Ex-Mormons on Shrooms

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Quote

I find the notion of resorting to powerful drugs in order to have "spiritual" experiences to be incorrect.  Powerful experiences, spiritual or drug-induced, will not create a path back to God.  "He that doeth the will of my Father..."

And your point is that our Father does not use drugs? 

No.  My point is that I don't think Heavenly Father wants us to use drugs to attempt to commune with him.

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Quote

Turning away from the "real deal," the Restored Gospel, and instead embracing powerful mind-altering drugs to achieve spiritual and personal enlightenment is, I think, the epitome of building a house on a sandy foundation.  It won't last.  And it won't be sanctified or ratified or protected by the Lord.  Its fall will indeed be "great."

My end note on this issue:  Using drugs to commune with God will work only if the drugs are good enough to help with that and only when you can get the drugs to do it. 

Again, I don't think God wants us to use illicit and non-medically-supervised use of powerful mind-altering drugs when trying to commune with Him.

I also don't think God will ratify or respond to such efforts.  Like He did not ratify or approve of the Tower of Babel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  My point is that I don't think Heavenly Father wants us to use drugs to attempt to commune with him.

Okay then, I agree.  He doesn't want us to use drugs.  But that doesn't mean he won't talk to us/communicate with us if we do.  Even if only to say we should not be using drugs and we doesn't need them.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I don't think God wants us to use illicit and non-medically-supervised use of powerful mind-altering drugs when trying to commune with Him.

Again, I agree that is not what he prefers.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also don't think God will ratify or respond to such efforts.  Like He did not ratify or approve of the Tower of Babel.

Thanks,

-Smac

He will respond to such efforts.  He is ready and willing to give us good counsel and ideas anytime, anywhere, and for any reason.  And those who use drugs to commune with him should expect to hear him tell them they don't need drugs to talk with him.

[Tacenda]

I think something was added to the wine at the Kirtland temple dedication. Because some of their actions aren't wine only or lack of food induced, IMO. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/visions-mushrooms-fungi-cacti-and-toads-joseph-smiths-reported-use-of-entheogens/

[Kenngo1969]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think something was added to the wine at the Kirtland temple dedication. Because some of their actions aren't wine only or lack of food induced, IMO.

Okay.  Where's your evidence?  And your hypothesis suffers from the same problems as I note below: It would be hard enough to get two people to take the exact same trip at the exact same time, yet you hypothesize (sans evidence?) that even more people took the exact same trip at the exact same time?

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/visions-mushrooms-fungi-cacti-and-toads-joseph-smiths-reported-use-of-entheogens/

Somehow, you think that the review in Interpreter denotes approval of the use of such things, or of the idea that Joseph Smith approved the use of such things?  Ummm ... oooh-kay.    In any event, one huge problem with the hypothesis presented by the article under review is that it fails to account adequately for shared mystical experience: Even if we grant, generously, for the sake of the hypothesis, that two people each ingested the exact same quantity of the exact same substance from the exact same source (all of those are huge stretches, in case you're wondering), rarely, if ever, do people go on the exact same "trip"  at the exact same time.  Yet that's what would have had to happen in order for the theory to account for mystical experiences shared among, inter alia, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, or Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Mind-altering substances seem to be like the tower.  An attempt to find something of the divine, to "reach unto heaven" and man-made.

But these mushrooms are not man-made. They are made by God  

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The spiritual experiences found by being in the community are, I think, also real.  And those experiences are lost when our brothers and sisters leave our community.  Some seem okay with that, and become satisfied with being entertained by the contrivances and technologies that our modern society has to allow us to pass the time: music, movies, TV, YouTube, social media (now streaming 24/7).  Food.  Pornography or other forms of sexual exploration/experimentation. 

Why do you only list negative ways of replacing LDS community? You seem to imply that those who leave the LDS church immerse themselves in shallowness.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, unsupervised, non-medicinal, recreational use of mind-altering substances is dangerous.

I'm not sure what is meant by "useless."  People use drugs precisely because they are not "useless."  They often work for their intended purposes: feelings of euphoria and calm.  Deadening pain and pressures felt in everyday life.  The uses of these substances are many and varied.

Just because something is dangerous does not mean it is bad or should not be attempted. In fact, some of the most important "journeys" we can take in our lives are dangerous, metaphorically and/or literally. I'm reminded of the description of Aslan, the stand-in for Jesus, in the Chronicles of Narnia: He is not safe.

I also question your list of intended purposes of "drugs" in this specific context. Someone who is using psychedelics for spiritual purposes is NOT taking them for euphoria and calm and to deaden pain and pressure. In fact, anyone serious about this knows that coming face-to-face with something terrifying is a very real probability, and if the psychedelics are being used regularly as part of a spiritual practice you absolutely will have a so-called "bad" trip. I say "so-called" because if one is partaking of entheogens for spiritual reasons, the difficult experiences are sometimes more "useful" than the easy ones, just like the Dark Night of the Soul can be more "illuminating" of God and one's relationship to Him than the easy times.

Since the topic is people using psychedelics for spiritual purposes, I think you'll need to focus in on psychedelics and spiritual purposes, and leave out the other drugs and reasons for use. We're talking about a very small slice of people here as compared to the totality of those who use drugs and alcohol. Generalizing the latter to the former is incorrect.

Finally, to your first statement. Someone who is serious about spiritual use of psychedelics is not using them recreationally. They are not (or should not, until they have enough experience) be using them unsupervised. In the article, it explicitly states that David had an experienced psychedelic guide. And in this context, referring to western medicine doesn't work. That would be like going to the lab and having a doctor watch you while you fast, pray, and read the Book of Mormon. Doesn't make sense.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is the implication here that psychedelics are useful?  With the "use" being finding communion with God?  Like the Tower of Babel?

This is a bit of implied circular reasoning. Psychedelics are not useful for finding communion with God because God does not use psychedelics that way.

There are many indigenous cultures that would vehemently disagree with you on this statement. I also disagree with you. The spiritual use of psychedelics was a major part of my spiritual journey, which culminated in my conversation to Catholicism. It has been many years since I have partaken of psychedelics, but they were instrumental in opening me to divinity. I believe firmly that God was working through them to get to me. My experiences of union with Him with the use entheogens has parallels in my experience of union with Him while on extended Benedictine monastic retreats.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Bill Richards, a researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, has been studying psychedelics for the better part of five decades, and has overseen hundreds of psychedelic trips. He holds advanced degrees in comparative religion and the psychology of religion, and while he’s excited about the potential medical uses of psychedelics, he has also witnessed their potential to illicit spiritual experiences.

“These drugs do help heal some sicknesses,” he told me. “But they also have potential for spiritual growth. Sometimes people (who have taken psychedelics) have an experience of new life, of new beginning and forgiveness and resolution of psychological difficulties that some people would call religious. It’s quite a frontier for religious study.”

"Illicit spiritual experiences."

 

I'm pretty sure this is a typo in the article. If the word were actually "elicit" instead of "illicit," it would make much more sense in the sentence and especially in the context of the quote that follows it. Notice the parallel: "potential to elicit spiritual experiences" with "potential for spiritual growth."

However, I'll freely accept that psychedelics can give illicit spiritual experiences, much like any spiritual practices. Sometimes we mistake non-spiritual experiences for spiritual ones. That is certainly not limited to entheogens.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think God is to be found or known through the consumption and use of powerful narcotics.

Well, calling them a narcotic is certainly poisoning the well.

As part of my spiritual practice with psychedelics, I "sat up" multiple times with members of the Native American Church. The NAC is an indigenous religion that uses peyote as its sacrament. It combines Native and Christian beliefs. "Sitting up" is the verb used to describe being a part of the tipi ceremony that focuses on the use of peyote. The NAC refers to peyote as "medicine" (there ya go! medicinal purposes!) and would be quite offended with it being called a narcotic. The NAC can legally possess and use peyote for these purposes, so my involvement with them was perfectly legal. The ceremony lasts all night, beginning Saturday evening and ending Sunday morning.

If one is having a difficult time during the ceremony, mentally or physically, one is often offered more medicine (peyote). It is viewed as a holy sacrament that can only help. It is given to children during the ceremony as well. During one of my times, I vomited. Colloquially we would say I "got sick." The NAC instead says that I "got well" because the medicine helped me purge something negative. When this happened, the Roadman (the priest in charge of the ceremony) brought the water drum and gourd rattle over to me, offered some sage to the fire, gave me another button to consume, and then sang a peyote song of healing. While technically I was having a "bad" experience (it was not enjoyable on the surface), the overall experience was positive and spiritual.

I think denying the spirituality of entheogens is denying the spiritual experiences of hundreds of thousands of people, and those are just the ones who are living. That's a broad brush to paint with.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have no doubt that such "trips" are powerful.  

But I don't believe they are spiritual.  They are not the means whereby we can come to know and commune with God.  They are counterfeits of the real thing.

I understand why you say this coming from your point-of-view and experiences. I disagree coming from my experiences of them and how they ultimately led me to Christ. They were a very important stepping stone on my journey to God. Just because I don't use or need them now does not mean I deny the reality of the impact on my spiritual life.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I see the Restored Gospel, and the spiritual experiences found within it, as the real deal, and drug-induced "mystical psychedelic" trips as counterfeit "spiritual experiences" sought by those who have already known the "real deal" and want to have them again, but on their own terms.  By "their own righteousness, hav{ing} not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

I know the article (and this thread) are about ex-LDS using them, rather than non-LDS, but I want to address the bold. The spiritual use of psychedelics is rarely on your own terms, meaning that the entheogen will do what it will do to you. You have to let go of your desires, notions, and need for control. If you don't, the psychedelics often show you how much your ego wants to be in control, how much you want things on your own terms.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Over the next decade, Peter strayed far from Mormonism, continuing to use psychedelics on a periodic basis. Eventually, he found his way back to the church. His psychedelic experiences helped him feel more empathy with his faith tradition, and have deepened his beliefs.

“When I took psilocybin, all of reality was imbued with a sense of the sacred,” Peter said. “I’d learned the language of the sacred in a beautiful, powerful way in my tradition growing up, so there was no dissonance for me.”

Yeesh. 

Can you elaborate on the "Yeesh"? Here is someone who claims that the use of psychedelics brought him back to the LDS church? Are you not happy that he is LDS again?

Also, it makes me wonder if you are reading my story about how psychedelics were part of my eventual path to God and also condescendingly saying "Yeesh."

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, an article seemingly celebrating and advocating for the unsupervised, non-medicinal, recreational use of powerful mind-altering drugs is not the best idea.

I'll just repeat that your list of "unsupervised, non-medicinal, and recreational" does not describe the spiritual use of psychedelics.

 

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

My reference to a sandy foundation pertained to the illicit and unsupervised use of powerful drugs.

Then my experiences with the Native American Church were not a sandy foundation, since they were neither illicit nor unsupervised  

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

.......................................

Again, an article seemingly celebrating and advocating for the unsupervised, non-medicinal, recreational use of powerful mind-altering drugs is not the best idea.

I'm glad I read this article.  I think it helped me better understand where these folks are coming from.  But it's also saddening because it also illuminates where they are going.  I'm reminded here of Matthew 7:

I find the notion of resorting to powerful drugs in order to have "spiritual" experiences to be incorrect.  Powerful experiences, spiritual or drug-induced, will not create a path back to God.  "He that doeth the will of my Father..."

Turning away from the "real deal," the Restored Gospel, and instead embracing powerful mind-altering drugs to achieve spiritual and personal enlightenment is, I think, the epitome of building a house on a sandy foundation.  It won't last.  And it won't be sanctified or ratified or protected by the Lord.  Its fall will indeed be "great."........................

Back in the 60s Dr Timothy Leary and Dr Richard Alpert (both of Harvard) were asked to conduct an experimental rehab program at the Massachusetts State Prison.  Under the supervision of the Prison psychiatrist, they legally used LSD on select prisoners -- and just to make the program more effective, took the LSD themselves, with the prisoners.  They did manage to create a good rehab program, but got themselves fired from Harvard in the process.  Both welcomed that severance and both began very different journeys:  Alpert went to India and obtained a guru, while Leary tuned in and dropped out of normal society.  Both became very influential at about the same time that Carlos Castaneda obtained his PhD in anthropology at UCLA writing about using magic mushrooms, peyote buttons, etc., in a religious quest which took him deeply into ancient nagualism.

Whatever else Urquhart is doing, he is certainly very wise to craft his new church in such a way as to take advantage of U.S. tax law as well as the U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing some religious people to use psychedelics -- legally.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  My point is that I don't think Heavenly Father wants us to use drugs to attempt to commune with him.

Again, I don't think God wants us to use illicit and non-medically-supervised use of powerful mind-altering drugs when trying to commune with Him.

I also don't think God will ratify or respond to such efforts.  Like He did not ratify or approve of the Tower of Babel..........................

You may recall that Jesus was accused of being a winebibber, and that Holy Communion has traditionally included wine -- which is a powerful drug.

The Jewish qiddush is done with wine, and Jews are urged to get so drunk at Purim that they can't tell the difference between Haman and Mordechai.

[MiserereNobis]

Here's is an interesting book about the intersection of psychedelics and Buddhism in America. It is comprised of short articles and interviews. One of the major questions it deals with is how the leaders of American Zen, generally speaking, became interested because of their use of psychedelics in the 60s and 70s. There are interviews with many of them, and it is interesting how they reconcile their beginnings with psychedelics and their teachings now that one should not begin with psychedelics. It's been years since I've read it, and I no longer have my copy, but someone might find it interesting.

Zig Zag Zen

https://www.amazon.com/Zig-Zag-Zen-Buddhism-Psychedelics/dp/090779162X

 

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I had a bad reaction on a very low dose of ketamine

Well, that's scary.

I "suffer" from attention deficit disorder (though not hyperactivity), and the one time I got a doctor to prescribe a drug to see if it would improve my ability to stay focused, it worked, but the the side effects were undesirable. So I said nevermind and quit. But it taught me what it feels to be focused, and I was afterwards able to reproduce the effect in me to a certain extent.

But recently I've wondered if I should try again, since I am having a harder time focussing (age maybe?). And ketamine seemed like a possibility, since I had read how it had helped others with ADD. Hearing about your bad reaction, however, makes me think I might better just leave be.  

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  Where's your evidence?  And your hypothesis suffers from the same problems as I note below: It would be hard enough to get two people to take the exact same trip at the exact same time, yet you hypothesize (sans evidence?) that even more people took the exact same trip at the exact same time?

Somehow, you think that the review in Interpreter denotes approval of the use of such things, or of the idea that Joseph Smith approved the use of such things?  Ummm ... oooh-kay.    In any event, one huge problem with the hypothesis presented by the article under review is that it fails to account adequately for shared mystical experience: Even if we grant, generously, for the sake of the hypothesis, that two people each ingested the exact same quantity of the exact same substance from the exact same source (all of those are huge stretches, in case you're wondering), rarely, if ever, do people go on the exact same "trip"  at the exact same time.  Yet that's what would have had to happen in order for the theory to account for mystical experiences shared among, inter alia, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, or Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

I said IMO, also, why haven't we had the type of visions so many members had since Joseph Smith and him telling members that they'll get visions and spiritual experiences. But definitely agree that the jury is still out.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Nope. I am saying your OP lacks charity and explicitly said I believe you don't.

Could you share exactly what in Smac's post you feel is uncharitable, because I'm not sure what you are referring to?

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I said IMO, also, why haven't we had the type of visions so many members had since Joseph Smith and him telling members that they'll get visions and spiritual experiences. But definitely agree that the jury is still out.

How do you know we haven't? 😉 Just because it isn't talked about doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Joseph's visions were generally dealing with special circumstances involving doctrine and church governance, and even he didn't reveal everything he might have received. One might go through all that has been written of Joseph's visions and discover that the actual number publicly reported isn't all that high. Based on some things he said at certain times, however, it seems that he received a lot of special communications from God that he never recorded -- probably because they were his personal revelations, for him alone, and not to be repeated to others. 

And so, just as with Joseph it must be similar with the rest of us. In the Book of Mormon, Nephi admonished his brothers to seek confirmation of the Lord concerning their father's visions. Their response was to say that "God doesn't tell us anything." <-- not literally what they said, but that's what it amounted to. And I would say that too many members of the church seem to take that as applicable to their own selves. "God don't talk to me!" Of course He doesn't. Because they aren't talking to him, perhaps, or there's no need. How many of us need visions, after all. But does one need guidance from time to time? Of course. If one is faithful in keeping the commandments and has questions of some importance, then why not take them to the Lord? James 1:5 -> "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

If ordinary members do receive great spiritual blessings, such as visions, and I believe some do, they would not publicize them. And you and I would not know of them. This is because unless they are at the pinnacle of authority in the church, publicizing them might tend to undermine the authority of the Lord's anointed in the eyes of others. 

There's a scripture from Alma which explains this (Alma 12:9,10):

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

That "strict command" applies not only to visions but also to other similar experiences. So those who have received special experiences are very selective whom they tell, and how much to tell. I realize that lack of hearing about these things might lead one to think that they don't happen. But I am sure that they do. In "No More Strangers", a book that contains the conversion stories of a number of people, there was one man who was a minister in a Protestant denomination. In his journey of gaining a testimony of the Church he had a dream in which he found himself confronting a man reading a copy of the Book of Mormon, but in such a way that his face was not visible. In the dream, the man said something to the effect that the book he was reading was the most ridiculous thing he had ever read. Annoyed the that man did not lower the book so he could see his face, he said to him "I know that the book is true! And this is why..." Whereupon he spoke a sentence that he later called the Golden Sentence, if I remember correctly. And then the man in his dream lowered the book and looked at him: it was himself! And then he woke up. He recognized that the Golden Sentence was a very powerful witness in and of itself, of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Subsequently he began telling it to many people, but he hadn't understood that it was to be kept close, and not bandied about at every opportunity. The Spirit was apparently displeased at the misuse, and the Sentence was taken from him; he could no longer remember it. Once he understood and repented, the Sentence was given back to him, and he made sure that he never used it except when the Spirit prompted him to do so.

There have been instances in my life when I longed to tell someone of certain experiences of mine that I thought would help them, but have been restrained by the Spirit from doing so.

Not long after I was baptized I decided that I wanted a vision. I was 15 and didn't understand things very well -- what exactly did I want the Lord to tell me? No idea! I was very certain in my testimony, though, and fully expected an answer. So I asked. And got told that I didn't have enough faith yet. So, no vision. Not then and not later, either. But there's been no reason for me to have one, either. A few years later I had a patriarchal blessing, however, and that sufficed as a general guide -- plus there are plenty of visions and revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. My favorite has always been the one called The Vision, which is Section 76.

[Rain]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Given the experience, I think it is wise for you to be cautious.   Too often this stuff is presented as overcoming negative feelings when what it does is for many apparently is intensify what one is currently feeling.  

Sounds like an insulin reaction.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

How do you know we haven't? 😉 Just because it isn't talked about doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Joseph's visions were generally dealing with special circumstances involving doctrine and church governance, and even he didn't reveal everything he might have received. One might go through all that has been written of Joseph's visions and discover that the actual number publicly reported isn't all that high. Based on some things he said at certain times, however, it seems that he received a lot of special communications from God that he never recorded -- probably because they were his personal revelations, for him alone, and not to be repeated to others. 

And so, just as with Joseph it must be similar with the rest of us. In the Book of Mormon, Nephi admonished his brothers to seek confirmation of the Lord concerning their father's visions. Their response was to say that "God doesn't tell us anything." <-- not literally what they said, but that's what it amounted to. And I would say that too many members of the church seem to take that as applicable to their own selves. "God don't talk to me!" Of course He doesn't. Because they aren't talking to him, perhaps, or there's no need. How many of us need visions, after all. But does one need guidance from time to time? Of course. If one is faithful in keeping the commandments and has questions of some importance, then why not take them to the Lord? James 1:5 -> "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

If ordinary members do receive great spiritual blessings, such as visions, and I believe some do, they would not publicize them. And you and I would not know of them. This is because unless they are at the pinnacle of authority in the church, publicizing them might tend to undermine the authority of the Lord's anointed in the eyes of others. 

There's a scripture from Alma which explains this (Alma 12:9,10):

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

That "strict command" applies not only to visions but also to other similar experiences. So those who have received special experiences are very selective whom they tell, and how much to tell. I realize that lack of hearing about these things might lead one to think that they don't happen. But I am sure that they do. In "No More Strangers", a book that contains the conversion stories of a number of people, there was one man who was a minister in a Protestant denomination. In his journey of gaining a testimony of the Church he had a dream in which he found himself confronting a man reading a copy of the Book of Mormon, but in such a way that his face was not visible. In the dream, the man said something to the effect that the book he was reading was the most ridiculous thing he had ever read. Annoyed the that man did not lower the book so he could see his face, he said to him "I know that the book is true! And this is why..." Whereupon he spoke a sentence that he later called the Golden Sentence, if I remember correctly. And then the man in his dream lowered the book and looked at him: it was himself! And then he woke up. He recognized that the Golden Sentence was a very powerful witness in and of itself, of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Subsequently he began telling it to many people, but he hadn't understood that it was to be kept close, and not bandied about at every opportunity. The Spirit was apparently displeased at the misuse, and the Sentence was taken from him; he could no longer remember it. Once he understood and repented, the Sentence was given back to him, and he made sure that he never used it except when the Spirit prompted him to do so.

There have been instances in my life when I longed to tell someone of certain experiences of mine that I thought would help them, but have been restrained by the Spirit from doing so.

Not long after I was baptized I decided that I wanted a vision. I was 15 and didn't understand things very well -- what exactly did I want the Lord to tell me? No idea! I was very certain in my testimony, though, and fully expected an answer. So I asked. And got told that I didn't have enough faith yet. So, no vision. Not then and not later, either. But there's been no reason for me to have one, either. A few years later I had a patriarchal blessing, however, and that sufficed as a general guide -- plus there are plenty of visions and revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. My favorite has always been the one called The Vision, which is Section 76.

Thanks for your thoughts I will take them into account.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But these mushrooms are not man-made. They are made by God  

Why do you only list negative ways of replacing LDS community? You seem to imply that those who leave the LDS church immerse themselves in shallowness.

Just because something is dangerous does not mean it is bad or should not be attempted. In fact, some of the most important "journeys" we can take in our lives are dangerous, metaphorically and/or literally. I'm reminded of the description of Aslan, the stand-in for Jesus, in the Chronicles of Narnia: He is not safe.

I also question your list of intended purposes of "drugs" in this specific context. Someone who is using psychedelics for spiritual purposes is NOT taking them for euphoria and calm and to deaden pain and pressure. In fact, anyone serious about this knows that coming face-to-face with something terrifying is a very real probability, and if the psychedelics are being used regularly as part of a spiritual practice you absolutely will have a so-called "bad" trip. I say "so-called" because if one is partaking of entheogens for spiritual reasons, the difficult experiences are sometimes more "useful" than the easy ones, just like the Dark Night of the Soul can be more "illuminating" of God and one's relationship to Him than the easy times.

Since the topic is people using psychedelics for spiritual purposes, I think you'll need to focus in on psychedelics and spiritual purposes, and leave out the other drugs and reasons for use. We're talking about a very small slice of people here as compared to the totality of those who use drugs and alcohol. Generalizing the latter to the former is incorrect.

Finally, to your first statement. Someone who is serious about spiritual use of psychedelics is not using them recreationally. They are not (or should not, until they have enough experience) be using them unsupervised. In the article, it explicitly states that David had an experienced psychedelic guide. And in this context, referring to western medicine doesn't work. That would be like going to the lab and having a doctor watch you while you fast, pray, and read the Book of Mormon. Doesn't make sense.

This is a bit of implied circular reasoning. Psychedelics are not useful for finding communion with God because God does not use psychedelics that way.

There are many indigenous cultures that would vehemently disagree with you on this statement. I also disagree with you. The spiritual use of psychedelics was a major part of my spiritual journey, which culminated in my conversation to Catholicism. It has been many years since I have partaken of psychedelics, but they were instrumental in opening me to divinity. I believe firmly that God was working through them to get to me. My experiences of union with Him with the use entheogens has parallels in my experience of union with Him while on extended Benedictine monastic retreats.

I'm pretty sure this is a typo in the article. If the word were actually "elicit" instead of "illicit," it would make much more sense in the sentence and especially in the context of the quote that follows it. Notice the parallel: "potential to elicit spiritual experiences" with "potential for spiritual growth."

However, I'll freely accept that psychedelics can give illicit spiritual experiences, much like any spiritual practices. Sometimes we mistake non-spiritual experiences for spiritual ones. That is certainly not limited to entheogens.

Well, calling them a narcotic is certainly poisoning the well.

As part of my spiritual practice with psychedelics, I "sat up" multiple times with members of the Native American Church. The NAC is an indigenous religion that uses peyote as its sacrament. It combines Native and Christian beliefs. "Sitting up" is the verb used to describe being a part of the tipi ceremony that focuses on the use of peyote. The NAC refers to peyote as "medicine" (there ya go! medicinal purposes!) and would be quite offended with it being called a narcotic. The NAC can legally possess and use peyote for these purposes, so my involvement with them was perfectly legal. The ceremony lasts all night, beginning Saturday evening and ending Sunday morning.

If one is having a difficult time during the ceremony, mentally or physically, one is often offered more medicine (peyote). It is viewed as a holy sacrament that can only help. It is given to children during the ceremony as well. During one of my times, I vomited. Colloquially we would say I "got sick." The NAC instead says that I "got well" because the medicine helped me purge something negative. When this happened, the Roadman (the priest in charge of the ceremony) brought the water drum and gourd rattle over to me, offered some sage to the fire, gave me another button to consume, and then sang a peyote song of healing. While technically I was having a "bad" experience (it was not enjoyable on the surface), the overall experience was positive and spiritual.

I think denying the spirituality of entheogens is denying the spiritual experiences of hundreds of thousands of people, and those are just the ones who are living. That's a broad brush to paint with.

I understand why you say this coming from your point-of-view and experiences. I disagree coming from my experiences of them and how they ultimately led me to Christ. They were a very important stepping stone on my journey to God. Just because I don't use or need them now does not mean I deny the reality of the impact on my spiritual life.

I know the article (and this thread) are about ex-LDS using them, rather than non-LDS, but I want to address the bold. The spiritual use of psychedelics is rarely on your own terms, meaning that the entheogen will do what it will do to you. You have to let go of your desires, notions, and need for control. If you don't, the psychedelics often show you how much your ego wants to be in control, how much you want things on your own terms.

Can you elaborate on the "Yeesh"? Here is someone who claims that the use of psychedelics brought him back to the LDS church? Are you not happy that he is LDS again?

Also, it makes me wonder if you are reading my story about how psychedelics were part of my eventual path to God and also condescendingly saying "Yeesh."

I'll just repeat that your list of "unsupervised, non-medicinal, and recreational" does not describe the spiritual use of psychedelics.

 

I really appreciate your candid remarks on this subject.  I have taken mushrooms twice in my life.  I count both of those nights as being one of the greatest experiences I have had in life.  I didn't do it to become closer to God.  I already felt close to Him.  I did it because I wanted to experience something that can only be done with psychedelics.  It was a life changing experience for me.  These drugs touch on things that are within us that can not be reached any other way.  I did do it both times under supervision of someone who was well acquainted with mushrooms and he was very careful to not take any while I was under his supervision.   Yes there are very safe ways a person can experience what psychedelics have to offer.

I don't think any of this had to do with formerly being a member of the church except maybe this.  The Church has set up endless irrelevant  expectations and restrictions on things that actually don't matter at all and are not at all related to whether a person is sinful or righteous.  It does take a very "treat everyone like a child" position as in we know better than you so do what I say because we speak for God.  When someone leaves the Church, they start making decision on what they actually believe is and isn't important to God and for themselves.  Members of the Church often demonize someone who has left the church and does anything that is a departure of the strict made up rules of whatever church that person has left. Just like trying mushrooms for the first time.  It is more about experiencing things for ourselves and finding out what does bring us closer to God rather than being told.  

The OP is trying to discount the words of people who have actually experienced something that has changed their lives when in fact, he has never experienced what he himself is trying to discount.  These types of arguments are common fodder in the Church.  For far too long church and also government has made up evils and grouped together ALL drugs that were most often made illegal more through ignorance than truth into one black vat of horror and sin.  That is not how this works.  

Edited February 27, 2021 by california boy

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why do you only list negative ways of replacing LDS community? You seem to imply that those who leave the LDS church immerse themselves in shallowness.

Thank you! I don’t understand why members assume that those who leave become less spiritual and can’t wait to start breaking a few commandments. 

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

... I am having a harder time focussing ...

Do you cuss when you can't focuss?

Sorry.

Couldn't resist!

Carry on!

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jews are urged to get so drunk at Purim that they can't tell the difference between Haman and Mordechai.

Why?

[mrmarklin]

It’s obvious in this thread that none of you have any real experience with drugs and the drug culture. 
 

Trust me as someone who does have experience. You don’t want to be around illegal drugs either as a user or being with people that are. No good ever comes of it, despite supposed benefits touted in the popular culture and press. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, that's scary.

I "suffer" from attention deficit disorder (though not hyperactivity), and the one time I got a doctor to prescribe a drug to see if it would improve my ability to stay focused, it worked, but the the side effects were undesirable. So I said nevermind and quit. But it taught me what it feels to be focused, and I was afterwards able to reproduce the effect in me to a certain extent.

But recently I've wondered if I should try again, since I am having a harder time focussing (age maybe?). And ketamine seemed like a possibility, since I had read how it had helped others with ADD. Hearing about your bad reaction, however, makes me think I might better just leave be.  

Don’t give it up because of my experience. I would suggest instead to talk to someone who has gone through the process so they can tell you how to prepare so as to have a higher probability of a positive experience and go with a doctor who will talk to you afterwards about it. That is my biggest disappointment with my current psychiatrist. They are purely drug providers and don’t offer talk therapy along side it. Which seems to be very common these days. That works when dealing with antidepressants just fine, but for what is intended with ketamine, the research showing benefits were often done with in conjunction with talk therapy as one is coming out of it. 

The lack of it is why I can understand why someone might seek out a communal experience such as MN described.

Their clinic has about 4 recliners in the room and they supervise closely the experience (I remember her breaking through many times reassuring me where I was, what was happening to me during the bad trip), but they don’t do any ‘debriefing’. I think if I had been able to talk to someone about what was happening to me as I came down, the aftereffect wouldn’t have been so hard on me.  Instead I was left to process it all on my own, though they are the nicest people and were very concerned.  If the room was separate, I would have my daughter, who has also had the experience a few times, talk to me and record it so I could at least do more exploration on my own.

Her experiences, btw, she thinks we’re all helpful, but her thyroid went major wonky at the time and at $250 a treatment as it wasn’t covered by insurance, she felt it wasn’t right to continue.  We decided we would try cannabis before going back and I think we will both be eventually trying it again, her with eagerness, me with trembling anticipation. 

As it was, even though I was hiding under the covers at home for a few days, I actually felt much better depression wise and that lasted for quite sometime. It was weird, feeling joyful and panic stricken at the same time. Covid came before I could face it again, but now I know I get nausea and a hangover headache with the cannabis high, I think it most likely I will try again after I get vaccinated and things have settled into a safer feeling lost Covid. I need so badly to get past the apathy of depression which is likely my main problem now.  I have finally found enough things that help, if I can just keep at them long enough, maybe when the inevitable derailment comes, it won’t send me back to square one again as it always has in the past (which doesn’t help when apathetic as “why bother trying” is a hard obstacle to get past on its own).  

I also need to find a way to have joy again so I stop feeling like life is a duty to get through and the only sense of purpose experience is where I am making it easier for others.

My psychiatrist has told me when I do it again, she will give it to me in steps rather than all at once so as if it is negative again, it won’t be so overwhelming.  Ketamine makes me somewhat dizzy afterwards, but during the experience there is no sense of sickness. I am aware of my body if I want to be, where with cannabis I never got to that point consistently (it was a cycle of feeling I had to freeze so as not to trigger the sickness, then having to move to relieve painful muscle tension, then feeling that subside and feeling relief, this part isn’t bad, then I would lose sense of time, then suddenly be back at the oh so sick stage. I was worrying that if something went really wrong, I would be unable to cry out and was panicked at times that I might be forever locked in the cycle though I retained enough awareness I was able to talk to myself that time was passing and it would end. With cannabis, I used edibles and so it came on me over an hour’s time, which didn’t help I think because it gave me too much time to be fearful of losing control. After hearing what MN said about being given more peyote after throwing up, I wonder what might have happened if I had taken more than I did...but given the hangover effect, thinking it is better not to try it as I have Meniere’s now as well and it triggered an episode, which is three rough days and then a couple of weeks where I can stand up for fifteen minutes before getting a sick headache. 
 

But I am going to try ketamine again, just under different circumstances. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why?

Part of it is the fact that children listening to the reading of the book of Esther have noise-makers which they use to drown out the name of Haman whenever they hear it, and part of it may be that it is an all out celebration of the salvation of the Jews from certain death, which suggests a party atmosphere.  However, I have never seen an Israeli Jew actually get drunk at any time, not just at Purim.  American Jews are another matter:  I have seen some of them get drunk just for the fun of it, whenever the opportunity presented itself.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

It’s obvious in this thread that none of you have any real experience with drugs and the drug culture. 
 

Trust me as someone who does have experience. You don’t want to be around illegal drugs either as a user or being with people that are. No good ever comes of it, despite supposed benefits touted in the popular culture and press. 

There are too many on the board who have shared their personal horror stories of children carrying the burden of addiction.  
 

I have a niece who has addiction issues and pretty much tanked her life and while she, for a time, was able to get her life back on track, is again suffering.  We don’t even know where she is much of the time. Others she is locked up in a hospital. 

Illicit drugs and recreational use is obviously very different from medical and controlled, supervised, occasional usage, which is what is being discussed here.  I have and have had a couple of neighbours, now having to live with their parents for support (three different families out of 20 overall on our street; one is a vet, the others got involved in drugs as teens and young adults and now are in their 30s and 40s, living in a basement and a trailer parked in the driveway, one with a child of their own they can’t care for), whose lives are so much less than what they once had and likely will never get back (I would be shocked if there wasn’t brain damage in their cases).  I may not have seen it up close, but I have seen the afterwards enough to be very, very grateful that even with all my daughter’s burdens, addiction isn’t one of them and likely won’t be given her attitude. 
 

I have also experienced significant apathy with the medical cannabis, which is different than the apathy connected to my depression. Much nicer and seductive. Great way to lose weight since I couldn’t be bothered to get up and eat..or take a shower or talk to my family. It makes me very concerned with habitual users who are not being supervised so as to get feedback on whether something is actually helping or just distracting.

Having said that, the majority of people who use drugs do not become addicts.  And it is the legal ones, alcohol and tobacco, that create the most addicts.

And finally as someone who is also on another controlled substance for my sleep/movement disorder I am tired of being looked at as a loser drug addict by many who are not aware of my history, including doctors.  I even have to take drug tests to make sure I am taking it and not selling. It is the only drug that proves any lasting relief, it remarkably has minor side effects for me, I have been taking the same dose for 15 years and never been tempted to raise it, even often forget to take it), I get really ticked off at the often encountered assumption that all narcotic and psychedelic drug use leads to addiction, is for those seeking escape from reality, too lazy or weak willed to man up and work through the pain.  I would like to see them functioning after three days with no sleep or a week of half an hour naps a couple of times a day if they are lucky. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Calm

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Having said that, the majority of people who use drugs do not become addicts.  And it is the legal ones, alcohol and tobacco, that create the most addicts.

You said, "it is the legal ones, alcohol and tobacco, that create the most addicts." I agree with you, I've probably picked up 40 or 50 guys that I've hired  from bus stops or their parents house because they've had their licenses revoked because of alcohol. They lose their license and have a terrible time trying to get it back. So they're stuck relying on public transportation or friends to move them around place to place which just makes them more depressed and in turn more likely to start drinking again. When I was young I didn't think alcoholism was a disease, I thought it was a matter of will and people were weak. Nope! It's a disease, some people cannot help themselves. 

     I think all drugs should be researched and if beneficial medically, used to there full potential. But, for the life of me I dont understand this trend of wanting to legalize pot. We have spent years and billions of dollars trying to convince kids that tobacco is bad for your health, which it is, but now people want to legalize another plant you inhale unfiltered and supposedly can reap all kinds of benefits, bullcrap.  Like I said, medically, perfectly fine with it.

      I have seen more felons have their probation revoked because their drug test comes back positive for cannabis then any other drug, legal or illegal. It's sad to watch really, totally tears families apart. I've made dozens of personal loans to employees knowing full well that I will never get paid back. They'll want $2 or $300 to pay a phone bill or electric bill. Now I take the time to call the company they owe money to and pay them directly, but 95% of the time I'll still never get paid back. Drugs if used in excess has the potential to tear a family apart trying to deal with the problems of the family drug user. 

      I'm all for legalizing as much as possible in America, but drugs I dont know. Legalizing drugs like pot and possibly heroin, which will be next after pot, has the potential to be just as damaging as alcohol. 

     I like the way you use cannabis. If its beneficial, that's the way it should be used.

 

Ps. But, then again, alot of things can be detrimental to individuals and families if someone goes totally overboard, including religion. 

[Meadowchik]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

This KUER article has given me something to ponder: Why Are A Growing Number of Ex-Mormons Using Psychedelics?

Psychedelic mushrooms and marijuana.  Seems like these are something like a new iteration of the "Tower of Babel."  Consider this description in the 2018 Ensign:

Mind-altering substances seem to be like the tower.  An attempt to find something of the divine, to "reach unto heaven" and man-made.  A "counterfeit."  Using materials and means other than what God has authorized.  An attempt to "bind or seal the people together somehow so they would not be scattered, and 'make {them} a name' rather than take the Lord’s name upon them," but "without authority from God and without regard to His commandments."  An attempt to supplant what they found in the Restored Gospel with an artifice of their own making, and one that that will, in the end, necessarily fail.

Back to the first article:

Well, Romans 10 comes to mind:

I think Urquhart is attempting to replace Jesus Christ, as discerned and accepted through the Spirit, with magic mushrooms and dope.  

We are, I think, inherently "tribal."  We want to be a part of a community.  The Latter-day Saint "community" is not in full flower, not yet a full realization of the "Zion" the Lord wants it to be.  But we have made some significant progress.  There is a real feeling of unity and common purpose that can arise through regular worship together, serving together, serving each other, serving those outside our community, and so on .  We seek and find communion with God through common prayer, scripture study, sacred ordinances, temple work, family history, missionary work, fulfilling callings, etc.  These efforts, in my experience, bring the Spirit into our lives, and create cohesion and strength, and a willigness to continue and endure, to strengthen ourselves and others, to build up our community even more.  Using the ways and means the Lord has given us.  And eventually, over time and generations, I believe we will get to where we need to be.  "But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."  (Proverbs 4:18.)

For all the grousing and carping I see in online commentary about the Church and its members, there seems to be a real sense of loss felt by those who leave (as the above article seems to explore).  The loss of sense of community is real.  And per this article that loss is about much more than just ward activities, or helping someone move, or dropping off cookies of zucchini on someone's doorstep.  The spiritual experiences found by being in the community are, I think, also real.  And those experiences are lost when our brothers and sisters leave our community.  Some seem okay with that, and become satisfied with being entertained by the contrivances and technologies that our modern society has to allow us to pass the time: music, movies, TV, YouTube, social media (now streaming 24/7).  Food.  Pornography or other forms of sexual exploration/experimentation.   However, it looks like others want to re-create the "community" they have left, but on their own terms.  So some sort of community seems to be coalescing, but one that is but a pale imitation of the real thing.  Facebook instead of church buildings.  Meeting together to "partake" of a profane perversion of the Sacrament, magic mushrooms and marijuana, in order to experience a counterfeit of the Spirit.

"{S}eekers who find in psychedelics access to healing, personal discovery and even mystical, spiritual states of consciousness that harken back to their Mormon tradition" sounds a lot like "Zeal ... but not according to knowledge."  "Going about to establish their own righteousness, hav{ing} not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

I can appreciate, to some extent, the sense of "chaf{ing}" here.  But I generally attribute that more to the "natural man" in me "chafing" against what the Lord wants me to do.  There is also "chafing" in functioning as a member of the Latter-day Saint community.  But that can be said for every community.  Our community has higher-than-average amounts of expectations and requirements, some of which are good (weekly attendance at church, temple attendance, fulfilling callings, paying tithes, service to others, Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, etc.), and some that are incidental and unfortunate and unintended side effects (keeping up with the joneses, pride, mistreatment or neglect of "others," etc.).  So we have some work still to do.

And yet for all the drawbacks of joining a community, for all the risks of "chafing" against community rules and expectations, most of us gravitate toward community anyway.

Well, unsupervised, non-medicinal, recreational use of mind-altering substances is dangerous.

I'm not sure what is meant by "useless."  People use drugs precisely because they are not "useless."  They often work for their intended purposes: feelings of euphoria and calm.  Deadening pain and pressures felt in everyday life.  The uses of these substances are many and varied.

Is the implication here that psychedelics are useful?  With the "use" being finding communion with God?  Like the Tower of Babel?

"All the drugs are extremely powerful."

Yeah.  So perhaps an article seemingly celebrating and advocating for the unsupervised, non-medicinal, recreational use these powerful, mind-altering drugs is not the best idea.

I am open to the careful and supervised/regulated use of medicines to help people facing mental illness and other challenges.

But Mr. Urquhart apparently isn't thinking about using mind-altering substances for medical purposes, but for spiritual ones.  Read on:

"Illicit spiritual experiences."

Sounds a lot like the Tower of Babel.

"Going about to establish their own righteousness, hav{ing} not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

"Zeal ... but not according to knowledge."  

"Reclaiming authority" is an interesting phrase.  And it's fairly accurate.  From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism's article about "altars": "Today members of the Church make sacred covenants with God and consecrate their lives and all that they have been blessed with as they 'come unto Christ' and lay all things symbolically upon the altar as a sacrifice. To them a sacred altar is a tangible symbol of the presence of God, before whom they kneel with 'a broken heart and contrite spirit' (2 Ne. 2:7; 3 Ne. 11:20)."  I think the whole "put{ting} off the natural man" thing is an exercise in choosing to submit, through obedience, to the will of God.  In a sense, we consecrate our agency, our ability to choose, by covenanting with God to obey Him.  We promise to use our agency in the ways the Lord wants us to, and in so doing we become more like Him, and we accrue blessings to ourselves and others.

"Reclaiming authority," then, seems to be akin to taking all that back.  Reneging or turning from our promises to use our agency in accordance with the Lord's will, and then proceeding to make decisions irrespective of the commandments of God.  Check it out:

Indeed it is.  But then, it always was.

"Going about to establish their own righteousness, hav{ing} not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

Well, I rather doubt that.

I don't think God is to be found or known through the consumption and use of powerful narcotics.  Just as He was not to be found or known by building a tower to reach heaven.

I have no doubt that such "trips" are powerful.  

But I don't believe they are spiritual.  They are not the means whereby we can come to know and commune with God.  They are counterfeits of the real thing.

Ironically, for me the verisimilitude of these drug-induced "trips" ends up as something of a witness of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel.  I have had profound experiences through studying the scriptures, prayer, listening to prophets and apostles, serving others, and so on.  None of these experiences involved me introducing powerful mind-altering substances into my body, yet I had powerful experiences anyway.  

I sort of agree with this guide.  I see the Restored Gospel, and the spiritual experiences found within it, as the real deal, and drug-induced "mystical psychedelic" trips as counterfeit "spiritual experiences" sought by those who have already known the "real deal" and want to have them again, but on their own terms.  By "their own righteousness, hav{ing} not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."  By building their own Tower of Babel.

Yeesh. 

Again, an article seemingly celebrating and advocating for the unsupervised, non-medicinal, recreational use of powerful mind-altering drugs is not the best idea.

I'm glad I read this article.  I think it helped me better understand where these folks are coming from.  But it's also saddening because it also illuminates where they are going.  I'm reminded here of Matthew 7:

I find the notion of resorting to powerful drugs in order to have "spiritual" experiences to be incorrect.  Powerful experiences, spiritual or drug-induced, will not create a path back to God.  "He that doeth the will of my Father..."

Turning away from the "real deal," the Restored Gospel, and instead embracing powerful mind-altering drugs to achieve spiritual and personal enlightenment is, I think, the epitome of building a house on a sandy foundation.  It won't last.  And it won't be sanctified or ratified or protected by the Lord.  Its fall will indeed be "great."

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

SMAC is creating out of thin air motives for other people, he's immediately assigning judgment to their actions, and he's framing their choices in terms of how they have distanced from the church and then are necessarily doomed to fail.

One could similarly say that Mormonism is merely a pale imitation of Catholicism, people chafing at the demands of it and trying to replace their belief in a Christ of the Trinity with a false Christ of the Godhead, and that LDS folks are doomed to fail because of this sandy foundation. The OP content offers very little self-awareness about the collective dissonance of sincerely-believed dogmas in general, nor about the mind-altering nature of religion and ritual, of which Mormonism is not immune. 

Mormonism was derivative of other religions and surely had its share of problems, but it is still here having carved out its own identity. This could be a product of it being the Restored Gospel, or it could be just another manmade system among many. Being aware of the latter as a reasonable possibility is rational and kind. I think such awareness and humility about our own respective beliefs is vital to living together in this world, and therefore vital to being able to live to freely attempt to live them.