ElZorillo

No it doesn't, and I don't appreciate your making light of my attempt to clarify myself. To me this comment is more than condescending... Vort had contended that since I talked about "using" marijuana, I necessarily meant "smoking marijuana"; and that since I talked about having medication "on board" in the temple I necessarily meant being stoned in the temple. I asked the question (to which you gave the "is is" reply only to confirm that she indeed beleived that those two allegations were necessarily true (i.e. that marijuana could only be smoked and that any amount in one's system would qualify them as being "high". FYI, she subsequently confirmed that she does not believe either of those to be true...

Wow, then according to you lots of members, leaders, and even General Authorities should "stay home" rather than go to the temple--because certainly people attend the temple all of the time with both narcotic pain medication and/or benzodiazepines on board.

Well, thank you so very much for taking the time to understand the concept. I'lll work on the hyperlink and the quotes, but seriously why don't you just Google "cannabinoid receptor sites" and become a bit educated. The quotes will then make a lot more sense...in the meantime please do forgive my lack of etiquette and please know that I do "know what in the heck" I'm "talking about"...

Good, because they are indeed both false. So why do you insist on putting words in my mouth (that I said I was talking about smoking it or that I said I intended to be in the temple high)? Your putting those words in my mouth was what made me think you must believe those two statements to be true...

Well, if none of you ever stated that, then we're all in agreement (on what's really important--that it is indeed possible that marijuana may have medicinal value). I am so glad to have that cleared up and agreed to. On the "false dichotomy"...I'm going to try this logic one last time, but I have serious doubts about the open mindedness of the audience. First concept: it is clear that marijuana is the only known naturally occurring source of THC, and also that THC is known to bind to receptor sites in human anatomy; two known types (at this point) to be exact--the "CB1" receptor, found in the central nervous system, and the "CB2" receptor, found in the immune system. This knowledge is so well established in biopharmacology circles that to reference it in that forum would not even require a footnote, and to request a "source quote" in this forum is tantamount to admitting that one indeed knows next to nothing about the subject. Nevertheless, if someone needs a quote...Google it--there are thousands. Also, on this first point, we do agree that God is omniscient (and, therefore, He knew/knows about this bioactivity in humans--i.e. it was not "unintended" or "unforseen"). The underlying idea here, of course, would be that He indeed knowingly "made marijuana that way". Second concept (closely related to but subtly different from the first, and essential for our natural gas huffing friend): It is also clear that human beings have (at least two) types of receptor sites to which only one naturally occurring compound--THC--binds and has bioactivity (having a receptor site designed to receive the molecule is a bit different than "natural gas binding to oxygen in our blood"). Similarly, the underlying idea would be that God knowingly "made us this way". Again, the same reference to "Biopharmacology 101" should suffice for a source quote; as, again, a request for a source quote on this would demonstrate an extreme degree on "uneducation" (which is, of course, forgiven but duly noted). Third concept: Heavenly Father, knowing that He made the plant "that way" (to have the compound) and us "this way" (to have the receptor sites), has forbidden the recreational use of this substance. As I see it, it follows then that the intended use must be medicinal. If not, then Heavenly Father would have done two things--put the compound in the plant and the receptor sites in His children--that needn't have been done at all (unless you want to contend that He intentionally and knowingly did those two things so that the adversary would have a really good tool to tempt us with--but that would be contrary to His nature as I understand it). Having done (these two things) for no good reason would indeed be the "oversight" to which I first referred in what has been called a "false dichotomy". So, if there is no intended medicinal use (in man) for a compound that Heavenly Father knowingly included in a plant and for which He knowingly gave man receptor sites, then He indeed did those two things for no reason whatsoever (except, perhaps, to tempt us--an illogical assertion already addressed). If it was for no reason, then it was unnecessarily done--which I would consider an imperfection. If it was unforseen/unintentional, then it was an oversight--or at the very least a demonstration of a lack of omniscience. Since God is both perfect and omniscient, the original dichotomy is indeed "true". I wonder if anyone will take half as long to think about this as I did to write it before shooting off a reply--I guess if I have responses in the next half hour, then apparently not.

Thank you for the tidbit...and please forgive my saying that it "didn't work"--I should have said "I can't figure it out." Now perhaps you all can change your "marijuana can't possibly have any medicinal value" by adding "...that I am aware of, but since no prophet has ever stated that I suppose it is possible"...

Making light of a temple recommend interview--nice...

So you believe both that the only way to take marijuana is by smoking it and also that anyone who uses marijuana in any quantity and via any delivery method will be considered to be "high"? That is interesting indeed. What would you say about attending the temple with narcotics or benzodiazepines (physician prescribed) in one's system?

Yeah--probably a good idea at this point if we all just "agree to disagree". I am not saying "God wants me to toke". I am not condoning smoking anything, including marijuana. I do not condone the misuse of any substance, including marijuana, Nyquil, benzodiazepines, opiates, amphetamines, or anything else. I do not condone using marijuana to seek spirituality. Finally, I do not condone going to the temple high. You do, however, seem intent on condemning any use of the psychoactive properties of this plant--even those that might be medicinal in nature--as well as hell-bent on declaring this plant to not possibly have any medicinal value. I wonder if you would say the same about the Opium poppy? (because you would indeed be unquestionably wrong on that one). The simple fact is that no prophet has ever uttered anything that rediculous. What they have said repeatedly is that no substance should be abused, and that those that are "controlled" should only be used under a doctor's supervision and with his or her prescription. I'm going to sign off and just wait for time to prove me right on this one... By the way--to the nitpickers--the "quote" function simply does not function...i.e. I am unable to check the box that says "Quote message in reply?"

Ask your Bishop. See what he thinks. Great idea...I have, and he agrees. But I must say that your use of logic to make a point is truly remarkable...

Well, there is no false dichotomy, but you need to think before you respond. Point #1: Marijuana (like Opium) has chemical compounds that bind to receptor sites (CB1 in the central nervous system, CB2 in the immune system) and are active there. Point #2: Humans are endowed with receptor sites to which only one naturally occurring compound binds, and that compound occurs naturally in cannabis. Point #3: there is an express and good purpose underlying everything Heavenly Father does. Point #4: God does not tempt man, but only allows the adversary to do so. Therefore, His purpose for making a component of marijuana to be active in humans can not have been to tempt us nor to have provided the adversary with a tool with which to tempt us. Since God does not tempt us, and since He has forbidden the recreational use of marijuana, it follows that His intended use by man of that component of marijuana that is active in man must be medicinal in nature. If the fact that THC is psychoactive in man were purely coincidental (and unintentional from God's perspective) then He would have committed the oversight to which I first referred, or at the very least He would be something less than omniscient. Since He is both perfect and omniscient, the dichotomy is not false in the first place. Alas, this discussion is academic in nature until He clarifies this position through a prophet. In the meantime I will ponder it further in the celestial room--and I will be medicated.

Jerome--you missed the part where I said to think it through before shooting off...again!

How about spend a little less time defining words and a little more thinking things through carefully. You might want to ask a couple of LDS physicians--I would recommend an oncologist...or how about a bishop or stake president who is also a medical doctor. I believe you will find plenty throughout California and Michigan who are just fine with the concept of medicinal marijuana. I can give you referrals if you like...

Sorry you guys don't get it. The "oversight" I was referring to would have been that of having included THC--which binds at receptor sites in humans--in marijuana but for no reason. Perhaps if you read my other post--number 32--and take a moment to think before shooting off you'll realize that there must necessarily be good reasons for why THC is in marijuana and for why it binds at receptor sites in humans as it does--for God does nothing without a reason. He put THC in marijuana, and He gave us the receptor sites in our central nervous systems and in our immune systems. Would you patently say that the Opium poppy is "bad" and "couldn't possibly have any medicinal use"--as you appear to be saying about marijuana. You must remember that after God made all things, He called them "good"; and we would be well advised not to call something "bad" that He has called "good".

"False dichotomy. If you're going to attempt to defend drug usage, you would do better to find a logically consistent way of doing so." Not trying to defend drug usage--I'm trying to defend Heavenly Father's reputation for being perfect and omniscient AND for having a purpose for everything He does...