Word of Wisdom and marijuana. Very serious.


TStevieRob

Recommended Posts

I have my reservations with regards to the medical use of cannabis but I know it doesn't stop someone from obtaining a temple recommend as long as they can show a doctor's prescription for it's use.

True. It's just that using it to become closer to God and receive a different level of spirituality isn't quite medicinal, is it? I'm wondering if our "God wants me to toke" member actually shares that aspect with his bishop and stake president?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. It's just that using it to become closer to God and receive a different level of spirituality isn't quite medicinal, is it?

Yes, that's a completely different story and I won't considered that "medical" use of cannabis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask your Bishop. See what he thinks.

Great idea...I have, and he agrees.
Are you expecting us to believe that you went up to your bishop and said "Hey bishop - I believe smoking weed brings me closer to God, so I'm gonna go toke up and head for the temple - you got a problem with that?" and he said something like "No way man, try the michuacan blend - it's heavenly!"

Sorry - I'm not really willing to accept that at face value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to resist doing this. Let that be shown in the record.

Well, there is no false dichotomy, but you need to think before you respond.

That remark was condescending and uncalled for.

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.

Source, please.

Point #2: Humans are endowed with receptor sites to which only one naturally occurring compound binds, and that compound occurs naturally in cannabis.

Source, please. You're asserting a trait in human physiology that would serve absolutely no other purpose than to respond to a chemical compound found in this plant.

Point #3: there is an express and good purpose underlying everything Heavenly Father does.

Granted, with the caveat that we don't always know what that purpose is, and can be mistaken about it.

Point #4: God does not tempt man, but only allows the adversary to do so.

Irrelevant, considering it doesn't guarantee that the temptation in question doesn't, in fact, come from the Adversary.

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.

Your dichotomy is false, because your premises do not enforce only two possible conclusions. By your reasoning, Virtually any vice can be justified. Watch as I use your own logic to justify cheating on my wife:

Point #1: I am sexually compatible with any human female, by the way my body is designed.

Point#2: Despite being married, I am still physically capable of sexual intercourse with any female. This did not change when I married my wife.

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, if I exercise my ability to engage in a pleasurable, sexual encounter with a women other than my wife, then either God intended for me to do this, or it's an oversight on His part.

Now, I'm betting you wouldn't agree with that conclusion, so there must be other possible explanations for this, mustn't there?

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.

You'll be stoned in the Celestial Room, and tell us this because you expect it to impress us. A little part of me just died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying "God wants me to toke". I am not condoning smoking anything, including marijuana...Finally, I do not condone going to the temple high.

These statements are demonstrably false. For the first claims -- that you are 'not saying "God wants me to toke"' and that you are 'not condoning smoking anything, including marijuana', your very first post read:

Therefore it necessarily follows that He [God] intended for us to use it for the (psychoactive) properties He gave it

Very clearly, this is condoning the smoking of pot as a God-given relief. As for your last statement, that you 'do not condone going to the temple high', you seem to be forgetting the post where you declared:

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.

You cannot seriously expect us to believe that this clear statement is somehow not condoning temple attendance while high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These statements are demonstrably false. For the first claims -- that you are 'not saying "God wants me to toke"' and that you are 'not condoning smoking anything, including marijuana', your very first post read:

Very clearly, this is condoning the smoking of pot as a God-given relief. As for your last statement, that you 'do not condone going to the temple high', you seem to be forgetting the post where you declared:

You cannot seriously expect us to believe that this clear statement is somehow not condoning temple attendance while high.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you expecting us to believe that you went up to your bishop and said "Hey bishop - I believe smoking weed brings me closer to God, so I'm gonna go toke up and head for the temple - you got a problem with that?" and he said something like "No way man, try the michuacan blend - it's heavenly!"

Sorry - I'm not really willing to accept that at face value.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?"

That's because you need to select the message to quote first (little check box in the upper right hand corner of a post), the board software isn't capable of figuring what post it is you want to quote, you have to specify it. That's how you do it if you're using the quick reply box. Alternatively one can use the Posted Image button to have it take you to the advanced reply screen with the proper coding in place to quote the post you clicked the above button on. Alternatively one can do the coding manually.

So the quote function does function. Demonstrably so considering all the quotes being done in this thread. That you were unaware of how it works doesn't mean it isn't functioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because you need to select the message to quote first (little check box in the upper right hand corner of a post), the board software isn't capable of figuring what post it is you want to quote, you have to specify it. That's how you do it if you're using the quick reply box. Alternatively one can use the Posted Image button to have it take you to the advanced reply screen with the proper coding in place to quote the post you clicked the above button on. Alternatively one can do the coding manually.

So the quote function does function. Demonstrably so considering all the quotes being done in this thread. That you were unaware of how it works doesn't mean it isn't functioning.

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"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now perhaps you all can change your "marijuana can't possibly have any medicinal value"

I didn't state that. Vort didn't state that. FunkyTown didn't state that. Unixknight didn't state that. Jerome didn't state that. Loudmouth didn't state that. Reviewing the thread I'm not seeing where anyone claimed that, but it is possible I missed it, particularly if it was at the start of the thread. Can I get a quote (now that you know how it works) or a post number reference of who is saying that?

And no, I'm not getting picky about that exact wording appearing in their post. I'm not seeing where anyone claimed that marijuana can't possibly have any medicinal value. I do however see a lot of disagreement surrounding your false dichotomy that it must have a medical use or God made a mistake but that isn't the same thing.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you believe both that the only way to take marijuana is by smoking it

Does eating it in brownies somehow alter the argument?

and also that anyone who uses marijuana in any quantity and via any delivery method will be considered to be "high"?

...isn't that the whole point of the matching neuroreceptors you referenced earlier?

What would you say about attending the temple with narcotics or benzodiazepines (physician prescribed) in one's system?

That they probably should have stayed home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the OP. My feelings reflect the majority here. We have the great blessing of the medical knowledge we have today. I say follow what your doctors say. Especially if they are credible.

This was 33 years ago... but my mom was prescribed a little vodka while she was pregnant ( I almost came out normal :) ) as she had very difficult pregnancies. She was and always has been temple worthy. Although we cringe at that thought now, it was under medical advisement that she drank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"?

No. I think your statements are false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was 33 years ago... but my mom was prescribed a little vodka while she was pregnant ( I almost came out normal :) ) as she had very difficult pregnancies. She was and always has been temple worthy. Although we cringe at that thought now, it was under medical advisement that she drank.

This is not so out there. When I was pregnant (10 months ago) there were a couple women that I networked with that were given the green light to consume wine in moderation (like a glass a night) to relieve tension. There are some studies that claim children from mothers that consumed alcohol in moderation have higher cognitive skills than those that came from mothers that abstained. So statistics such as this, likely calm many in how they view the consumption of alcohol whilst pregnant. I should note, The American Pregnancy Association advises against alcohol consumption while pregnant, and more importantly, it goes against the WOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't state that. Vort didn't state that. FunkyTown didn't state that. Unixknight didn't state that. Jerome didn't state that. Loudmouth didn't state that. Reviewing the thread I'm not seeing where anyone claimed that, but it is possible I missed it, particularly if it was at the start of the thread. Can I get a quote (now that you know how it works) or a post number reference of who is saying that?

And no, I'm not getting picky about that exact wording appearing in their post. I'm not seeing where anyone claimed that marijuana can't possibly have any medicinal value. I do however see a lot of disagreement surrounding your false dichotomy that it must have a medical use or God made a mistake but that isn't the same thing.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I know next to nothing about biopharmacology. I need the anonymous guy on the internet to provide a link to his source. Citing your sources is so well established in forums where people argue with each other that it should not even need to be requested, and to fail to openly provide one is usually tantamount to proof that someone doesn't know what the heck they're talking about, although it can also be due to someone not knowing proper internet ettiquette.

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).

I understand the concept. You are saying we have receptors in our bodies that bind to absolutely nothing besides THC, which only occurs naturally in MJ. You'll just have to note that I continue to be uneducated in the matter, and I restate my request for your source. If you were able to figure out the quote function with help, the hyperlink function isn't much different.

Call for source. It ain't that hard.

Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I think your statements are false.

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Response time shouldnt have anything to do with how hard/long we have thought about it, but I see the point you are trying to make and I have no intensions of saying whether I agree or not.

My opinion however, is that not so much thought needs to go into it. You have clearly spelled out what and why you beleive what you do. This (for me) is just way to much guess work into the knowledge and intentions of our Heavenly Father, too many if this and if that, and we can deduct.... For me if MJ can be used as a good tool to better the conditions of people whom are suffering. I take it that God has blessed the minds of medical proffessors to be able to identify that. There are sooo many items and compounds that can be used to better life and for good. But as we all know, many of those items can be severely distorted for eveil and wrong doing. Just because something exists doesnt mean we are using it in the correct way or a way (if any) that God has intended. For me, this type of speculation can be a dangerous road that may seem harmless.

Edited by EarlJibbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know next to nothing about biopharmacology. I need the anonymous guy on the internet to provide a link to his source. Citing your sources is so well established in forums where people argue with each other that it should not even need to be requested, and to fail to openly provide one is usually tantamount to proof that someone doesn't know what the heck they're talking about, although it can also be due to someone not knowing proper internet ettiquette.

I understand the concept. You are saying we have receptors in our bodies that bind to absolutely nothing besides THC, which only occurs naturally in MJ. You'll just have to note that I continue to be uneducated in the matter, and I restate my request for your source. If you were able to figure out the quote function with help, the hyperlink function isn't much different.

Call for source. It aint' that hard.

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"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does eating it in brownies somehow alter the argument?

...isn't that the whole point of the matching neuroreceptors you referenced earlier?

That they probably should have stayed home.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...