausea so I smoked some to stave off the worst of it. Again, the prescription anti-nausea meds didn’t do a thing for me, I tried, but the oil combined with a little smoking did the trick very well. I know of others who smoke or vape for other legitimate medical needs. The new pills the doctor put me on this year really knock down my appetite and to take cannabis oil simply to stimulate my desire to eat is like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. A few puffs on a vape or raw bud does the trick right away. I know of people with children who suffer seizures. They can use oil, but it takes too long when they’re suffering an active attack, so smoke or vape can act much faster for some individuals to help avoid the very real risk of brain damage. There are other situations, as well.
I can’t think of a single other instance where we have been told which forms of administration of a medication may be used, under medical guidance.
I appreciate most of these changes. I do not need or want church imposed restrictions on medical procedures or curtailing family size.
A hambook is against my religion. I find beefbooks, chickenbooks, and lambbooks more Kosher.
:angel: I think these are positive changes. They scaled back the words in the handbook which generally equates with fewer restrictions. I am glad they are putting the responsibility on the individual more than rote rules from the church. The article says they got it down to one handbook. Does this mean there isn’t a handbook for leaders and another one for general use anymore?
We are definitely becoming a kinder, gentler church.
nibbler wrote:
A hambook is against my religion.I find beefbooks, chickenbooks, and lambbooks more Kosher.
:angel:
😆 😆 😆 I fixed the typo. 😳 :crazy: :wtf: Old-Timer wrote:
I fixed the typo.😳 :crazy: :wtf:
I noticed that and was trying to figure if that was a Freudian slip. Then “Hambook” made me think of “Green Eggs and Ham”
LookingHard wrote:
Old-Timer wrote:
I fixed the typo.😳 :crazy: :wtf:
I noticed that and was trying to figure if that was a Freudian slip. Then “Hambook” made me think of “Green Eggs and Ham”
“The Hambook is now leaner and I think you’ll agree,
Try it, you may like it, or my name is not SamBee!”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.