Politics And Religion

[Nathair/|\]

The following was posted on my facebook wall during a debate over decriminalization of recreational drugs. For the record, I endorse the Word of Wisdom 100% and believe that no Latter-day Saint should use them.. (The "Johnson guy" is Governor Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for president.)

Sam - I understand your point of view BUT the real reason to oppose legalizing marijauan is because your God has told us not to use it. You should be aggresively fighting and ooposing marijuana for that reason alone. When you support this Johnson guy, you stand in opposition to the Fsther and Son. Is that where you want to be?

My question for the board, and the only topic I wish to discuss is: Can someone remain in good standing with God while arguing that certain moral matters should not be matters for the state? Is the poster correct in that a supporter of decriminalizing recreational drugs (and by extension other immoral activities that do not infringe upon the rights of another person) in opposition to the Father and Son?

I do not wish to discuss matters pertaining to the social consequences of drug policy. I do not wish to discuss what powers are appropriate for the government of a free state to exercise.

[Avatar4321]

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2001.htm/ensign%20january%202001.htm/weightier%20matters.htm

[BCSpace]

I think it's pretty obvious one cannot remain in good standing with God and go against His doctrine at the same time. However, I don't think there is any doctrine on (de)criminalization of drugs etc being matters of the state. However, if such became matters of the state, then I believe one would be in opposition to God if the direction of such matters didn't match the doctrine.

[DavidB]

The word of wisdom only applies to those who accept it by membership.

You are not in opposition to God by supporting decriminalization of drugs.

Have your friend read the doctrine and covenants, we are not to mingle our religion with government, thus he is the one in opposition by forcing the wow on nonmembers.

[WalkerW]

B.H. Roberts was against prohibition.

[Storm Rider]

This is a political question and I believe that LDS can have conflicting views on the topic while still remaining faithful to their personal convenants.

[DavidB]

Nathair you should have who posted that review adverts promoting City Creek...alcohol is center stage in at least one promo.

[Cobalt-70]

My question for the board, and the only topic I wish to discuss is: Can someone remain in good standing with God while arguing that certain moral matters should not be matters for the state? Is the poster correct in that a supporter of decriminalizing recreational drugs (and by extension other immoral activities that do not infringe upon the rights of another person) in opposition to the Father and Son?

In short, yes. Standing for morality is not the same thing as standing to criminalize everything that is immoral. There are many, many reasons why one might choose to allow people the freedom to do things that we believe are immoral. Among them are: freedom of religion, the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. constitution, fiscal matters such as the cost of enforcement, unintended consequences, economic reasons such as the problems of the tragedy of the commons and externalities, etc. None of these reasons are religious reasons, and any of them may as a political matter weigh against the simple perceived morality of the act as judged by Mormon theology.

[thesometimesaint]

I think there is a big difference between decriminalization and acceptance.

[CV75]

Can someone remain in good standing with God while arguing that certain moral matters should not be matters for the state?

Only perhaps during the Millennium.

Is the poster correct in that a supporter of decriminalizing recreational drugs (and by extension other immoral activities that do not infringe upon the rights of another person) in opposition to the Father and Son?

In this world, not necessarily, where the issue is about how people use their governments to the benefit of their citizens in this world. While God “holds men accountable for their acts in relation to their governments, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society,” He judges each person and situation individually.

[Bikeemikey]

The following was posted on my facebook wall during a debate over decriminalization of recreational drugs. For the record, I endorse the Word of Wisdom 100% and believe that no Latter-day Saint should use them.. (The "Johnson guy" is Governor Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for president.)

My question for the board, and the only topic I wish to discuss is: Can someone remain in good standing with God while arguing that certain moral matters should not be matters for the state? Is the poster correct in that a supporter of decriminalizing recreational drugs (and by extension other immoral activities that do not infringe upon the rights of another person) in opposition to the Father and Son?

I do not wish to discuss matters pertaining to the social consequences of drug policy. I do not wish to discuss what powers are appropriate for the government of a free state to exercise.

Our God also told us about the important of agency, personal accountability and responsiblity. The war in heaven was (at least in part) about issues of forced conformance rather than personal choice. As such there is no slam dunk on this question. God has not told us to force people to live our beliefs, only that we should live them ourself... hence there being mixed responses in the church to questions of religious beliefs being mixed with politics.

We often talk about how we will be judged by our actions. I am experimenting with a different understanding of judgement than this... I will attempt to define it a little. Judgement of action alone is to narrow an understanding of Gods perception of our decision making. We will be judged not on the basis of decicions we actually made, but on all decisions that we could have made in contexts we both faced and did not face. That is to say, our individual decisions themselves are actually less important that the personal character that produces these decisions. This is where judgement of our interior comes into play (a big New Testament theme). As such, it would appear an individual that would use drugs if provided with the opportunity (even if they have not had this opportunity) is morally indistinct from an individual who actually does use drugs.

The big difference is outcome/consequences. If morality is tied to outcome/consequence then the non-user (even due to external reasons) is morally superior as they have avoided the negative impacts of drug use, even if they would have used them had the context been provided..

This leads to an interesting conclusions. To argue that from a religious persepctive the using not using drugs is morally superior to using drugs then we must admit that morality, in some way atleast, is outcome/consequence dependent. This opens the door to a large slippery slope in it self.

All of this is a moot point however. Almost all liberterians favor the less drug law on the belief it will result in less drug use... if this is true, and the use of drugs is a moral concern for God, then it is immoral for us to oppose such a position.