There’s been a lot of discussion here about marijuana being a “gateway” drug, a fairly minor offense that leads to bigger crimes and harder drugs. Why is this so? There seem to be three different views about this:
- The gateway drug leads to escalating behavior; it is not enough over time to satisfy the lust for drug, and so it is a stepping stone to harder stuff.
- The criminalization itself leads to harder stuff, for a variety of reasons: a) more access to the “seedy underbelly” of society who entice one with the harder stuff, b) a sense that “all is lost” or that once one is already tainted, why not throw all caution to the wind?
- The concept of a “gateway drug” is nonsense and not supported by data. Pot heads smoke pot. They don’t shoot heroin or die in crack dens. Any linkages are at the dealer, not user level or are correlation, not causation.
The second view is generally held by those who would say decriminalizing pot is the way to go. Rather than rehashing (no pun intended) the marijuana discussion, I wanted to talk about the concept of “gateway sins,” minor things at church that can either (if you subscribe to #2 or #3 above) be blown way out of proportion or (if you subscribe to #1 above) lead you quickly down the slippery slope to hell. Here are some possible “gateway sins” you might hear decried at church:
- Men with facial hair. What are they hiding? I’ve also noticed women don’t get any flack for this one.
- Men who wear blue shirts to church. Our team wears white, so they must want to play for another team.
- Women who wear pants to church. Obviously they are trying to exert some sort of female power to undermine the priesthood.
- Parents whose Primary age daughters wear sundresses to church. Whores in training.
- People who use “you” instead of “thou” in prayers. This one’s a biggie with those who misunderstand that “thou” is the familiar form, not the more honorific form.
- Swearing. Obviously, the most righteous won’t even swear when reading it straight out of scriptures, instead substituting “h – e – double – hockey – sticks” or “that thing that beavers build.”
- Tatoos. Especially the dreaded tramp stamp.
- Earrings. 3 or more in women, 1 or more in men. Probably there to hide the sucubus scars.
- Skipping church. There are varying types of sinners on this one: 1) feeling obligated to explain why one’s absence was an anomaly and not indicative of less righteousness, 2) secretly hoping one was missed, and 3) not giving a crap what others think.
- R-rated movies. According to the MPAA, those stalwart bastions of morality whose unfailing judgment has always been an infallible guide.
- Not reading scriptures. Actually, I think this one is only a private one since most fellow Mormons I know claim to read them but have never actually finished them.
- Talking to apostates. It clearly didn’t do Jesus any good hanging around all those publicans and sinners; he ultimately left Judaism after all.
Many of those are just “outward” things that may cause judgmentalism among members. Some of these were listed off in a recent Sunday School class, which was interesting. The teacher pulled one of the students to the front, a guy in a blue shirt and jeans (no less) and talked about how people might be judging him for that. I mean, if they weren’t judging him before, now they had full opportunity to do so. Then, to keep it gender neutral, the teacher mentioned that members might be judging a woman for wearing pants to church, at which point a woman shouted out, “Hey, I’m wearing pants right now!” I believe it was one of the Pharisee lessons. Some weeks it’s hard to get in a good nap during Sunday School with all the excitement.
That’s not to say that minor infractions might not lead to greater sins. Once you stop kowtowing to silly rules, some folks find it hard to distinguish between what’s arbitrary and what’s “God’s higher way” that we just don’t understand because we can’t see the big picture. There may be a tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Which is why there seem to be two schools of thought in the church:
- Build hedges about the law. This is like the seminary story about the guy who boasts he can ride his horse right by the edge of the cliff, and then the other guy says he’ll stay as far from the cliff as he can (so he gets the job or doesn’t fall off the cliff, or something like that). Sounds great and all for cliffs, but when you start outlawing things arbitrarily, like pants, earrings, facial hair, etc., you trivialize actual sin by association. For example, if you outlaw french kissing or staying out past midnight by putting it on par with pre-marital intercourse, then dumb kids who’ve french kissed or stayed out past midnight are already feeling naughty and sinful, so why not go for broke?
- Give them correct principles, and let them govern themselves. This one seems to be going out of vogue lately and does have the downside of diverse application. Although the church may wish to be global, diversity is chaotic and lacks unity, and the church is a church of order. For example, a “correct principle” might be to keep the Sabbath day holy, but that can be interpreted many different ways; of course, the strictest interpretation must be the most righteous one, at least according to those who interpret things the most strictly.
Personally, I think that some people like to try out a little sin because their heart’s just not in it – so they might get lax in some things as a way to dip their toe in. And if it’s a passing fancy, we do have some pretty tame (or lame?) ways of being a badass. But I also think that many people do these things without any sinful intent, instead subscribing more to a “correct principles” approach; they are following their interpretation of the spirit of the law, not trying to subscribe to someone else’s stricter interpretation of the letter of the law. Of course, the caveat is that those who fall into the “stricter interpretation” category are also often those who aspire to lead in the church (and often their aspirations come true). The strict ones may get more access to the mic.
So, where do your views fit? Do you think some of these are gateway sins? Do you think there is such a thing as a gateway sin? What’s your view? Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
In “the world” I would consider myself to be fairly conservative, but if the above mentioned sins are considered “gateway sins” by the more conservative members of our faith, then I guess I’m actually pretty liberal! 🙂
My dad had a mustache the whole time my mom was married to him. After 30 years of marriage, he was called to be a bishop. My parent’s Stake President didn’t have a problem with my dad’s mustache, but once a visiting general authority said something about it. Luckily, my dad didn’t feel the need to shave, although I’m sure he would have instantly become more righteous if he had. ;-D
succubus scars — I had no idea earrings would hide them … though if you are a woman and not hiding incubus scars I can see why you might in today’s church.
Seriously, though, people pushed over lines are easier to push again. That is the key to numerous types of seduction.
We all set up fences for our children — sometimes literal ones in the back yard, and sometimes family rules to keep the little ones out of trouble.
We also resent being treated like little children and having someone else set up fences for us.
(I’m still looking for that confirmation that my beard is a sign of my apostasy, since I wore it during two terms as bishop. I did shave it upon request to work in the temple for a time, and grew it back after I was released.)
The most effective hedges for adults are, I believe, ones we build for ourselves, based on the correct principles we learn.
I think that “gateway sins” are a very real thing, though the examples you cite poke fun at it.
I think that the “gateway sin” isn’t something we use to judge others, but something we should use to gauge ourselves. I’ve experienced many things where I’m feeling too lazy to be vigilant, so I let my standards lax a little, and then have to fight my way back to where I want to be.
BEST LINE EVER!!! I count myself among the badasses since I wear a blue shirt, sometimes miss church, and have been known to enjoy Qdoba for dinner on Sunday (kids eat free on Sundays!!).
Re Paul
In all seriousness though, I think Paul got it right with this one.
Letter of the law versus spirit of the law. I entirely agree with the line: “Many of those are just “outward” things that may cause judgmentalism among members.” The rules often lack genuine meaning and are more about setting ‘the saints’ apart in appearance and behavior but most ‘saints’ don’t understand the principle, nor do they care.
The items you have listed here seem more like cultural idiosyncrasies than sins, although we may eventually need to sacrifice even these on the altar of consecration.
“We sometimes even defend our idiosyncrasies, as if these protrusions somehow constituted our individuality. In a way, discipleship is a “contact sport,” as the Prophet Joseph testified:
“I am like a huge, rough stone … and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force. … Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 304).
— Neal A. Maxwell, “Consecrate thy Performance” April 2002
True friends put up with our idiosyncrasies.
— Thomas S. Monson, “An Attitude of Gratitude” April 1992
Sabbath-breaking
Failure to forgive
Anger and hatred
Sexting
Lack of reverence for spiritual things
Judging others
Pornography
Pride
Jealousy
Dishonesty
Covetousness
Unrighteous dominion
These “gateway” sins often lead to the “larger” sins that are more difficult to repent of: adultery, violence, abuse, theft, and so on.
It’s funny this is even relevant today. Does anyone else think it’s odd that such trivial issues are really that prevalent?
Beards + Long hair: going on 2+ years and I’ve yet to have a calling since then.
Marijuana: not yet, but it’s not against the word of wisdom.
Blue shirt: No. Blue shirts were in vogue in the 1990s and early 2000s, and it should be kept that way. I would have judged the dude in front of the class for being out of style, if for nothing else.
Hedges: who needs a hedge when you have the resources to build a “shield” around your sacred places?
Silly rules (earrings, white shirts, church attendance): it’s easier to judge someone as “worthy” when they are playing the part. I love me some whited sepulcres (see M@tt 23:27). Besides, the church likes “beautiful people on the inside, and out.”
Talk to apostates: hell, my wife won’t even let me read non-Church approved books (“Church approved” by her definition means a book both published by (a) Deseret Book and (b) written by a Church authority.)
R-rated movies: My favorite semi-recent R-rated movie is The Last Samurai. Absolutely loved it.
Scripture reading: I just read the following last night:
I would LOVE for the leaders of this church (the First Presidency and Qof12) to stand up this coming weekend and state the following:
Or, perhaps we’ll have 3 people get up and read us verbatim the 14 Fundamentals, instead of just 2 like last October. Here’s to hoping.
[I just got an email for a new non-paid missionary opportunity through Mormon Media. In the listing, the following description was given:]
See, this video will debunk the following myths:
(a) that you can wear a blue shirt to church and not get judged.
(b) that you can have a beard and still make it into church media productions.
(c) that you can have long hair as a male and be considered a beautiful person “on the inside and out”
#4:
I think that the “gateway sin” isn’t something we use to judge others…
Funny, but I’d consider judging others one of the biggest “gateway sins.”
(D&C 88:11)
I don’t believe in gateway sins, especially in the sense that you have listed, and many mainstream Wasatch Front Mormons perceive them. Of course, I have a beard three months out of the year, never wear a tie, and only sometimes wear a white shirt . . . so I guess I’m not in a position to be able to judge righteously anyway.
I also wear blue sometimes, so apparently I’m hopelessly out of fashion in addition to being a hopeless sinner.
I do believe in increasing or decreasing in light. I think some activities allow us to grow closer to God, and better understand the guidance of the Spirit. Other activities may draw us further from God and make the whisperings of the Spirit harder to discern. I believe that these activities over a long period of time often can be reflected outwardly through a cheerful countenance and possibly “clean living”. But of course this possibility can never be used to judge the righteousness of another for two reasons:
1) You don’t know what the baseline countenance is – Some people just look mean/angry, others just look happy. A person who is mean/angry looking naturally might exude a cheerful countenance that just looks less mean/angry, while a sinning happy looking person might just look less happy.
2) Evil is good at deception.
I don’t believe outward appearances such as women wearing pants, men wearing colored shirts, multiple piercings, or tattoos are very relevant (if at all) to the state of a person’s soul.
I don’t know why I quoted 88:11 . . . I meant to quote 50:24 . . . copy/pasted the wrong section.
(D&C 50:24)
There, that should make more sense.
“I would LOVE for the leaders of this church (the First Presidency and Qof12) to stand up this coming weekend and state the following:
‘It is necessary that we must decrease, and He increase.’
Amen, and I’m speaking about my own denomination more than yours.
“I think that “gateway sins” are a very real thing, though the examples you cite poke fun at it.” I think anything can be a gateway sin if the person doing it is doing it because they think it is a sin. But that doesn’t mean that someone doing the thing is doing it for that reason. It’s just that “the Lord looketh on the heart” but humans can only see the outward appearance.
I wouldn’t call some of these gateway sins, but some I would. It’s a helpful list to consider:
– Sabbath-breaking (definite gateway)
– Failure to forgive (I think this is an actual sin and damaging to the person – it’s not trivial)
– Anger and hatred (actual sin, not gateway)
– Sexting (probably actual sin)
– Lack of reverence for spiritual things (depends on what that means)
– Judging others (actual sin)
– Pornography (actual sin and very yucky for the soul)
– Pride (actual sin)
– Jealousy (actual sin)
– Dishonesty (actual big time sin)
– Covetousness (actual sin)
– Unrighteous dominion (actual sin)
To me, gateway sins have to meet the following conditions: 1) don’t harm or demean others, 2) don’t harm oneself in any real way, 3) are done as a way to slack a bit, but not with any commitment to real sin.
I’ve always found the idea of a gateway sin silly because any choice can lead to another choice, positive, or negative. And while a domino effect is a great way to preach to keep members in line, the truth is that every choice is distinct from the others. There are thousands of college students who enjoy a little pot with friends who have never done heroine, are there are probably some who have. Some guys who watch porn started with R-rated movies, but some guys just like violent war films that earn an R-rating.
There are no gateway sins, just sins. Some actions may place us in situations or environments where it is easier to make a bigger sin, but correlation does not imply causation.
So, but that definition, the Savior himself was not only the gate keeper, but was a gateway sinner himself?
I generally like Mike S.’s approach to most things, in that I see many, many layers of gray to most things. Jesus did many, many things that irked the hierarchy of his day, especially what he did on the Sabbath.
In our modern Mormon culture, anyone who doesn’t go to Church on Sunday and who doesn’t return home to an afternoon of quietude or HT/VT, then they are likely breaking the sabbath.
For example:
If I go hiking on Sunday, I’m likely viewed as breaking the Sabbath by a majority of members.
If I go swimming on Sunday, I’m likely viewed as breaking the Sabbath by a majority of members.
If I go to the park to play on Sunday, I’m likely viewed as breaking the Sabbath by a majority of members.
If I go to the store on Sunday, I’m likely viewed as breaking the Sabbath by a majority of members.
If I skip Church on Sunday (for any reason other than sickness or possibly travel), I’m likely viewed as breaking the Sabbath by a majority of members.
And on and on. And, while I’m doing any of those activities, many people (if they see such) are likely saying in their minds/hearts that I’m breaking the Sabbath. So, just what can I or can’t I do on the Sabbath? And, is it anyone’s place to say what I can/can’t do? Many of Christ’s miracles occurred on the Sabbath, when if he were LDS he should have been in Church or at home resting with his family – not at the pool healing people, or plucking corn, or healing or out amongst the riffraff doing who knows what.
Is it a gateway sin by itself, or only if after the gateway sin there is a bigger sin?
What if I join jmb275 at Qdoba on Sunday, but remain fully active and worthy in every other way? What if my daughter dates before she is 16, but then does nothing wrong and stays chaste her whole life until marriage in the temple?
It seems to me, in those cases, it just becomes a non-issue, and therefore not a gateway “sin” but a fear of the hypothetical. I don’t like fear-based motivations.
I subscribe to #3 that it is nonsense, and follow the prophet Joseph in teaching correct principles.
“…at which point a woman shouted out, “Hey, I’m wearing pants right now!” … Some weeks it’s hard to get in a good nap during Sunday School with all the excitement.”
I’m still laughing at this part of the post! Love it!
The most interesting thing about the “gateway sins” that you listed is how I would classify them. In my mind I classify “rules” as ETERNAL or TEMPORARY (there is some overlap, but it’s a good base).
Eternal rules don’t change with whoever happens to be in charge. These are things like: Don’t kill. Don’t commit adultery. Be honest. Take care of your fellowman. Don’t blaspheme God. Etc. They are generally true and the same across time and cultures.
Temporary rules change depending on who happens to be in charge. We have a lot of these in the LDS church. 100% home teaching. Avoid wine (even through Christ and Joseph Smith drank it). Don’t have a beard (although 7 out of 16 modern prophets, and probably the majority of previous prophets had one, as well as Christ). Numbers of earrings. Keep shoulders covered. One-piece bathing suits. Etc. These are generally NOT eternal principles but change over time and between cultures.
Interestingly to me is that these “gateway sins” generally fall in the second category. They don’t really have anything to do with eternal principles, yet are things that LDS members generally judge each other on for some reason. They tend to involve convoluted logic chains (two-piece bikini -> suggestive look -> kissing -> fornication) even though the one-piece that the “orthodox” wear would have been considered risqué by a prior generation.
Also, they all tend to be “outward” things that say very little about someone’s true character. The judging of someone based upon these “gateway sin” tells me MUCH more about the person judging someone else than the person supposedly committing the “sin”.
Heber13: “It seems to me, in those cases, it just becomes a non-issue, and therefore not a gateway “sin” but a fear of the hypothetical.” This is my view also. I think most would consider someone as having entered into a gateway or slippery slope based on their own fears of the hypothetical, but it usually is just a non-issue.
Mike:
Well said, but I think the most likely chain of logic these days on your example is the following:
two-piece bikini -> fornication
marijuana smoking -> murdering
sabbath breaking -> adultery
greed/materialism -> fast track to church leadership
Sorry, the last one isn’t really fair and is said tongue-in-cheek based off who my church leaders have been the last 10+ years.
There may be something to the gateway sin idea some of the time, but I think most of the time it’s pretty bogus logic.
Often it comes down to confusing correlation with causation. For example, wearing a blue shirt to church (A) may indeed be correlated with eventual apostasy (B). But just because A is correlated with B doesn’t mean A caused B. Maybe B caused A. Or maybe both A and B were caused be an external factor C. For example, maybe the person decided to shed silly cultural rules (i.e. white shirts only) and ultimately lead the church because he/she figured out that the LDS church history is messy and couldn’t convince him/herself that the church is true. So they eventually left altogether.
Another interesting example is masturbation/porn use leading to more serious sexual sins. I have heard some people claim that they lead to infidelity, rape, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, you name it. Interestingly, there are many studies that suggest that giving people a healthy and relatively benign sexual outlet actually reduces the propensity for the above behaviors.
Drugs are also another counter intuitive example. It has been demonstrated that Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign actually led to serious drug use in some individuals because the negative effects of relatively benign drugs like marijuana were overstated. When kids tried marijuana anyway and didn’t turn into a donkey like the drug campaign said they would, they realized that the authority figures were full of crap and went on to use drugs that really were harmful, underestimating their effects. Being honest about gateway drugs like marijuana in the first place seems to reduce the gateway effect that opponents of legalization claim.
The discussion was worthwhile but the analogy was a tad off.
Marijuana use, whether one believes it should be legalized or not, would, at least for recreational purposes, always be a sin. Thou shalt not get f$#$-up!
Such things as what colour shirt a brother wears to Church wouldn’t ever be classified as a “sin”, but some whom get the “holier-than-thou” complex heap it (along with abstaining from Dr. Pepper and white bread) as at least “being with the Spirit of the Law”, which is euphemism for additional commandments. Same as a brother in High Priests Group Meeting labelled consumption of an “Energy Drink” as violating the Word of Wisdom (rather than merely stating an opinion that such things, in the spirit of the WoW, ought to be abstained from but aren’t “on the list”). Had to set him straight that our bishop (himself not terribly liberal) knew that that Michael Weiner Jr (son of talk-show Michael Savage) is quite grateful for my patronizing of his product (RockStar). Said consumption of the rocket fuel hasn’t kept me out of the temple…in fact, I usually chug one on the way to the Sacto temple…when doing an evening session, gotta have something to keep me fired up!
How we LDS tend to “Major in the Minors”!!
#23 – Where exactly does it say that “thou shalt not get f$#$-up?” is a commandment, or even a suggestion?
What exactly is intrinsically wrong with that? (I am assuming that getting f$#$-up = getting high)
While I do feel that most things people might look at from the outside and call a “gateway sin” (or cluck their tongues that someone is on a slippery slope) are really not that at all, IMO, it all boils down to our reasons for what we do and our motives. Are you doing what you are doing because you interpret it differently, you aren’t concerned about it, or you are being rebellious?
This whole issue is one of the things in Buddhism that appeals to me. There are simple principles and the application is up to the individual.
Take a simple example: Avoid intoxication. That’s pretty much it. For many Buddhists, this means avoiding alcohol all together. For others, having a glass of wine with dinner yet not becoming “drunk” satisfies this as well. A few people go the other way and avoid “intoxicating” things like caffeine. Many interpret this as avoiding other illegal drugs that intoxicate you and cloud your mind.
The important thing is that they are ALL right. And importantly, making someone go through the process of defining what avoiding intoxication means TO THEM is powerful – it is much more powerful than some external person giving a list of what they think “hot drinks” might mean or other itemized lists.
Mike:
Of how much more worth is going through the process of defining something for oneself versus being told that X and Y are verboten? It might be worth someone exploring in a more in-depth write-up, but there is a LOT to be said for owning your beliefs (i.e. studying it out and coming to a decision) versus just doing what you’ve been told because, well, that’s what you’ve been “counseled.”
Re: Douglas
Can you explore that reasoning for me a little? How exactly does the use of (A) constitute a sin (B)? I’ve explored the issue in depth (no usage, just intellectual research and study) and came away with an entirely different conclusion. I’d be curious as to why you classify it as a sin. My own conclusion can be read here, though I reserve the right to change my mind now or in the future based on more knowledge. As is, though, the Church’s logic on the subject is as loopy as any out there.
Douglas (23) I (can’t) follow (you) because (you) seem (to) use (parentheses) without (rhyme), reason, (or), discrimination.
#28 – When I writes, sometimes I puts the wrong emPHAsis on the wrong SYLlable!….sorry..
Thou shalt not get (wasted), f$#$-up, hammered, stoned, sh$@-faced, etc, all amount to the same sin, regardless of the intoxicant(s) involved…”And be not drunk with WINE (re: alcohol, even though the Savior himself changed water into it for purposes of beverage service at a friend’s wedding!) “wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit”.
#27 – interesting article from an “LDS” (not the only LDS one) perspective on marijuana. I believe that I mentioned “recreational” purposes as being a sin (getting “high”), but prudent use from a medical and/or holistic purpose (and I don’t leave it to the self-serving AMA and their holier-than-thou declaration that the fictional Sgt. Joe Friday would spout that it has no medical use) would be perfectly alright and should be the sole discretion of the person that feels that he/she needs it. For example, if I knew that a sister, suffering from cancer and chronically in severe pain, got a “medical marijuana” card and procured same to use to alleviate her pain, then how could I possibly judge her adversely? That having been said, it seems evident that from the number of medical marijuana cards issued that there is a veritable epidemic of folks with severe chronic pain issues, OR…the whole thing is being cynically exploited by idiots that simply want to get high. And in my Libertarian views, I say, let ’em. They shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to be stupid, the law should leave them alone in their idiocy. And likewise, I shouldn’t have to employ them (nor should my employer, Uncle Sam, deviate from long-standing public policy and hire them either), nor should I pay for their problems thereby induced by pot usage.
As for Latter-Day Saints, rather than worry about what “wrong” with something done or ingested (or smoked, sniffed, suppositoried, etc), I’d say, what is RIGHT with it? Does not the hymn go, “Do what is RIGHT, let the consequence follow…”??
#29 – So Paul made a reference to not being drunk with wine. I’m not sure how that proves your point. It’s a far stretch to take that to mean “thou shall not get f$#$-up,” to use your own words, especially since it’s not even debated that Christ, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the Book of Mormon prophets, and many other Christian/Mormon leaders prior to the early 1900s used alcohol.
Again I ask, what is intrinsically wrong with getting high? Try to give legitimate reasons other than so and so seemed to say so back in the day.
Not sure if anyone has seen this article, but I think it’s an excellent write-up of beer in the bible: Did the Ancient Israelites Drink Beer
It used to be free, but it looks like you have to at least buy that issue (Sep/Oct 2010). A very well written scholarly article on the topic.
I like the Buddhist motto on this topic: Avoid intoxication.
Nothing more, nothing less. And, it’s a personal interpretation – no “one size fits all” interdiction like we tend to incorporate today, including with getting high. If you haven’t yet read/listened to Michael Pollan’s The Botany of Desire, it contains a fascinating discussion on Marijuana that gave me a much needed perspective change. Fantastic book.
#29 – what is wrong with getting “high”? Well, if the “high” is a spiritual one from an uplifting talk, or endorphins from a good workout, nothing WRONG, I suppose. If one is deliberately getting intoxicated and rendered either dangerous (as behind the wheel of a large truck) or just plain stupid, it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to figure out what’s WRONG with that! Tell me, Aaron L, what is RIGHT about getting ‘wasted’?? What useful purpose under heaven does it accomplish? I may feel strongly that the Government (especially the Federal Gov’t, that can’t even get a coherent, financially sensible budget passed on time!) has no interest criminalizing or otherwise regulating you’re “Gawd”-given right to be an idiot…but if you do so, you’re still an idiot, IMHO.
Douglas –
Your argument falls on its face because it makes untrue assumptions – that getting intoxicated will necessarily make you dangerous and/or stupid. There are many working, functional, articulate adults who use alcohol, marijuana, and other relatively benign substances that produce a ‘high’ and become neither stupid or dangerous. Every drug’s effects are different and I am not an expert on all of them, but I have researched marijuana quite extensively and have not found any good evidence that smoking it has any appreciable effect on traffic accidents.
What is right about getting high?
It feels good (so I am told)
stress relief
pain relief
reduced spasticity
some report increased mental clarity
…many more if you care to do the research
My point was that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with getting high. It can certainly contribute to a host of problems especially with certain drugs, but to say that all drugs will cause danger/stupidity/anything else is painting with too broad a brush.
“Falls flat on its face” – presumably what you do when hammered! (LOL).
Seriously, it’s not the state of intoxication, nor choice of intoxicant, that automatically renders the indulgent one “dangerous”. I don’t subscribe to the “demon rum” theory. There are many that MODERATELY indulge in booze, weed, etc. and are still quite functional. I don’t decry their use nor do I see any use in siccing the law on adults indulging in “adult” vices. Still, what is RIGHT (from a Gospel viewpoint) from getting “wasted”? Of course, if you’re rejecting the counsel of prophets old and modern, then this discussion is moot.
As for myself, health and functionality are critical, especially at an age (52 big ones today!), and purely from rationality I see no reason to “indulge”. At most, I get a mild buzz when I take my Vicodin for arthritis pain as needed. Even then, knowing the mild “high” that it brings, I use it sparingly (about half of the max dose rate), relying on other methods of pain management where needed. And believe it or not, I’ve actually been told by an “inspired” bishop that he considers my (Rx) drug use to be reason to deny a temple recommend. You can’t please everyone (thank you, late “brother” Nelson), so ya gotta please yourself (LOL)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Party_%28Rick_Nelson_song%29
From an gospel viewpoint, you’re probably correct. There isn’t much right about it, at least at first glance. Then again, there isn’t necessarily much wrong, either. We are told to not indulge in drugs because they are presupposed to be harmful and/or addictive. The sunday school manual, strength for youth pamphlet, and numerous other publications use that same wording. Marijuana and some other drugs deemed inappropriate are not appreciably harmful or addictive when scrutinized by science. In some places, marijuana isn’t even illegal. If some drugs are not harmful, addictive, or even illegal, I don’t see the intrinsic harm in them. Of course somebody you think is a prophet says it’s a sin, then there you go. That ought to be enough to abstain right there. But the distinction is important – you are abstaining based on the recommendation of another and not based on evidence based science.
Interestingly, all prophets have not been consistent on the consumption of alcohol. I’m sure you are aware that wine was used throughout the bible, even by Jesus. Most of the leaders of the early LDS church well into the 1200s used alcohol regularly, including Joseph Smith. But they did so in moderation. Most references to alcohol in the scriptures warn against drunkedness and don’t outlaw alcohol entirely.
Oh, and happy birthday!
Aaron – if I’m abstaining, it’s for one of three reasons:
1) I have no desire to indulge (it doesn’t “taste” good, therefore it’s not a temptation)
2) Whatever I may personally think of the thing to indulge in (ex., pot), the consequences don’t merit the small amount of enjoyment possible. I’m a career “Federale”. If I smoke weed, and then ring the bell on a drug test, it’s my career. Fair or not, it’s not worth my livelihood to screw up.
3) Even if there are no legal, social, or economic consequences, if the Lord or His duly appointed representatives proscribe it, I have faith that He (or they) have my best interests at heart.
Of course there are inconsistencies in the approach to alcohol. At a time when one took his life in his hands by drinking milk (unpasteurized) or even the local water (ignorance of sanitation), consumption of moderate amounts of beers and wines made perfect sense from a health standpoint. Modern sanitation methods and availability of decent non-alcoholic beverages make tee totaling feasible.
Still, I would readily agree that many LDS get completely wrapped around the axle on the WoW issue. Worrying about caffeine content in colas, for example, to me is downright silly. I even recall an Ensign article of about thirty years ago (recently after my baptism) that went into the dangers of herbal tea! For me, it’s strictly abstain from coffee, tea, booze, smokes, chew, weed, crack, and whatever else recreational substances are out there…and the rest is purely my discretion.