19 July 2006

Whom Shall I Send?

In another blog about volunteering for things at church, Mark Butler quotes a scripture in Abraham 3:

And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.
(Abr 3:27-28)

Never mind exactly how that scripture applied to the topic, I have a separate question: Of all Lucifer’s actions (from these verses only), which was the first that was wrong? A few possibilities:

1) When he rejected his first estate (volunteering is good and anger has its place, but he went too far).
2) When he got angry (volunteering is good, but don't get mad when you don't get picked).
3) When he volunteered second (if he really wanted it, he wouldn’t have delayed).
4) When he volunteered (because he should have accepted what everyone knew: Jesus had been chosen before the question was even asked).

I don’t support explanation #3, because it implies that Lucifer would have been right if he had only been faster. I can't believe that "fastest finger" is the way to make this kind of selection.

Of course, #1 was his ultimate mistake, and #2 helped him get there. But I believe that #4 was the real problem for Lucifer. Lucifer knew that Jesus was the Christ, but he wanted the title—albeit, not the responsibility—for himself.

Are there problems with explanation #4? For one, I don’t think that the text explicitly supports this reading. Another scripture might give it some support, mainly because it shows that Jesus was the Christ long before he was born:

Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people.... (Ether 3:14)

This interpretation relies on the assumption that in whatever way Jesus was “prepared...to redeem” us, it was done openly: i.e. everyone in the spirit world knew his role. This also hinges on the meaning of “foundation of the world.” When did this happen? Is the “foundation of the world” the beginning of human life, the beginning of the earth’s creation, or the beginning of our spiritual lives? Abraham 3:24 sounds like it is talking about the foundation of the world (which occurs right before the question of who will be the Savior).

If everyone already knew who God had chosen and prepared, why ask the question? I think the point is to show that Jesus is willing to do the Father's will. The alternative is that we might think that God forced Jesus to be the Christ. I do not think this is to show that Jesus is doing something without being asked.

I think this question also allowed each of us to identify Jesus as the Christ at a crucial time. I imagine us answering the question in our own minds, "Well, clearly he should send Jesus." This might have been our first experience identifying Jesus as our leader--right as Lucifer would rise as an alternative choice.

Read More...

04 June 2006

Love and the MPA

I have written elsewhere how I feel about the Marriage Protection Amendment. I would like to write here about a disagreement that I have with many of the people who support it.

Of all the scriptures that relate (or loosely relate) to homosexuality and same-sex marriage, here is one that I think is the most neglected:

Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy. (D&C 121:43-45)

My questions to those who actively support the Marriage Protection Amendment:

What have you done to show "an increase of love toward" same-sex couples?

What have you done for same-sex couples to show that your "faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death"?

Do same-sex couples "esteem [you] to be [their] enemy"?

Have you pursued these goals with the same vigor with which you have supported the Marriage Protection Amendment?

Besides restricting marriage to a man and a woman, what have you done to "maintain and strengthen the family"?

Read More...

The Samuel Principle and MPA

The First Presidency (FP) of the LDS Church recently issued a letter in which they "urge our members to express themselves" on the Marriage Protection Amendment "to their elected representatives in the Senate." My feeling about this issue, for quite some time, is that it is not important to me. That is not to say anything about how others view it, just that I have never cast my vote based on this issue.

When I read the FP's letter, I thought I would obediently "express myself" by writing a letter saying, more or less:

"Dear Senator: Whether you vote 'yea' or 'nay' on June 6th will make no difference on whether I vote for you. Rather, I will continue to base my vote on other issues."

As I was preparing my Gospel Doctrine lesson this week (1 Sam 2-3, 8), I had a change of heart. In chapter 8, the children of Israel ask Samuel to appoint them a king. Samuel asks the Lord what to do and he is told that by asking for a king, Israel is rejecting the Lord. Samuel is told to “solemnly protest” choosing a king, but to let Israel make their own decision. Samuel warns of the terrible things that a king will bring, but the people respond by saying, “Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us.”

I saw some parallel in the way the Israel listened to Samuel and how I was listening to the FP. After this study, some thought, and some prayer, I have revised the letter I will write:
"Dear Senator: I hope that you will vote 'yea' on June 6th. This issue is not of singular importance to me, but is likely to influence the way I vote in upcoming elections."

I still feel stronger about other issues than about this one, and those issues will take precedence when I go to the polls. Two candidates being equal on those other issues (which also have moral implications), I will vote for the one that voted 'yea' on June 6th. (I feel that I should note that my "list of issues" is very short.)

Read More...

03 June 2006

How Like Unto Moses?

Quick!—name three prophets who were “like unto Moses.”

Answer:
1) Moses (by definition)
2) Jesus (see here, here, here, here, and here)
3) Joseph Smith (see here, here, here, here, and here)

What are the characteristics of Moses?
A) Lead a nation
B) Delivered the Laws of God to the people

How do the others fit this pattern?
Jesus
A) Redeems us as “his sons and daughters” (see here and here)
B) Established the new covenant (ie. the New Testament)

Joseph
A) Laid foundation for the establishment of Zion and lead Saints westward to Zion
B) Delivered the Laws of God in the form of scriptures and church organization

Which characteristic (A or B) is the most important?
Moses is revered by the Jews because he gave them the Law. Christ could replace (or change) the Law of Moses because he is greater than Moses. Joseph’s most important duty was in reestablishing the Law of God.

Read More...

24 May 2006

Announcing: The "Sospel"!

Vegetarians have put an unbelievable amount of time, resources, and expertise into developing soy-based products to replace animal-based foods. If a person wants to switch to a vegetarian diet, now they can do so without giving up many--or any--of their favorite dishes.

Consider this partial list of soy-based stand-ins:

Milk . . . Silk
Hot Dog . . . Smartdog
Hamburger . . . Garden Burger
Turkey . . . Tofurkey
Mayonnaise . . . Nayonaise

With all this soy substitution, the vegetarians appear to be "bringing the mountain to Muhammad," leaving meat-eaters with fewer and fewer excuses to maintain their "carnivorous, cruel, and unhealthy lifestyles."

The problem is that this sales pitch isn't compelling. Vegetarians have a product that can sell itself: Sweet, juicy fruit; crisp green salads and vegetables; a variety of grains, each with a unique texture and flavor ranging from earthy to sweet to salty; beans and nuts to leave one feeling "full"; mushrooms to "get your umami going"; pasta, pasta, pasta! Oh, I could go on and on!

Instead of focusing on the delicious menu they have to offer, some vegetarians focus on making meat counterfeits. They choose not to market health and great taste, but opt for the "Ditch the meat but not the heartburn" propaganda.

But this blog isn't about dietary choices. Rather, I would like to use the above as an analogy for how the Gospel is sometimes presented. Following the lead of my soy-loving predecessors, I will call this version of the Gospel the "Sospel." Here are a few ways I have witnessed church members, including myself, embrace the Sospel:

Playing down the differences between Mormons and other Christians.
Minimizing the level of commitment that the Church really asks of its members.
Planning activities for the youth that mimic or are identical to ones they could find outside the Church.
Replacing plain and precious testimony with excellent and rigorous scholarship.

I will admit that the above are not obligatorily Sospel messages. Nevertheless, they often are, and I see the same problem with this approach that exists with meat-flavored soy: the focus is all wrong. Friends, coworkers, converts, and children are ultimately left unimpressed by the Sospel. The fruits of the Sospel, following the same order as above, are:

"There's nothing special about the Mormon Church."
"Becoming a Mormon will not create any big changes in my routine."
"I go to church because it's fun."
"I would like to bear my testimony: I know that the Church is not demonstrably untrue."

The Sospel attempts godliness, but withholds commitment and conviction. The result is an a la carte menu of half-truths that leave the recipient spiritually unimpressed and unchanged. The ease of living the Sospel parallels the ease of leaving the Sospel.

Can you think of other examples of the Sospel?
How do you avoid the Sospel?
How do you know if you are preaching or living the Sospel?
How many converts who leave the Church were actually converted to the Sospel and not the Gospel?

Read More...

10 May 2006

Preparing to Teach Gospel Principles

The following post is a transcript of a talk I gave at Stake Conference....


I will be reading several scriptures tonight and I will not be allowing you time to look them up, but you will have time to write the references.

The first comes from the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 7:6 “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

It may seem odd to begin with this scripture, but I will come back to this scripture later. President W asked me to speak about Preparing to Teach Gospel Principles. And he wanted me to speak about teaching to a general audience, so when I use the word “student” tonight, I could mean someone in your Sunday School class, a fellow High Priest, a neighbor, an investigator, a friend at work, or your child.

I enjoy taking apart phrases in order to understand their meaning. What happens if we deconstruct the request that President W made of me:

• Preparing
• to Teach
• Gospel
• Principles

What did President W mean by “Preparing”? The Lord tells Hyrum Smith, in:
D&C 11:21, “Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed.” Hyrum’s preparation includes “obtaining the word.”

But, how do we “obtain the word”? We can look at an example given by the sons of Mosiah before they left to teach (Alma 17:2-3): “Now these sons of Mosiah…were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God….And when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God.”

What does it mean to “search diligently”? I looked up this word—diligently—in an edition of Webster’s Dictionary that was published in 1828, roughly the same time period in which Joseph Smith would have been translating the Book of Mormon. The definition was: “With steady application and care; not carelessly; not negligently.”

We often talk of wanting a “deeper understanding,” and what is deeper than a building’s foundation or a plant’s roots? But let us, like a botanist with a plant or an archeologist with ancient ruins, carefully and diligently expose the roots or foundation of the Gospel.

As I use this approach to understand President W’s request, I start with a question. By way of reminder, he asked me to talk about “preparing to teach gospel principles.” So my first question is:

What is the Gospel? The word itself means “good news”, so when we read Proverbs 25:25, “As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country,” we get an idea of what the Gospel can mean to our students. And when Christ, in Mark 13:10, foretells of the signs of his second coming, we see how the “good news” will be heard: “And the gospel must first be published among all nations.” Or, read with our definition in mind, “The good news must be published among all nations.”

So…what is the Good News? The scriptures answer this question in many places. We will look at only one: John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” This is one of the simplest yet most complete declarations of the Gospel, or the “Good News.” It reads like a summary of all of our scriptures, and like any good reporting, it tells us what has happened (God gave his son), who has done it, and why (because he loved the world).

And why would we want to publish that news? I think we have to look at our loyalties—what motivates us. In this case, we can ask:

• Are we loyal to our students?
• Are we loyal to ourselves?
• Are we loyal to the Gospel?

Clearly, the answers to those questions show something about our ability to teach and how we will go about it.

Loyalty to the Student
A mistaken sense of loyalty toward the people we teach might influence us to avoid some doctrines that could make our students uncomfortable. I think this is the Lord’s warning in D&C 60:2, “But with some I am not well pleased, for they will not open their mouths, but they hide the talent…because of the fear of man. Wo unto such, for mine danger is kindled against them.”

That loyalty that comes from genuine love for the students, however, is what a teacher should cultivate. Consider how the sons of Mosiah felt about their students (Mosiah 28:3), “[For] they could not bear that any human soul should perish; yea, even the very thoughts that any soul should endure endless torment did cause them to quake and tremble.”

Unfortunately, it is not within the scope of this talk to discuss how to develop that kind love. But we can see how that love for our students helps us to teach them. Consider how Ammon was able to teach King Lamoni, or how Alma and Amulek were able to teach Zeezrom. Alma 12:7 shows Zeezrom's response to the teaching: “…he was convinced more and more of the power of God; and he was also convinced that Alma and Amulek had a knowledge of him, for he was convinced that they knew the thoughts and intents of his heart; for power was given unto them that they might know of these things according to the spirit of prophecy.” The teacher’s ability and willingness to see the student’s point of view will often be the difference between confusion and understanding.

Loyalty to Ourselves
If we are loyal to ourselves when we teach, we may be reluctant to address topics that make us uncomfortable, or even worse—and completely the opposite—we may focus only on what interests us, what Elder Oaks refers to when he warns to “…avoid hobby topics [and] personal speculations” (Ensign, Nov. 1999, 78). Elder Packer also speaks about this, comparing all of the parts of the Gospel to the keys on a piano, and warning of “…members of the Church who…pick out a hobby key or two and tap them incessantly, to the irritation of those around them. They may reject the fullness in preference to a favorite note. This becomes exaggerated and distorted, leading them away into apostasy” (Ensign, Dec. 1971, 40). As teachers, we are given a precious Gospel to discuss, but when we replace that with our own Doctrine, are we like dogs rejecting that which is holy, or like swine trampling pearls?

Still another consequence of being loyal to ourselves when teaching would be that we focus more on convincing than explaining; more on compelling and less on true conversion.

For a summary of the problems of loyalty to ourselves, we can turn to 2 Timothy 3: “For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers…. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof…. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Loyalty to the Gospel
But what if we are loyal to the Gospel? As we have already read, the Gospel wants to be published. If we are loyal to the Gospel as teachers, then we will, first and foremost, submit to its wisdom. This is in contrast to trying to force the Gospel to conform to our ideas. Consider the warning from Alma to the people in Ammonihah (Alma 13:20): “Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.”

Throughout this talk, I have asked questions, much like our students will ask questions of us. And in each case, rather than trying to answer the question through my own reasoning, I have taken the question to the scriptures to see what they have to say. In order to teach, we must search the scriptures for what they say, not for what we want to them to say.

A second consequence of being loyal to the Gospel is that we are willing to admit when we don’t know an answer. Consider Alma’s excellent example when he is teaching his son Helaman (Alma 37:11): “Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear.” Teachers must remember that it is not easy for students to distinguish speculation from explanation. Even when we state up front that we are speculating, our words still sound in our listeners’ ears with the same voice and authority as when we speak Gospel truths. We show loyalty to the Gospel by letting it be the showpiece of the discussion and refraining from putting our own ideas on the same stage. There are other times, when we are not the teacher, when it is appropriate to discuss our own ideas.

When we are loyal to the Gospel, we will try to measure up. This is what President Benson meant when he said, “We need missionaries to match our message” (Tambuli, Feb. 1990, 2). But how can we reconcile our attempts to measure up with what King Benjamin taught in Mosiah 4:9? He taught that “…man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.” So, How can we measure up when we can’t possibly measure up?

We are told how, in D&C 42:14-17 “And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach. And as ye shall lift up your voices by the Comforter, ye shall speak and prophesy as seemeth me good; For, behold, the Comforter knoweth all things.” Just as a junior professor would step down from the lectern if a Nobel laureate entered the room, we show loyalty to the Gospel by deferring to the teacher with more experience, ability, and understanding—even the Holy Ghost.

Returning to President W’s request, he asked me to discuss teaching Gospel Principles. But I have yet to mention “principles.”

What are principles? Elder Packer (Ensign, Mar. 1985, 6) and Elder Oaks (SLC training meeting, unpublished) have made the distinction between Gospel doctrine and principles versus the policies and practices of the Church. While the two Apostles use slightly different terminology in their explanations, both make it clear that what we do as a Church—the rules, practices, rituals, and so on—are not the Gospel. Rather, those things are based upon principles or doctrines of the Gospel. Surely this is what Christ meant in his rebuke in Matthew 23:23: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.”

At the beginning of this talk, I promised that we would return to the Sermon on the Mount, when Christ commands ”Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.” What does this have to do with Preparing to Teach Gospel Principles? Answer: Nothing—if we take only that verse alone. In fact, it would seem that the verse is telling us to hide the Gospel from others. But continue reading with me, and see what Christ has to say about responding to sincere questions with true doctrine instead of some substitute: “Ask, and it shall be given you: For every one that asketh receiveth…. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?”

Many of the questions we get from our neighbors and friends are about the outer layer of our faith. They want to know:
• Why we don’t drink coffee
• Who runs our Church
• What is this I hear about polygamy
• How we structure our prayers
• What is done in temples
Notice that these are all questions based on things that we do. But in order to understand why we do those things, we have to be able to explain the doctrines and/or principles upon which they are based.

Let’s go to the scriptures again to see how this is done:

1) In Alma 18, King Lamoni wants to know how Ammon was able to defeat the robbers. Rather than answer his question directly, Ammon teaches about God.

2) In Alma 39-42, Alma answers his son’s concerns about repentance, not by listing the steps of repentance, but by expounding on the doctrines of the atonement, judgment, and eternity.

3) In 1842, the editor of the Chicago Democrat asked Joseph Smith some questions about LDS belief and history. The Prophet’s response was so appropriate and universally applicable that it has become scripture; it is our 13 Articles of Faith. We will not analyze those tonight, but I wish to consider what the Prophet did. He did not record what we do as a Church. Instead, he listed the doctrines that make us a Church.

4) When I taught the Gospel Principles class during Sunday School, I made it a point to read any Article of Faith that related to the lesson. I did this for two reasons: First, it familiarized my class of new members with these statements of our belief. Second, it kept me, in my lesson preparation, from straying from the real point of each lesson.

My suggestion is that we follow these examples when we are asked questions and when we plan lessons: focus on the underlying doctrine and rely on the scriptures to expound that doctrine.

In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Read More...

07 May 2006

Blindly Following the Prophet

“You shouldn’t just do what the prophet says without studying it out in your mind and searching for a confirmation that it is right. To do otherwise is blind obedience.”

What is wrong with this statement?

Consider two examples:

Example 1
In 2 Kings 5, Naaman comes to the prophet to be cured of leprosy. He is given unimpressive instructions which, after some hesitation, he nevertheless follows. Upon complying, Naaman is healed.

Example 2
Adam, in Moses 5, is commanded by the Lord to offer sacrifices. He doesn’t understand the commandment, but observes it anyway. When questioned by an angel, Adam confesses his ignorance and the angel (and the Holy Ghost, see vs. 9) explains the commandment to him.

The first example is relevant to our question and the second is not. In both cases, the central character is naive until after obeying. The difference is that Naaman is being asked to follow the prophet, whereas Adam is following the Lord directly. The statement in dispute is admonishing people to follow Adam’s example: get your commandments directly from the Lord. Naaman’s story, however, is opposed to such a view.

What does Naaman’s story teach about blind obedience?
Robert C. Oaks suggests an alternative to the term “blind obedience.”

“The philosophical standard of the world holds that unquestioning obedience equals blind obedience, and blind obedience is mindless obedience. This is simply not true. Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction—whether it be recorded scripture, the words of modern prophets, or direct inspiration through the Holy Ghost—to be worthy of obedience” (“Believe All Things,” Ensign, July 2005, 30).

Remember that Naaman sought the prophet’s help, and then wanted to reject it. He must have had some reasons to seek the prophet, but those were forgotten in the face of undesired counsel. Naaman acquiesced once the absurdity of his decision was pointed out to him (vs. 13).

Consider the plea by N Eldon Tanner, “Let us listen to the prophet’s voice and follow him, not blindly but by faith” (“The Priesthood and Its Presidency,” Ensign, Jan. 1973, 100). Naaman’s obedience was not blind or—to translate the metaphor—uninformed. Rather, we could make the argument that his initial defiance was irrational, but his subsequent obedience showed careful thought and consideration.

I suggest a slightly different phrase than that proposed above by Oaks. I call this “faithful obedience,” where faith here describes a loyalty to a prior witness. The source has been tested before and found trustworthy, so it is unnecessary to test the source again.

“Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel. There is an obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any external form of control. We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see” (Boyd K. Packer, “Agency and Control,” Ensign, May 1983, 66).

I would correct the statement at the beginning of this post, in this way:

“You should do what the prophet says because you have already searched for and received a confirmation that he is a prophet. To do otherwise is blind to your own faith.”

How often does a prophet fully foresee the outcome of the commandments he is giving? Is this “blind prophesying”?

Read More...

29 April 2006

The Axis of Evilution

CREATIONISM'S MOST WANTED

It’s not news that many religious people oppose the theory of evolution; it seems that no other scientific theory meets with even a fraction of the resistance. So I want to know, according to religious persons, what are the worst scientific theories?

Here are some I came up with (I’m calling this list “Creationism’s Most Wanted” or “The Axis of Evilution”):

1. Evolution
2. Big Bang
3. Genetic/neurological basis for homosexuality
4. Genetic determinism (contributed by Ben--see comments)

What would you add to the list?

And a related question: What are the most religious-friendly theories?

Read More...

13 April 2006

Disciplining Your Child

How do you discipline your child?

Almost every time I have been part of a group debating this question, whether at church or casually amongst friends, the discussion has dwelt on a few topics:
• Whether to spank or not
• The efficacy of time-outs
• Curfews
• “Be firm, but not overbearing”
• “Reproving betimes with sharpness….”
• Parents today are too lenient

And I think these are all terrible–albeit telling–things to bring up in a discussion about discipline. They would be good topics if you were discussing punishment, but the question is about discipline.

Enough with the semantics, right? Wrong. There is a big difference between discipline and punishment, and I think it is a problem when we get them confused.

Punishment is a response to bad behavior. We could debate the correct methods and it would be very helpful. We could discuss the points I listed above. But we’d be deluded if we thought we were discussing discipline. (By the way, when I say, “We could” in this paragraph, I mean, “We could–on another blog.” Please do not discuss punishment methods here.)

Discipline is the reason for good behavior. Look at the word–it’s the same root we use for the word “disciple,” which means “a follower.” Discipline teaches how to act in a given situation, and if the incorrect action is performed, then it may be necessary to exact a punishment. That means that discipline, if properly followed, will obviate the need for punishment.

Why do I say above that it is “telling” that discussions labeled as being about discipline are actually about punishment? Because it epitomizes the confusion we have about what is discipline. And if we are confused about what is discipline, then we are probably not doing a good job of disciplining.

So let me ask the question again so that we can discuss it: “How do you discipline your child?”

Read More...

10 April 2006

Weighing the Experts

An anonymous lawyer said, “For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD.”

When a theory is debated among expert scientists, how are you to know what to believe? Both sides talk over your head and you have no way, short of becoming an expert yourself, of making a truly informed decision.

Could you just put it to a vote among the experts? See how many believe one way and how many believe the other; the majority must be right. Truth can’t be voted into existence, so that would be a bad decision. What can you do?

Here’s an idea: Don’t believe anything.

If you feel like you just have to know which theory is right–what to believe–then I suggest you become a scientist yourself and join in the search.

But if you just want to know what to teach your kids, how to spend your tax dollars for research, or which textbook to use, then I don’t think you have to believe anything. You just want to know which theory to accept, and you’d do best to go with the theory supported by the majority of scientists, especially if it is a vast majority.

What’s the difference? To believe a theory requires knowledge, time, effort, and study. To accept a theory just means that you act in accordance with it.

Someone might object, “But that’s indecisive and unscientific!” To which one could reply, “It’s actually very decisive: I decided to focus my thoughts on something else and let other people worry about this theory. And of course my decision isn’t scientific; is that a bad thing?”

Then you could point out that we do this with theories every day. Here’s an example:

How many people that are taking medications are taking a drug whose benefits are debated by scientists? The answer is: everyone who is taking medications. So why do they take the drugs if it’s not absolutely clear what to believe? Because they have decided to accept the advice of the majority of scientists who believe that that particular drug is worth taking.

(So swallow the pill and get on with your life.)

Read More...