"Childhood obesity is a growing problem" -DU Headline

The results of the 2016 100 Hour Board Census are in!

One notable change: the Board Comment Board, brought to the readers by popular request.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Question #85418 posted on 02/09/2016 11:35 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm in a sort-of-not-really long-distance-relationship. If we were to hypothetically-but-probably-not one day get married, yet remain long distance for overly-vastly-long periods of time, can we still have a wonderfully-satisfying marriage? Do you know anyone who has made it work, or at least not-failed-grotesquely-and-horribly? A long-distance marriage, that is.

-The Hyphenator-inator

A:

Dear Hyphens,

Some important questions to consider are how long are these periods of time away from each other going to be, and how frequent?

When I was recently born, my dad had to go on a work trip halfway around the world, and he was gone for six months. He got to come home every other weekend, but I can't even imagine how exhausting it would have been for my mother to be alone with several young kids and a newborn baby. They made it work, but it was tough, and I don't think either of them would do it voluntarily ever again. My dad actually went on a lot of work trips when I was young, and although none of them ever lasted six months again, and I never heard my mom complain, it wasn't easy for either of them. They missed each other, and it's hard spending a significant portion of your life away from the person you want to spend it with. Now, my parents' experience was not by any means a long-distance marriage, but looking at how much they missed each other even just on my dad's trips, I think it would be pretty terrible in an actual long-distance marriage.

I think being in a long-distance marriage would create a lot of problems. You would both be growing and changing on your own, instead of together as a couple, and Skype and facetime just don't measure up to pillow talk. And what about physical intimacy? Who do you come home to at the end of a long day and talk to? Throw kids into the mix and it gets even messier. Instead of being a loving, equal partnership, I think a long-distance marriage would devolve pretty quickly into something causing stress as you just try to match up your schedules so you can see each other.

I'm not saying don't marry this guy if the opportunity ever comes up. I am saying that if you get married, you should seriously consider one of you moving so you can live together. Yes, it would probably be a sacrifice, but isn't that what love is all about? If you're not willing to sacrifice your current location for the person you want to spend forever with, should you really be making that kind of commitment?

Sorry to be such a downer, this probably isn't what you want to hear. The decision is ultimately in your hands, but I would definitely recommend praying about it, and considering pros and cons of a long-distance marriage.

-Alta


0 Corrections
Question #85417 posted on 02/09/2016 11:02 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What's the point of life if friendship is hard? Friendship is what's supposed to help you get through things when you're single and/or struggling. If connecting to your friends is difficult, or you struggle to be as close with them as they are to each other, or if you struggle to be happy for them when things go right for them, then what's the point? If your close friendships don't provide the sense of belonging and being needed that you desire, then what's the point of life? If I can't succeed at friendship, I'll probably fail at marriage (which sucks anyway) so it's not like I can count on that to bail me out. And besides, marriage isn't going to magically provide one person who somehow manages to perfectly fulfill all of my emotional needs. If marriage, family, and friendship aren't great, what's the point of it all?

-wasn't love supposed to be the point?

A:

Dear You,

I'm sorry that this is so hard for you right now. It's hard not having emotionally fulfilling relationships, I know, but the good news is, that's not actually the point of life. Yes, it's wonderful, but it's not everything. According to Moses 1:39, the point of life is actually to prepare us to receive exaltation and eternal life. In other words, the point of life is to become like God. There's a quote from Elder Scott that I love:

When...trials are not consequences of your disobedience, they are evidence that the Lord feels you are prepared to grow more. He therefore gives you experience that stimulate growth, understanding, and compassion, which polish you for your everlasting benefit. To get from where you are to where He wants you to be requires a lot of stretching, and that generally entails discomfort and pain.

I know it stinks to be struggling and hear, "But it's for your good! It will help you be better!" so I won't tell you that. But I will tell you to pray and ask Heavenly Father why you're facing this struggle. Find out what specific stretching you can do as a result of this situation to become more like God. Personally, when I have to face problems, it's much easier for me when I at least know why. It won't solve your problems, but it might give you the strength to get through them.

Don't give up on the future just because the past hasn't been everything you hoped for. The success, or lack of success, of past friendships doesn't dictate what future people are going to think of you. Keep a positive attitude, keep trying, and have hope that God will provide. Remember that if you feel friendless, Christ has been there before. You have great things in store for you, my friend, don't give up.

-Alta

A:

Dear you,

Even failed or fizzled out friendships teach you a lot about yourself.

I've had an unfortunate number of friends who proved repeatedly that they cared about me much less than I cared about them. But I certainly don't regret our friendship nor would I change anything if I could go back. Yes, friendship can be painful if people aren't there for you, but it's still worth it.

Just because you haven't had strong, fulfilling friendships in the past doesn't mean you can't have them in the future. For most of my adolescence I was stoic and perfectly happy being on my own. I didn't have any good friends who I could trust with my thoughts and feelings. It wasn't until the last year that I actually found true friends that I really trusted.

I think it's incredibly important for people to find fulfillment within themselves instead of relying on the opinions of others to measure self-worth. If you constantly seek happiness from others, you're constantly going to be disappointed, because very few people will ever love you as much as you deserve. There's only one person who will ever love you unconditionally and be there for you anywhere and everywhere you need, and the purpose of this life is to become more like Him.

Therefore, it is a wonderful feeling to be a true friend to someone, probably even more fulfilling than having such a friend. By being there for someone in need, you show a Christlike love, and such a characteristic is much more important to develop than anything else. You can find fulfillment, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual fulfillment, even if you don't get married or have any strong friendships.

Love,

Luciana

A:

Dear you,

Alta above pointed out that the point of life isn't really friendship, it's becoming like God. I'll take that as a starting premise and try to expand on it.

Here are a list of propositions I'll consider established, along with the one Alta gave us:

  • The point of life is becoming like God.
  • He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. (1 John 4:8)
  • Love is a feeling of deep devotion, concern, and affection. Love for God and fellow men is a characteristic of disciples of Jesus Christ (see Matthew 22:35–40; John 13:34–35; 2 Nephi 31:20). We manifest our love for Heavenly Father by keeping His commandments and serving His children. Our expressions of love for others may include being kind to them, listening to them, mourning with them, comforting them, serving them, praying for them, sharing the gospel with them, and being their friend. (True to the Faith)

So, it's pretty clear that love is definitely critical. Where I think the struggle here is is that sometimes we equate love with friendship. Because friendship involves love, we assume that if friendship isn't working out right now, love must not be present. Fortunately, that's not true.

Consider a parent of a teenager who's going through a rebellious time. the parent mourns the child's poor decisions. The parent lovingly chastens the teenager by taking steps the teenager hates (putting parental restrictions on a phone when the teenager starts staying up too late or using inappropriate media, taking away car privileges after the teenager attends a party where alcohol was present in violation of family rules, refusing to allow friends over before homework is done for classes where the teenager isn't passing, etc.) The teenager is not, at this point, "friends" with their parent. Many teenagers in this position will react to these parental actions with declarations about how the parents are "ruining their life" or "don't understand." So, friendship in some senses might be lacking. Love, on the other hand, is the motivation for the parents' actions.

Consider likewise a roommate you just don't have a ton in common with. You are kind to them, and you serve them when they forget to do their own dishes or need to borrow your milk, but you never really hang out and don't consider yourself to be particularly close friends. Well, you can still be showing love. 

So, that's kind of the first element here: if friendship doesn't seem to be working out right now, are you necessarily living a purposeless life? Nope. Your life may still have love in many ways, and friendships may be enduring a more difficult period (even a long one.)

Accepting that possibility, let's move on to address some of your other concerns.

Your questions:

What's the point of life if friendship is hard? Friendship is what's supposed to help you get through things when you're single and/or struggling.If connecting to your friends is difficult, or you struggle to be as close with them as they are to each other, or if you struggle to be happy for them when things go right for them, then what's the point?

If your close friendships don't provide the sense of belonging and being needed that you desire, then what's the point of life?

If I can't succeed at friendship, I'll probably fail at marriage (which sucks anyway) so it's not like I can count on that to bail me out.

And besides, marriage isn't going to magically provide one person who somehow manages to perfectly fulfill all of my emotional needs.

If marriage, family, and friendship aren't great, what's the point of it all?

Wasn't love supposed to be the point?

I see a few problems in here. Obviously, I don't know your situation, so it's totally possible that I'm misreading here. Please don't take offense if I identify from your short question problems you don't actually have. Here are some potential issues that I see. I'm going to try to use them to consolidate your questions into themes that are a bit easier for me to discuss.

Consolidated questions:

1) Why should someone maintain friendships if friendships are practically difficult to maintain?

2) Why should someone use friendship to meet their personal needs if friendships cannot fully meet those needs?

To me, these narrow down into one overall thematic question:

Root question:

What purposes is friendship supposed to serve?

I'm going to comment on that and hope that as we discuss it, we can work in answers to the more specific questions above.

Answer to Root Question:

I'm not a human relations specialist or a philosopher or anyone else particularly qualified to examine the overall meaning of friendship. However, here's what I'd propose: The purpose of friendship is to help us recognize, receive, and give love. We know from the above True to the Faith quotation that it's important for us to learn to give love, and that many of the ways we do that are often manifest in friendships (although we show them elsewhere too.) Likewise, in order for us to understand love (including the love of God for us that led to the Plan of Happiness and the love of our Savior that led him to atone for us), we need practice feeling it. We feel love in many ways. One way for us to feel love is friendship. As we give and receive love in friendships, we learn to better understand what love is and how to live in a loving way.

I think the answers to the other questions come from this: we keep trying for friendship because apart from having some of our needs met, we can also have a chance to learn and to help meet the needs of others (and to help them learn.) None of these things are going to work perfectly all the time, but even when one of them isn't working, we can still be trying for the others. This fits in with the overall plan of the Gospel: we can learn from, help, and receive help from all of our brothers and sisters, but ultimately the only One who can meet all of our needs is our Savior. He is one who will never abandon his relationship with us and who will always be there with us.

I echo the writers above: I'm sorry you're struggling, and I hope you can find hope in the love that is available in this world. It's not always available in the same ways, the same times, or from the same people, but we do have access to love, and that is a beautiful help to us as we grow. If you need people to talk to, especially during the time when it's harder to feel the love, feel free to email us.

Love,

~Anne, Certainly


0 Corrections
Question #85423 posted on 02/09/2016 10:38 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Can we do a Board genealogy of mentors/probies? M.O.D.A.Q. was my probie and Concorde was my mentor, but I actually have no idea about anyone else.

When did probies even become a Board institution?

-Sheebs

A:

Dear Doctor,

If you ask this again during Alumni Week, I can put together an even more complete family tree, which would be awesome.

But, I was able to get pretty far back as it is, even though it still feels kind of incomplete. Only writers who made it to full status were considered in the tree (except for The Skipper, since he's still around). I'll make a cleaner version next time around, but I kind of like the messy inelegance of this one.

FamilyTree.jpg

Also, probies have been around at least since Pa Grape was an editor.

-Tally M.


0 Corrections
Posted on 02/09/2016 10:02 p.m. New Correction on: #85407 On my mission in Mexico, Elder Octaviano Tenorio of the Seventy came and spoke to us ...
Question #85422 posted on 02/09/2016 8:53 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What do you think was Gödel's constitutional loophole whereby the US could legally become a dictatorship?

-Kurt

A:

Dear Vonnegut,

Popular consensus says it's Article V, which describes the process for adding amendments to the Constitution. Hypothetically this article could be amended, making the amendment process more lax. After it becomes easier to add new amendments to the Constitution, they could add amendments that would end up legalizing dictatorship. 

Fun fact: Speaking of governments with good constitutions becoming dictatorships, did you know the Soviet Union actually had a fairly extensive bill of rights? They just ignored it.

-Alta


0 Corrections
Posted on 02/09/2016 7:55 p.m. New Correction on: #85338 I was on my mission when the BYU Valentine incident occurred, and only heard about it ...
Question #85410 posted on 02/09/2016 7:39 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Which foods have the best insulating properties? For some reason, I think cheese might be a good insulator because it's quite dense. I wonder if I cloaked myself in cheese, could I stay warm in a snowstorm? Could I also wrap my house in cheese in the event of nuclear fallout? Or maybe there is a more effective food for these purposes.

-Innovation at its tastiest

A:

Dear IAIT,

Scientists usually assume that a vacuum is the best thermal insulator. In order to propagate by conduction or convection, energy needs a medium to travel through. Here's a practical example: nowadays, many windows are manufactured by pulling a vacuum between two sheets of glass; this decreases your rate of heat transfer by conduction and convection (though not by radiation). In this case, that would suggest foods that have very low densities. Cotton candy came to mind. The problem is that if you corrupt the vacuum, even with only a tiny bit of air, you've suddenly introduced a medium, so it's crucially important that the material can withstand as much of a vacuum as possible. If you were to try to pull a vacuum in a piece of cotton candy, it'd collapse. You could put it in between two sheets of glass and then pull the vacuum, but then it'd be more effective to skip the cotton candy altogether. Conclusion: trying to approach a vacuum probably isn't going to work with food.

The other consideration for thermal heat transfer is heat capacity. A material that can absorb more heat without rising in temperature will be a more effective insulator. That sometimes (though not always) corresponds to denser materials. In that light, your assumption that denser is better is probably correct, but we'll look at both measures.

Nuclear radiation is slightly different in that we're not talking specifically about energy in the form of heat. To block nuclear radiation, you need something either so densely packed or so thick that things like high-energy gamma rays can't get all the way through it without being absorbed. The outer layer of protection in most nuclear power plants is a three-foot thick wall of concrete, and that's just one layer. High density is going to be key in that case, while heat capacity will be less important.

I compared your suggestions with several I found online and a few from other writers and looked up their approximate densities and specific heat capacties (when possible) at room temperature. I don't claim accuracy, but it should be consistent enough for a basic comparison.

Solid cheeses, as per your suggestion:

  Density (g/ml) Heat capacity (kJ/kg*C)
Cheddar 1.098 2.77
Swiss 0.915  2.78
Muenster 1.098  
Hard parmesan 0.629  2.58
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Some viscous liquids and similar substances suggested online: 
 
  Density (g/ml) Heat capacity (kJ/kg*C)
Molasses 1.424  
Honey 1.433 2.03
Chocolate syrup 1.268  
Almond paste 0.959  
Butter 0.866 2.40
Peanut butter 0.71  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Raw meats (suggested by Zedability):
 
  Density (g/ml) Heat capacity (kJ/kg*C)
Chicken 0.866 3.1 
Scup (fish) 0.915 3.6 
Beef round 1.09 2.18
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other random things:
 
  Density (g/ml) Heat capacity (kJ/kg*C)
Caviar 1.082  
Pickled Atlantic herring 1.22  
Raw oysters 1.048 3.83
Raw coconut milk 1.014  
Egg yolk 1.027 3.05
Wasabi 1.353  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
For reference:

  Density (g/ml) Heat capacity (kJ/kg*C)
Concrete 2.403 0.88
Steel 8.05 0.49
Lead 11.34 0.128
Glass wool (fiberglass) 0.01 - 0.03 0.6 - 0.8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



There are other metrics you can use for this problem (think thermal conductivity), but I think this is a good start. So what have we discovered? 

If you're going for heat insulation (such as in a snowstorm), you'd want a high heat capacity. The best options I found belongs to raw oysters and egg yolks, though those sound rather difficult to handle. Similar idea with raw chicken and fish. In that case, I think your cheese idea might actually be one of the better options.

As for nuclear radiation, you want it as thick and dense as possible. In that case, you'd be best off coating your house in 6 - 8 feet of molasses or honey.

If you're interested in further research, I mainly consulted a paper published by the University of Parma, Italy, which I found detailed and instructive, and its references. Most of the densities came from this nifty food density calculator I found.

Interesting question! I doubted the cheese idea at first, but the numbers won me over in the end.

-TEN


0 Corrections
Posted on 02/09/2016 7:38 p.m. New Correction on: #85383 A recent question has led me to look at garments online. What is this natural waist? ...
Question #85407 posted on 02/09/2016 6:18 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

On my mission in Mexico, Elder Octaviano Tenorio of the Seventy came and spoke to us about the power and importance of specific prayers. He gave some pretty cool examples and I remember being completely blown away by the concept. Unfortunately, I didn't take down much in my mission journals except "Elder Tenorio told some cool stories about the power of specific prayers -- I want to put this in practice!" and I can't find my mission study notebook where I probably put more details. However, I've talked to other missionaries who served in Mexico and they all heard the same talk from him. Do you know where I could find a transcript or a copy of that talk online? I've done some Googling but I'm not sure I'm doing it right.

Also, if you'd like to share your best/coolest specific prayer stories, I'd love to hear them!

-Siervo de Abraham

A:

Dear you,

We're sorry, it doesn't seem like any of us have been able to find it. If any readers know where to find the talk, please post a correction. For cool specific prayer stories, please head over to the Board Comment Board.

Meanwhile, I have a cool prayer story. On my mission, we were teaching this young single mom, and one day we were texting her and she said that her baby wouldn't stop crying and she didn't know why. I suddenly felt really impressed that we should pray for her baby to stop crying, so I told my companion about it. She looked at me like I was crazy, but knelt down with me and I said a pretty basic prayer about it. At our next lesson, we brought it up, and it turned out that her baby stopped crying shortly after texting us.

I've always thought it was cool, because while she dropped us shortly afterwards, she did develop a strong testimony of the power of personal prayer and scripture study in her own life. In the space of about a year or two, she broke up with her abusive ex, got engaged to an awesome guy, had her second child survive some difficult health problems, and started regularly attending a local Protestant church. Her life is significantly better now, and she has a much better relationship with God. I like to think that her testimony of prayer helped with that.

-Zedability


1 Correction
Question #85383 posted on 02/09/2016 6:18 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

A recent question has led me to look at garments online. What is this natural waist? How is it different from the current waist? How will it be different from the lower waist? Also have any females tried to new tops?

-possibly going to the distribution center

A:

Dear you,

Soooooooo, I was going to go to a distribution center and get new garments, but I haven't gotten around to it. However, from poking around online, it seems to me that the "natural waist" is designed to hit at the smallest point of your waist, whereas the "lower waist" is designed to hit above your hips, kind of like mid-rise jeans.

However, the current garments already come up to my natural waist (or sometimes higher), so I'm not entirely clear on what the difference is.

If any readers have tried these new garments and have specific information about their fit, please post a correction.

-Zedability


1 Correction
Question #85420 posted on 02/09/2016 5:38 p.m.
Q:

Dear Sheebs,

Are you back?

-A fan

A:

Dear person,

Yes, I am! BYU let me in and the Board took me back. I think this is exactly how Harry felt when he was accepted to Hogwarts and sorted into Gryffindor. I'm so excited to be able to write again!

-Sheebs


0 Corrections
Question #85416 posted on 02/09/2016 2:20 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Would you like to do a social experiment?
This question comes with a story. In the JSB this week I was waiting for a class to start. Everyone around me was on their computers doing homework with earbuds in. In the midst of the computers one soul either had his headphones up too loud so I could hear it (which if it was that loud I feel sorry for his ears) or he didn't realize the headphone jack had come out. Then I was struck with this brilliant idea "how would people react to someone with music playing in a place where it is clearly not polite to have loud music?
So here are my terms and conditions (with allowance for your own personal time constraints). 1) Go to a crowded quiet place on campus like the JSB halls and play music from your laptop. The library is off limits it doesn't count. If you are truly daring play music in the testing center (but that could be cruel if the song is catchy). 2) There are several ways you could play your music. You could either play it loud, or pretend to plug in your ear buds and turn the music on, or if you have better idea go for it. We just want to get a reaction. 3) You could try a variety of different places with one song that is catchy or try one place with a variety of genres. 4) It will probably be good to have an accomplice who will code the reactions of people around you. 5) For things to code I would say; head lifts, direction seeking, prolonged stares, excuse me's' could you turn it down or put head phones in, and straight up turn your music off. 6)Return and report -- might even be cool if you could video record reactions.
If you are wondering yes, I have put more thought into this than my homework and yes, I am procrastinating my paper. Would you please give this experiment a go?
Now I am aware I am submitting my question when many have tests please don't rush it. I would like honest effort and honest results. I also would like for this to be fun.

Thank you for your time.

-Curiosity will kill this Cat

A:

Dear person,

It looks like all of us feel uncomfortable doing this. Maybe it would have been fun to read about but it would be pretty unpleasant for everyone involved. 

-Sheebs


0 Corrections
Posted on 02/09/2016 12:54 p.m. New Correction on: #85338 I was on my mission when the BYU Valentine incident occurred, and only heard about it ...
Question #85355 posted on 02/09/2016 11:56 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Physicists,

I was watching Star Trek The Next Generation the other day and noticed that their ship makes a lot of sound in space. I was thinking, "Maybe the warp engines spit out a lot of stuff temporarily changing the local vacuum to a high enough pressure to actually produce a sound. What's the minimum pressure necessary to be able to produce sound?

-Dallin VII

A:

Dallin the Trekkie,

I'm going to be honest, putting together a physically sound quantitative answer to this question ended up being outside my capabilities. Hopefully a good qualitative answer fueled by hefty doses of idealization and assumption will do instead. Without further ado, here is what I gleaned from physics forums, and, of course, Wikipedia.

Just kidding, a little more ado first: sound is a compression wave, where energy can be thought of as being transferred when particles bump into the particles in front of them.

Second, the mean free path of a substance is the average distance a molecule can travel before bumping into another molecule. Ambient air on earth has a mean free path of 68 nanometers while a vacuum (like space) has a mean free path on the order of tens of kilometers.

Compression waves can propagate through any density of matter as long as the wavelength is significantly larger than the mean free path of whatever it's moving through. I wasn't able to find any quantitative information on what significantly means in this context, so we'll take it to mean 10 just for the halibut.

Compression waves with wavelengths between about 17 millimeters and 17 meters can be picked up by the average human ear as audible sound.

Using the table on this page and my earlier assumptions, it looks like pressures from .1 to 100 Pascals would be in the neighborhood of the minimum required pressure. This corresponds very roughly to .2 to 2 pounds per square foot.

The real question is this: how far away from the ship would the pressures drop too low to convey audible sound? Things to ponder...

Happy Trekking,

The Skipper


0 Corrections
Question #85415 posted on 02/09/2016 12:20 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Recently, I learned that my coworker, and somewhat friend (we've only known each other for 3 months), is a lesbian. Doesn't change my perspective on her whatsoever --she's just as cool, fun, smart, sweet, fair, talented, etc. That doesn't surprise me because, well, she's the same person. But my perspective on me has changed!! I've noticed that I'm now paying/taking more attention to my looks and apparel when I'm around her. I forgot to tell you I'm a female too. I know its normal to want to look your best in public (and some girls won't ever leave their house without makeup), but this is different. I choose my outfit or shade of lipstick with her in mind if I know I'll be working with her specifically that day. Is that a normal reaction/behavior when you find out that someone has the capacity to be attracted to me? Or is it revealing some deep-seated subconscious of mine?

-Freud friend or foe?

A:

Dear you,

I think it's pretty normal to want people to be attracted to us. It's easy to get a boost of self-esteem from it, although it shouldn't be the basis of your self-esteem. It also gives us influence with people, although we shouldn't use it to manipulate. Long story short, human nature has a powerful incentive to try to be attractive to people, for other reasons than mutual interest. 

On the other hand, sexuality is pretty fluid, and even straight people can be interested in people of the same gender occasionally. So it could be some subconscious desire. 

Either way, I wouldn't worry about it. Nothing wrong with dressing up once in a while. 

-Zedability 


0 Corrections
Monday, February 8, 2016
Question #85414 posted on 02/08/2016 11:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I was thinking today how Disney asking Mark Hamill to reprise his role as Luke Skywalker must have gone down:

DISNEY: Hey, Mark- how would you like to be Luke Skywalker again?

MARK: Wh- yeah! I'd love that! I haven't had a real acting job in years! What do I have to do for the role?

DISNEY: Nothing...you just stand there, and do...nothing.

MARK: Do I have a line?

DISNEY: No, no...you don't speak. Just stand there.

MARK: Just stand there-

DISNEY: That's right.

MARK: Not even a "Hello"?

DINSEY: You don't need to say that. Just don't make any noises at all.

MARK: What if Luke has to cough?

DISNEY: He doesn't.

MARK: Can I smile?

DINSEY: Luke doesn't smile.

MARK: I'm pretty sure Luke smiles-

DISNEY: He doesn't.

MARK: Well, what the heck am I allowed to do then?!

DISNEY: Nothing. You just stand there, and do...nothing.


Here's my question: how much was Mark Hamill payed to play Luke Skywalker in The Force Awakens?


-Jar Jar Abrams


0 Corrections
Question #85388 posted on 02/08/2016 9:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So the Iowa Caucus is over. Now what? How does this process work again? Does the winner or Iowa really that big of a deal? It's just one state.

What happens? How does the entire process from here to the White House work?

-Woefully Ignorant

A:

Dear Woefully Ignorant,

The Iowa Caucus is important mostly because it thins the field. Candidates finally realize that they don't have a chance, and donors stop donating to candidate who don't seem likely to win. We have already seen four candidates drop out of the race since the Iowa Caucus, and I expect by Super Tuesday (or maybe the day afterwards) we will be down to three Republican candidates and the two remaining Democratic candidates. 

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger  


0 Corrections
Question #85409 posted on 02/08/2016 7:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Do you believe that God created the laws of physics and could change them at His will? Or do you believe that the laws of physics exist above and beyond God and that He must operate within them? What makes you believe one way or the other?

-Λrchetype

A:

Dear Λrchetype,

See also Board Question #61134.

-Curious Physics Minor

A:

Dear person,

To give a completely different opinion, I believe that God is the creator of nature as we know it and that He could change the laws of physics. I love CPM's answer to Board Question #61134 but I think things like gravity and atoms have to do with the organization of forces, matter, and energy, not rational truths like 2+2=4.

I believe that God is bound by the laws of mathematics and logic, but that He created the laws of physics. Even though we see mathematical patterns in the observable universe, I think that other configurations of forces, matter, and energy (and maybe even other things I can't even imagine) could be possible that would follow other organizations and patterns without violating mathematics or logic.

Obviously that's a pretty big metaphysical assumption, to think that the truths of reason and material reality are actually separate and fundamentally different sets of laws. It's possible that my assumption is wrong, but I think it's probably impossible to prove/disprove empirically because there is no way to test the existence of laws that exist outside of nature. I'm guessing it's probably also impossible to prove rationally by a proof, but that's more of a guess. This is kind of where I hit my intellectual limit, so I'll stop now.

-Sheebs


0 Corrections
Question #85338 posted on 02/08/2016 5:50 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I was on my mission when the BYU Valentine incident occurred, and only heard about it today.

Personally, I have yet to meet someone who is really that uptight about dress (even in Mormon-Land). So I've come up with some alternate theories:

1. The letter was given to her as a rude Valentine's joke, playing off of the perceived prudeness of BYU culture.

2. The outfit she was judged on was not the same as the one she has on in her selfie.

3. She is an attention hog, and wrote the letter herself.

Have you ever heard of ridiculous "unmodesty" stories outside of this? Maybe I live in my own bubble separate from the "Mormon Bubble", but this story just seems too unbelievable to me. If it was true, many other women would have gotten letters just like it.


-Doubting Renegade

A:

Dear you,

Yeah, when women are shamed for being too sexual it's always secretly their fault, amiright?

In all seriousness, though, your question reflects a broader cultural problem. Frequently, when these kinds of situations occur, people tend to assume that the woman is overreacting, exaggerating, or outright lying, and doing it all for attention. Now, I'm not saying that women never do any of these things; I just think it's problematic when women are automatically assumed to be doing these things.

To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure how it is that you've never encountered ridiculous immodesty controversies in Mormon culture before. In researching this question, I came up with a ton of examples that support the idea that this is actually fairly common, although the decision to put it on the Internet may be less common. I think that's part of why the story spread so fast; a lot of people identified with what happened.

First, I tried to look up the original posts on Twitter and BYU Memes, because I was a freshman and I remember it happening. I distinctly remember the BYU Memes page being filled with controversy regarding whether or not her outfit was, in fact, immodest. I remember being surprised by the number of people who agreed that the outfit was immodest and thought that the girl was completely in the wrong for wearing that. Unfortunately, finding posts from almost four years ago is kind of difficult.

However, I will point out that even the article you quoted mentioned negative feedback about the outfit she's wearing in the picture; specifically, someone commented, "Sweetie, I think it's because your cleavage is showing." 

That gave me the idea to look up other articles, to see what other people thought at the time. Unfortunately, I didn't organize which comment came from which article very well, so I'm just going to tell you which sources I found and then list a selection of comments.

The Articles

Salt Lake Tribune

The Blaze

Modern Mormon Men

By Common Consent

 

The Comments

This first one isn't exactly a comment, but 6% of voters on The Blaze thought her outfit was provocative. This is 6% of the general population, not just 6% of Utah Mormons.

She looks very cute, but her dress is too short by BYU standards - skirts, dresses, and shorts must be knee-length or longer, and hers is above the knee. Leggings or not, I imagine that's what he took exception to, and possibly the low-ish neckline. Not overly flashy for the general population, but perhaps too immodest for the university dress code. She agreed to the rules, she should follow them.

"The girls in question AGREED to abide by the Honor Code. Why should they get a Get Out of Jail Free card just because we can't actually see their whole chest? The rule set about by this private university was that the students (including guys) dress modestly. If those girls want to dress like they don't belong to our church, then they have loads and loads of OTHER universities they can choose from, which have much more relaxed standards."

"Has anyone really taken a look at Brittany Molina's outfit and saw that the boy might have a point? Look at the top of her dress, it is pretty low cut and v-neck. When she bends over, I guarantee there is quite a bit of visible cleavage. And her dress is above the knees. So when she sits down, her dress resembles a miniskirt. Yes, it's not super immodest when she's standing, but no one stands all the time. Her outfit needs to be modest even when she bends over or sits down. Her opaque tights do not make up for her short dress. Opaque tights are not pants. They are skin tight tights (hence the name "tights"). And as for Rachel Vermillion, those jeans do look tight. And tight jeans often show off the wearer's underwear line. Also, let's keep in mind that all of the buildings on the BYU and BYU-I campuses are dedicated buildings. Let's remember to whom they are dedicated."

"The point is this: How we dress affects how people react to us. It also demonstrates where our heart and spirit really desire to be." Robert D. Hales. [...] It's easier for a woman to dress modestly than for a man to control his thoughts."

"I know the guy who wrote the note. We were roommates last year. I would recognize that handwriting anywhere, and I know that he studies in the Tanner Building where this girl was studying, according to the original post on Facebook. He’s an idiot. He also doesn’t believe women should have the right to vote. (If they’re doing as the Lord commands and staying home, and if they’re doing what the Lord commands and being of one heart and one mind with their husband [who incidentally belongs to the Constitution Party], then there’s no need for them to vote because their husband can handle the affairs outside the home. It’s the system God ordained, don’t you argue with me you follower of Satan, you!) The best part is that he probably made some sort of lewd remark about the girl (either to himself or to a friend), then wrote the note anonymously and gave it to her, without any idea of the hypocrisy of it all. And he probably felt super righteous for doing it, too, and anybody who questions his methods or motives is simply questioning God. After all, the Honor Code was written by God. Goodness I hated living with him."

"As female faculty at BYU, I have experienced more than one reprimand of this sort in the form of student ratings. Since I am comfortable wearing every single one of my cardigans to both church and the temple, I do not understand how they can affect someone’s ability to learn in my classroom. People will take away whatever they want from every situation. If you look for evil in everything around you, you will find it. I cannot help it if a student or two find my cardigans sexy…nor do I care too awful much, because it is their problem.

*as a side note, students have also suggested I go home to my family, where I belong…*sigh*"

"THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO ME. Only different. I was at BYU-Idaho and I got an e-mail from some chick who found me on stalkernet while I was off-track and lived 1500 miles away. It said that I was currently in a class with her boyfriend (untrue, I didn’t have any classes) and that my dress was having a negative effect on him because I wore short shirts (also untrue, short shirts bug me). She insisted it made it hard for him to concentrate in class – in other words, her bf had little to no self-control, and he blamed women for it. And complained to his girlfriend about his inability to control himself? Sigh. An unfortunately common fallacy in the LDS church."

"Although I don’t think that most students at BYU are this stupid, the general feeling of the note is very common around campus. I’m a graduate student in a science department at BYU. Many of the students share a common office area in a certain place in the building. I was doing some work in the office when the subject of this note came up. My ears perked up immediately as four male graduate students started discussing this. They are, for the most part, your typical BYU students so I wanted to hear what they had to say. They all agreed that this guy was out of line for saying anything to this girl. It was so rude of him! One person insisted that it had to be a joke. Ok, so far so good. Until, the conversation took a slight turn into what was and wasn’t appropriate for women to wear on-campus. They all agreed that leggings and a short skirt was not acceptable. One student said he was bothered to go into the department office to talk to the student receptionist because her shirts were a little low cut and he could see just a little bit of cleavage (I go up to this office all the time and I’ve never noticed this before). He didn’t want to come to campus and be exposed to breasts! How dare she! The only breasts he wants to see are his wife’s. One other student said, “Just think of seeing her breasts as a perk.” I was shocked and had no clue what to say. Actually, I chickened out. I didn’t know what to do! I have to work with these male students all the time. I didn’t want to burn any bridges especially over a conversation that was happening on the other side of the room. I guess I can now confirm that, even though I feel my body may be dressed modestly, others may not agree and may be judging me on my appearance. I completely agree with the OP. The HC fetishizes girls on-campus and as a result we are creating an unsafe environment. I would appreciate some advice on how to speak and approach this topic with my colleagues if it ever comes up again."

"I went to a YW volleyball practice once and I mentioned to one of the leaders my surprise at how only 2 girls were wearing shorts and the rest were wearing jeans. She said, “Yeah, we keep talking to them about it, but we can’t get them to dress modestly.” I was shocked. This is absolutely not how modesty worked when I was in YW and that was only 14 years ago. When did youth rules become more strict than garment rules?"

‘“Leggings and tights do not compensate for too short of a dress,” Sorensen said, later adding, “I’ve had this conversation with a lot of guys before. If the girls won’t follow the Honor Code and no one is enforcing it, is it really so wrong for him to take matters into his own hands? Many guys I’ve talked to say that it’s disrespectful and distracting when girls refuse to follow the Honor Code.”’


My Conclusions

So, just from comments on articles about the issue, a few things seem clear. First of all, a substantial subset of the population believed that the outfit in the photo was immodest (the neckline was too low/the skirt was too short). Therefore, even if she did change into a different outfit, apparently this "more modest" outfit was still unacceptable for some people. Second of all, at least one person either knows the guy who wrote the note, or personally knows a guy who would be likely to sincerely write such a note. Finally, a lot of people seem to have had similar experiences to Brittany; they just didn't post about it on Twitter.
 
I also found Brittany's own blog, which had a post she made several days after the incident. You can read what happened in her own words here. Based on that post, as well as my extensive Twitter-stalking of her, I really doubt that she made it up for attention. Not only is she very sincere and apparently wasn't looking to make a fuss about it in the first place, but she's also reasonably conservative and not very attention hog-y on the Internet in general. She seems like an upstanding woman, and once again, it's extremely problematic that people automatically assume that the victim is somehow to blame in these situations.
 
You also asked for other stories of ridiculous immodesty moments, so I collected some from the Internet and from my own acquaintances.
 
 
Other Immodesty Stories From The Internet

The Blaze and a Utah girl going to prom

Utah school photoshopped sleeves onto yearbook photos

Lindsey Sterlinggate (the dress was fully lined, people! Come on! Also, this was hugely controversial when it happened)

BYU furor over one-strapped book bags being inappropriate on girls

The Board Question that kicked off what I refer to as "claviclegate"

Some excerpts from another By Common Consent post:

"My sister-in-law shared with me that her stake is now requiring all girls to wear both a tee shirt and knee length shorts over their one-piece swimsuit to swim–at Girls Camp!... When he got to the resort, he found that the stake had only intended that the rule be applied to the girls.  However, when the Mormon kids showed up in their tee shirt-covered swimwear, the resort would not allow non-swimwear in the pool.  In a Muslim country, birthplace of the Obedient Wives Club, we Mormons had out-Muslim’d them.  The tee shirts were removed, and no teen orgy ensued, just good Mormon kids having fun in the sun dressed appropriately for the occasion."

"35.8% allowed only capris or longer, which is even more restrictive than garments.  7.5% were in wards or stakes that fully outlawed anything shorter than pants for girls at Youth Conference or Girls Camp."


Immodesty Stories From Me and People I Know

"I was walking to church with a guy and a girl had a mid-thigh-length skirt and he started ranting to me about how that kind of thing has so much of an effect on guys blah blah blah...she had nice thighs, granted, but it really wasn't bad."

"One of my mission companions told me that while she was in the MTC, she got a lecture about how some sister missionaries wore just a mod-bod with nothing over it and they got raped. The person doing the lecturing kind of implied it was their fault for being so immodest."

"My cousin had a YW leader who wouldn't allow the girls to even wear one-pieces to swim. They had to wear a t-shirt/shorts over their suits because she said it was too immodest. There weren't even any boys around... Haha. The same woman wouldn't let her kids wear skinny jeans/tight pants because she said they were too immodest."

"One of the school of music administrators likes wandering around making sure everyone is keeping the rules. I have a friend who got told off for her dress being too short (an inch or so above the knee). "It covers my garments..." The lady's response? "That doesn't matter.""

"There's some controversy or other at BYU-I right now over whether or not yoga pants should be allowed in the exercise facilities. Yes, whether women can wear workout clothes to work out in."

"A readers' forum submission from a guy about how BYU girls are only half-Mormons because they're not dressing modestly. Also, last semester, two of my male students wrote their opinion editorials on how women should dress more modestly."

"One time I was wearing bermuda shorts that came to probably about two inches above my knee (and covered my long carinessa garments) and a guy told me, "You know those are too short to wear at BYU, right?""

"On my mission, one of my favorite families had something very odd about them -- they all wore long sleeves and pants. Keep in mind that although this is the more temperate part of Arizona, this is still Arizona, and it was July. We happened to be in the same thrift store one day (us missionaries were hunting down a less-active who worked there 70 hours a week) and one of the daughters was apologizing to her dad for feeling "tempted" to buy a t-shirt but they're immodest because they show her arms, but she understood the rule and followed it because she wanted to "keep the law of chastity." To this day, her father and I still butt heads over the issue."


My Final Conclusions

There is a huge cultural problem with how Mormons view modesty. If you've never encountered or noticed it, that's great for you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and that doesn't mean it's appropriate to assume that people who have experienced it are making it up or overreacting.

-Zedability


2 Corrections
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What are the similarities to the biblical Moses with the ancient Egyptian mythological/historical figure of Tisithen? Or Osarsiph?

And what's the connection between biblical Joseph and Peteseph?

Why have some scholars identified them with these figures? Specific similarities?

Why are these much later extra-biblical accounts associated with these well known biblical stories? Could it provide support that these biblical accounts may have happened in some way or another (with some overlapping details but other disimilarities) or is that too far-fetched? Are they just common motifs?

Any lds scholars commenting on this matter?

-Sage

A:

Dearest Sage,

I get the sense that you've actually researched this topic quite a bit and were just looking to bounce some ideas off of people (though I could be wrong). Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of time to really dig into this stuff, but I've tried to answer your questions as best I could:

What are the similarities to the biblical Moses with the ancient Egyptian mythological/historical figure of Tisithen? Or Osarsiph?

And what's the connection between biblical Joseph and Peteseph?

Why have some scholars identified them with these figures? Specific similarities?

Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived in the first century AD, is the most credible reference I could find on the matter. In Against Apion, he writes:

That Moses and Joseph were scribes: and Joseph was a sacred scribe. That their names were Egyptian originally; that of Moses had been Tisithen, and that of Joseph Peteseph...

A random website I found seemed to give Osarsiph as an alternate translation of Tisithen for Moses, and implied that this name was given when he was initiated into some Egyptian order.  

I don't know enough about this subject to say whether or not Moses and Joseph had similarities to Tisithen and Peteseph, assuming the latter two figures are found in other places in Egyptian lore. As far as I can tell, if modern scholars make the connection, it's because Josephus did. As to why Josephus did, reading around that quote from Against Apion seems to indicate that he's looking at the works of other historians. Where they got the idea (whether from actual history or fiction), we'll never know. 

Any lds scholars commenting on this matter?

Not that I could find, no.

Why are these much later extra-biblical accounts associated with these well known biblical stories? Could it provide support that these biblical accounts may have happened in some way or another (with some overlapping details but other disimilarities) or is that too far-fetched? Are they just common motifs?

I'm not sure I know enough to comment here, but it very well could be that the Egyptians were re-telling the Bible stories. Or it could be that that's when the Bible stories actually took place. Or it could have to do with the oral tradition thing I mentioned in my last answer. I don't really know.

-Frère Rubik


0 Corrections
Question #85412 posted on 02/08/2016 5:01 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I've heard that babies need to be exposed to germs otherwise they develop allergies. Is that true and if so what is the best way to give them proper germ dosage? I would think a dog licking would be a germ 'multivitamin'. Or not cleaning carpet too often?

Not Over Protective

A:

Dear you,

I don't think you need to deliberately try to expose your baby to germs, or change any of your habits. Simply avoid things like antibacterial soaps or hand sanitizer in favor of regular soap; don't bathe your baby more than twice a week or so; don't feel the need to sterilize the pacifier if you drop it on the ground; let him or her explore the world with their mouth a bit; etc. Bring them outdoors and don't keep them on too tight of a leash.

However, I would avoid unsupervised sandbox play, because cats and other animals sometimes relieve themselves there and toxoplasmosis is one germ your baby definitely should not be exposed to. Along the same lines, keep them away from litter boxes.

-Zedability


0 Corrections
Question #85396 posted on 02/08/2016 4:53 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I was at one of the top 5 aquariums in the world this weekend and boy did it deserve its ranking!!! Unsurprisingly, though, they did not have any narwahls there. But I asked one of the staff peeps about what the tusk of a narwhal is used for and he basically said: "no one has a clue, but people lean towards mating." Do scholars really not have a clue ordid this staff member not have a clue and was caught off guard??

I asked if the pointy long tusks were used for spearing prey, but he said "only on accident." I buy that since I wasn't convinced on my theory... Seems catching fish with your teeth would be much easier....

My dad suggested it was for breaking up the frozen ice for when they get trapped. Does this hold any weight?

What are scholarly theories? What are your theories? (I mean, there must be a reason/use otherwise wouldn't they adapt to not have them)?

Oh, and I'm wondering how often they poke each other!!! Their tusks seem so awkward and cumbersome!! Any documented accounts? Ouchy ouch.

-Kool-Aid Man Smashing through a Brick Wall

P.S. Oh Yeaaaaaaaaaah

A:

Dear Don't Drink the Kool-Aid,

Real talk here, I was actually randomly looking up narwhals last week, because it's not like I had a gajillion papers or tests to study for (oh wait), and turns out their tusks are actually a huge elongated tooth that grows through their lip! Suddenly narwhals seem a lot less cute, and a lot more like lecherous old men with nasty snaggle teeth. If you need another horrifying fact about narwhals, their name comes from the Norse word nár, which means corpse, because their greyish color apparently looks like a drowned sailor.

Now that I've brightened your day with those facts, time to actually answer your questions. Generally only male narwhals have tusks, although about 15% of females grow small tusks, as well. Until recently, scientists didn't really know what their purpose was, and some posited that it was used as a way to impress females, or perhaps to break through the ice (insert pun about using ice breakers to impress women). However, they recently discovered that the tusk is a sensory organ. Unlike most teeth, the tusks aren't covered in enamel, and allow seawater to enter through special channels. The water then passes through to the pulp of the tooth where it sends messages to the brain about the water temperature and chemical composition, and it might be used to locate food and females who are ready to mate. Pretty cool stuff.

I didn't find any accounts of narwhals accidentally poking each other with their tusks. Probably they have enough body awareness to know where the tusk is and not accidentally run into other narwhals. It's like how we don't accidentally walk into doorways (most of the time, anyway).

-Alta


0 Corrections
Question #85413 posted on 02/08/2016 4:44 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What is sin?

–Perry S.

A:

Dear you,

According to lds.org, "To commit sin is to willfully disobey God's commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth."

That's the most correct answer I can give you.

An interesting comment was also made by Terry Pratchett, who wrote that "sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself." This might focus on a sub-set of sins, but I do think it can potentially lead to interesting insight.

~Anne, Certainly

A:

Dear Perry,

Feeding someone turkey bacon when they're expecting bacon.

-El-ahrairah


0 Corrections
Question #85286 posted on 02/08/2016 4:44 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I am scared. A few years back, I read the Book of Mormon. Earnestly. Wanting to know the truth. I read the whole thing, and then I prayed. Fervently! Asking for that confirmation. I got nothing. Zip. Nothing saying heck yeah, and nothing saying heck no. Just... nothing. Which doesn't seem consistent with the promise in Moroni 10:4-5.

So, I kind of put it on hold for a few years. Partially because it kind of hurts to think that there's this promise that if you follow these certain steps, then you'll get an answer, and then not getting an answer... it kinda stinks. It feels like I'm not important enough or I don't deserve to get an answer, while other people do. It doesn't just kinda hurt, actually. It hurts a lot.

The other reason I've been holding off is more ideological. I feel like if I go through the whole process again-- read, pray, etc.-- and I still don't get an answer, then I can't in good conscience keep living as a Mormon. A non-answer once might be due to some weird or wacky circumstance, but I don't think I can ignore it happening twice. It would have to mean that it isn't true, at least for me.

So, I'm scared of trying again, because I kinda like the community I live in and I like my ward. I just don't have a testimony of Christ, or Joseph Smith. And the lack of answer is also making me lose a testimony in God. I'm scared that if I get no answer again, I won't be able to reconcile that and keep living my life the way I have, because it would just feel dishonest.

What are your thoughts, advice, and/or feelings?

--Endowed, Sealed, and Living in Provo

A:

Dear Doctor,

When I first read your question, I realized that I have a lot of thoughts on the matter, but they're a bit hard to verbalize. So, I'm going to try my best, but I realize that it's probably insufficient.

In 3 Nephi 9, the Lord is speaking to the inhabitants of the Americas. In verse 20, he says, "And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not" (emphasis added).

Sometimes, like Alta mentions, our testimonies are built without us consciously recognizing the process. I actually think this process happens more often than not, because in people share the "testimony building" experiences in church, rather than the process of thousands of small occurrences. So, perhaps you do have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, of Christ, or of Joseph Smith. But perhaps they are quiet assurances rather than spiritual shouts. 

-Tally M.

A:

Dear you,

I also didn't receive an answer about the Book of Mormon for a really long time, and it did cause me to have doubts about a lot of things. While I had plenty of spiritual experiences with other things, I never felt like I got a really distinct, specific answer to "Is the Book of Mormon true?" or "Is Joseph Smith a prophet?" until literally the last transfer of my mission.

We hear a lot in the Church about how if you know the Book of Mormon is true, then the rest of the gospel just falls into place, etc. I appreciate that many people do have this spiritual experience within the Church, and that they are very sincere about how much the Book of Mormon is the keystone of their testimonies. It makes a lot of sense, and it's supported by a variety of General Authority quotes and the model for missionary work basically since the Church was organized. Trying to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon and using that to have faith in other things is a really good idea.

However, I think that we often talk about this in a way that creates the false impression that this is the only way to gain a testimony; or, conversely, if you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, you're almost not allowed to have doubts about anything else. I think this is problematic, because everyone's spiritual journey is very specific, individual, and tailored to their own life experiences. Just because your testimony doesn't develop in the same order as someone else's doesn't make it less valid, or less of a testimony.

With that in mind, I would suggest that instead of focusing so much time and energy on the Book of Mormon, to the point that it creates anxiety for you, you could also focus on other spiritual experiences. Read the Bible, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price. Go to the temple. Gain a testimony of the Sacrament.

Personally, I tend to organize religious beliefs from general to specific:

  1. Belief in whether or not God exists
  2. Belief in whether and how God communicates with us
  3. Belief in whether or not Jesus Christ is divine, is the Savior of the world, and atoned for our sins
  4. Belief in whether or not Jesus Christ outlined a specific way to follow Him
  5. Belief in whether or not the Church contains these truths that Jesus Christ taught
  6. Belief in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as a prophet
  7. Belief that the current General Authorities are called of God, and that the Church is currently led by a prophet
  8. Belief in a variety of specific Church issues (position on same-sex relations, polygamy, Word of Wisdom, tithing, basically every contemporary commandment or issue you can think of)
Now, I want to emphasize that this list is completely and utterly my own personal way of looking at things. However, I feel like this order makes sense to me. If you take away #8, I can still believe #7. If you take away #4, I can still believe #3. Etc. On the other hand, if you take away #2, most of the subsequent ones are hard to believe in.
 
It's also easy for me to see, based on this list, why the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. If the Book of Mormon is true, it follows that all the earlier points are true, because the Book of Mormon testifies of them. It's also very easy to read the Book of Mormon, understand the Restoration, and see that it's necessary to continue to have prophets today. Furthermore, gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon typically involves the ability to receive and recognize personal revelation, which makes #7 and #8, as well as the rest of the points, easier to gain a specific testimony of.
 
However, if you don't have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, you can still gain a testimony of the earlier points. If I were you, I would start there. Go back to the basics about what you believe in God, and develop a personal relationship with Him. Develop your testimony of Christ. Involve the Book of Mormon in this, but also study God and Christ in the Bible, in books like Jesus the Christ, The Infinite Atonement, The Continuous Atonement, or Believing Christ. Attend the temple specifically to notice what it teaches about Christ. Try to apply the Atonement in your life on a daily basis. Study the Sacrament and try to make it an especially spiritual experiences for you. As you include the Book of Mormon in these studies, try to just focus on whether the things it teaches about Jesus Christ are true, rather than the truthfulness of the work as a whole. (Even if the Book of Mormon is not an authentic ancient record, Joseph Smith still could have taught true things about Christ). As you do this, you will have spiritual experiences, learn to recognize answers, and learn to discern truth in the Book of Mormon. This builds a powerful foundation for your testimony. The Book of Mormon may be the keystone of our religion, but Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone of the Gospel. He is ultimately the first thing anyone needs to build on. Make personal prayer and revelation a consistent theme of how you study these topics.
 
After you gain a testimony of Christ, gain a testimony of His gospel. I would suggest making a detailed study of Lesson 3, Chapter 3 in Preach My Gospel. Gain a testimony that in order to follow Christ, He has asked us to exercise faith in Him, repent, be baptized in His name and by the proper authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. As you study this, pay attention to both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. For instance, look at how Matthew 3, the Book of Acts, 2 Nephi 31, 3 Nephi 11, and 3 Nephi 27 give a seamless account of the correct manner of baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. Again, pray about it, seek personal revelation.
 
As you gain a testimony of these things, it should become clear to you that following Christ, being baptized, and attending church are all things he has commanded us to do. At this point, whether or not you have a testimony of this church in particular is not necessarily an issue. Most other Christian churches believe that the particular denomination is not important for a baptism to be valid. Therefore, even if this church is not specifically more true than any other church, the fact that it teaches of Christ and that you like the church are valid reasons to remain in it. On the other hand, if the church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth, then it is the only church to remain in.
 
At this point, I would recommend studying the Restoration. Carefully study your way through Lesson 1, Chapter 3 in Preach My Gospel. Watch the Prophet of the Restoration video on lds.org. Do whatever else you need to do to feel that you've made a thorough study, and continue to pray and seek personal revelation. Now, exercising the faith and testimony you've built up over the previous points, read the Book of Mormon. You can read it in its entirety again if you want, but you don't necessarily have to in order to receive an answer. Pray specifically and with faith, and be willing to spend several weeks on this if necessary. Some people get an answer the first time they pray. For some people, they have to wait.
 
This is, of course, advice that's heavily biased by my own experiences with gaining a testimony, as well as my experiences with investigators on my mission. This may not be what works for you; something else might. Don't feel like you have to follow my advice; ask God. Let Him guide you in your spiritual growth or development, and in which order to seek for a testimony of things.
 
As for receiving answers, I read an article on my mission that profoundly influenced how I look at receiving answers. Essentially, the article, "Have I Received an Answer From the Spirit?" said that the "burning in the bosom" and similar experiences we talk about are actually very rare. Here's a quote:

As a branch president at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah, I have heard several missionaries say in their initial interviews that they did not have testimonies or that they could never remember a time when they had had a spiritual experience. After talking about how the Spirit works, they realized that they had, in fact, had a number of spiritual experiences but had not realized it before.

Perhaps this lack of awareness is fostered in part by hearing or reading about spectacular spiritual experiences. Frequent exposure to such experiences may lead some to believe that if they haven’t experienced some similar kind of outpouring or manifestation, they haven’t had a spiritual experience.

One of the Quorum of the Twelve came to tour the mission over which the Seventy was presiding. As they drove to the next zone conference, the Apostle turned to him and said, “I wonder if you might have left an impression in the missionaries’ minds that has created more problems than you can resolve. As I have traveled throughout the Church, I’ve found relatively few people who have experienced a burning of the bosom. In fact, I’ve had many people tell me that they’ve become frustrated because they have never experienced that feeling even though they have prayed or fasted for long periods of time.”
I would encourage you to study that article, and consider what kinds of answers you've received in the past, as Tally suggested. One of my favorite things about this article is it's one of the few Church articles I've found that acknowledges that many members don't receive answers as quickly as they like, or in a way that they'd expect. I promise that you're far from the only one sitting in sacrament meeting with these kinds of questions - it's just not something that other people usually bring up. You are far from the only one who has had difficulty in receiving an answer, and that doesn't make you any less precious to God. I can promise you that wholeheartedly.
 
In reading Moses 5, I've come to the conclusion that Adam had to wait years and years in between being cast out of the Garden of Eden and receiving further spiritual experiences. My conclusion is partly based on the temple ceremony, and I can't discuss my reasons for it here, but I believe that Adam and Eve had already had multiple teenage or adult children by the time the angel appeared to them to explain the sacrifices and teach them more. The children of Israel had to wander 40 years in the wilderness. Lehi's family had traveled for several weeks before Nephi was sent back to get the plates and Ishmael's family. Jesus fasted for 40 days and then suffered temptations. Alma the Elder prayed for years for his son before any of his prayers were answered. Joseph Smith waited years between the First Vision and Moroni's appearance.
 
God sometimes delays the answers of the righteous for their personal growth. I know that He loves you just as much as He loves them. I know that He wants to give you an answer and help you feel more secure in the Church, and I know that you will be able to receive it in His time.
 
-Zedability
A:

Dear Friend,

I'm sorry that this is so painful for you. Before anything else, I want you to know that God loves you. There are a lot of things I don't understand in life, but I know that God loves you. I hope you can feel that. It doesn't have to be some huge manifestation of cosmic love, but hopefully you can think of a few times that you've been able to feel something that might be God's love. I don't know why you didn't get an answer before when you asked, and I'm sorry that it's been so hard for you, but no matter what else is happening in your life, never lose sight of the fact that God knows and loves you personally. Pray to be able to see the ways He shows His love to you.

Although I'm not you, and I've never been in your exact situation, I can somewhat empathize. Once on my mission I was challenged to pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, because testimony isn't a once and done kind of thing, and we should always be adding to it. So, the next morning before my personal study, I knelt to pray, and sincerely asked to know if what I believed was really true, and if the Book of Mormon was the word of God and if Joseph Smith was a prophet. And I felt nothing. No peace, no burning in my bosom, no words in my mind, nothing. That terrified me, and my prayer changed from me calmly asking for confirmation to me desperately begging to feel something. Suddenly I felt the impression, "Why are you asking? You already know the answer. How could you start doubting so easily?" I realized that my testimony wasn't based on one answer to one prayer, but rather on a lifetime of patters that I've seen. I've felt happier when I regularly study the Book of Mormon, I've seen the hand of the Lord guiding my life in certain situations, I've experienced firsthand the peace that comes when I follow the commandments versus when I don't. For me, that was my answer. I didn't need a huge, earth-shattering response to my prayer, because I've seen tiny prayers being answered throughout my life. Elder Bednar actually has talked a lot about this, and he has a fantastic Mormon Message on it. He talks about how revelation is like light, and a lot of the time, we expect revelation to come the way light comes when we turn on a light switch—in a sudden wave. However, more often than not it comes the way a sunrise does—so slowly it's almost imperceptible, and you can't pinpoint the exact time when it gets light. Building a testimony is usually a slow process that comes over time. The answers to prayers do come, but not always in the way we expect or at the time when we expect them. Finally, Elder Bednar mentioned one more way we receive revelation. He said it's like the light on a foggy day. You can't see very far ahead of you, and it seems like no more light is forthcoming. However, you can see enough to take a few steps forward. And as you advance through the fog, you continue to be able to see the path for just a few more steps. I once heard someone put it this way: "The whole journey, you can't see past the end of your headlights. But that's enough to make it to your destination." If you don't know where you're going yet, that's OK. Act in faith on what you do know, and keep moving forward, trusting that even though you can't see the whole picture, Heavenly Father can, and He will guide your path. Remember what Elder Holland once said: "In moments of fear or doubt or troubling times, hold the ground you have already won, even if that ground is limited...When those moments come and issues surface, the resolution of which is not immediately forthcoming, hold fast to what you already know and stand strong until additional knowledge comes."

Elder Scott gave a great talk about receiving answers to prayers in the October 1989 General Conference. I hope you study the whole thing, because it's wonderful, and has helped me recognize and understand the way the Spirit is talking to me many a time. In it, he talks about how we can receive answers to prayers in three ways: with a clear yes answer, a clear no answer, or no answer at all. He discusses how no answer can actually be a response and give us insight into what the Lord wants for us. He also talks about what we can do to receive answers to prayer, how we can recognize those answers better, and the importance of acting even if we're not sure about something. It's seriously really, really good, and I hope you can find some answers in there. 

Your question made me think of the story in John 6:67-68. After being offended by Christ's teachings, "many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with Christ" (verse 66). After watching them leave, Christ turned to the Twelve Apostles and asked if they were going to leave, too. I love Peter's response: "To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." He didn't say, "To whom shall we go? I know everything you've ever taught is true," or even, "To whom shall we go? I understand your gospel and your teachings." In fact, there were a lot of gospel doctrines and principles that Peter still didn't understand at that point, and he definitely didn't know everything there was to know. But, he knew that he was happier with Christ than without Him. Even though he didn't know perfectly that he would be blessed eternally for following Christ and keeping the commandments, he hoped he would be. And that's OK. He was blessed, even despite the fact that he spent his days with Jesus and still didn't understand Christ's mission. So, friend, my question for you is, has the gospel made you happier, even if you don't understand everything? Do you enjoy going to church activities, even if you don't necessarily know that Joseph Smith was a prophet? It sounds like you almost feel like you're obligated to leave the Church if you ask again and don't receive a confirmation, but it also sounds like that prospect makes you sad. And guess what? If you're sad to leave the Church, you don't have to. Your testimony doesn't have to be a certain size or fit a certain criteria to be a member of the Church. President Uchtdorf put it beautifully when he said, "...Regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us!" No matter where you are personally with regards to belief in what the Church teaches, if it makes you happier than you would be without it, you have a place here. 

Friend, I sincerely hope you're able to find an answer to this question, and also to the question of if the Church is true. I have a lot of thoughts on the matter, and shared a lot of resources that have helped me when I face questions and doubts, and hopefully one of them is useful for you. If you ever want to talk to someone, you can always email me at alta(at)theboard.byu.edu. My inbox is always open, and I promise to not judge you for anything. Good luck with this, I'll be praying for you.

-Alta


0 Corrections
Question #85411 posted on 02/08/2016 4:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

For question #70180 - what focus in medical school did Yog choose?

-Old reader

A:

Dear Doctor,

Yog...didn't go to med school. But if you're interested in the other writers that went to med school, we'll be having Alumni week in a few short months, so stayed tuned and ask again then!

-Tally M.


0 Corrections
Question #85404 posted on 02/08/2016 4:04 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Is there a way to get from Salt Lake City (or even from Provo) to Snowbird via public transportation in the springtime? (if there is, please share)
Thanks

-Not from Utah

A:

Dear Doctor,

Route 990 is your best option, although it's a "worker" bus and only goes up once in the morning and comes back once in the evening. Since times may vary at the beginning of the season, the UTA worker I talked to suggested calling in April to verify updated times.

-Tally M.


0 Corrections
Question #85408 posted on 02/08/2016 1:08 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Any really awesome Worst First Date (or just Worst Date Ever) stories out there?

Λrchetype

A:

Dear you,

Well, there was that one time I was the eighth wheel on the date. A couple of friends and I had formed a group for our high school's girl-ask-guy dance and had put a lot of care and effort into planning a fun day of activities. Well, a week before the dance, my date came up to me and asked if his friend and her date could join our group, since they couldn't find one to go with. I hesitantly agreed. It was a mistake. My date ended up hanging out with them the whole time and I was left as an eighth wheel. I've gotten pretty good at being a third and sometimes even fifth wheel, but this felt just a bit excessive.

Then there was my first date of my freshman year, which, to be fair, mostly only turned out bad as the product of my own awkwardness. It was the second week of school, and my roommates and I went to an Institute opener/dance. As we walked there, I instructed them that we couldn't leave until we had all gotten somebody's phone number (how ambitious I was back then! It was cute). Well, fast forwarding past me awkwardly cutting someone in line to grab some napkins and the same guy later asking me to dance, I had a phone number! He texted me later on that week and asked if I wanted to get ice cream, to which I said yes. Like I said, it might have turned out to be a lovely night if I hadn't let my imagination run wild. I was 18 and had just started my college experience, while he was 23 and from Peru and I naturally started panicking that one date might lead to another and that we'd fall in love and get married and move back to Peru and I'd never get my degree and never see my family again. Have I mentioned I've always been quite logical in matters pertaining to men? To add to my delusion, while eating our ice cream he discovered I'd never been to the Provo temple and suggested that we walk up to it. I snapped internally, but managed to say something along the lines of that would be nice but oh look my roommate just texted me and she's all alone at home and really lonely and I think I need to be there for her sorry. So yeah, not necessarily a bad date, but an awkward one at best.

To top things off, at the beginning of last semester I went on a blind date to Lagoon. My roommate's boyfriend was coming up for the weekend, he was bringing a friend (we'll call him Bernard), and I'd never been to Lagoon, so I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to go in a group, all expenses paid! Well, the Lagoon part was fun, for the first hour at least. We rode The Cannibal three times in a row right off, which led to Bernard feeling sick and eventually sitting out on a lot of subsequent rides. In between rides, my roommate and her boyfriend conveniently found reasons to race ahead or drop behind, leaving Bernard and I to attempt making conversation. Now I feel like I'm usually a pretty easy person to talk to, but for some reason Bernard and I could not hold a conversation. Even on the 45-minute drive up to Lagoon, we didn't have anything to talk about. I'd try to initiate a topic, he'd maybe respond, and I'd say something back, and then conversation would die. He was very uninterested. Eventually I just embraced the silence and figured I could just have a fun day at Lagoon and that he was leaving town soon anyway. 

Well, on the drive home, Bernard told me he was still feeling sick, and asked if he could stretch out across the backseat and use my lap as a pillow. Naive, gullible, innocent Goose Girl, wanting to help a brother out, especially a brother who had just spent $50 on her, said "Sure!" This is on my list of top 10 life mistakes. With him sprawled across the backseat, there was nowhere for my arm to go except draped over his chest, and I endured the next 45 minutes averting his attempts to hold my hand. I mean, maybe if we had had a charming day together and had gotten along splendidly, but I was under the impression that he didn't care if he ever saw me again. Also, don't you think that if someone avoids holding your hand the first five attempts it means they probably don't want to hold your hand? And people say girls are confusing! Anyway, luckily I thought it was hilarious and thus avoided becoming traumatized by the experience. In fact, I kind of turned it into a game of How Many Ways Can I Decline the Generous Offer of Holding Bernard's Hand? I became pro.

-the Goose Girl, who has begun to believe that non-awkward dates are a myth.

A:

Dear Doctor,

This one.

-Tally M.

A:

Dear Julian,

It wasn't necessarily a bad date at the time, but it was a bit horrifying when my coworker called me the next day and asked if I was alive. Apparently, by trying to woo a man all night*, I had read the call sheet wrong and completely missed a 9-hour shift. And my number was listed incorrectly, so my supervisor couldn't call me in. That was a fun one. 

Then there was that one time I accidentally became a third wheel to my friend's movie-theatre snuggle fest. Yeggh. I was living abroad at the time with nothing even close to a smart phone to distract me, so I tried to block out my peripheral vision and pay attention to a movie I wasn't really interested in anyway.

Another time, the double date had gone perfectly well up until the four of us sat in my date's car for two hours before going inside. Said date was being excessively touchy, and not in a smooth way. So when he grabbed my face and leaned in after a joke was made about people making out in the mountains, I hurriedly flinched away...and yelped "No!" 

That alone was awkward but not awful. But then it was a little awful when he did it again five minutes later. 

I feel bad for sounding so negative. Dating is often annoying, but it can be great. [More sappy hope stuff and transition to sign off.]

-Auto Surf

*That...sounds creepy. What? No. Stop it. Don't think of it that way. It's fine. 


0 Corrections
Question #85393 posted on 02/08/2016 10:53 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

In the results of the Board Census, Haleakala posted several comments from people who took the census. Someone said -
"I wish that there were more of a "new order" perspective when taken to doubting members. This is that it's fine that there are problems with the church and church history. We don't have to believe in it all. We can embrace the idea of "cafeteria mormon". We can continue to go to church with this mindset."

I don't understand some of what this person said -
What is a "new order" perspective towards doubting members?
What is a "cafeteria Mormon?" Is it someone who picks and chooses what doctrines to believe, or is it someone who picks and chooses how those beliefs affect behavior, or something else altogether? What spiritual or practical benefit would there be to embracing that mindset?

-N Dog

A:

Dear you,

I don't want to get too deeply into this, but essentially, I think there's a difference between accepting that it's okay to have doubts and weaknesses, vs. believing that it's okay to pick and choose from the Gospel without ever intending to resolve those doubts or weaknesses.

On my mission, I met a ton of member who had gone less active because they felt ashamed or embarrassed that they didn't have a testimony of X, or they struggled to keep commandment Y. They didn't feel like they did Z the same way as the other members, and they felt that those members were judging them for it. In my opinion, Church culture needs to do a better job of making people feel welcome under these circumstances. You don't have to believe and do everything right in order to cling to to the faith you do have, and keep the commandments that you are able to keep. So if a member struggles with the law of tithing, that doesn't mean they should be made to feel like they shouldn't come to Church or that they're unworthy to pray until they do. Keep the commandments you can keep, exercise faith in what you do believe, and your spiritual strength will build. You can have faith that some day, your questions will be answered, and your weaknesses will be made strong in Christ. You can work up to doing the things that are difficult for you.

Even if you don't see how you can ever believe in X or do Y, you're willing to keep trying at the things you can do and be open to the Spirit to someday resolve these things for you. For instance, it's totally okay to be an active, faithful member who believes that God had no part in the Church's history of polygamy. It's okay to be so bothered by polygamy that you can't even conceive of ever feeling comfortable with the idea, and it's okay to remain totally involved in the Church while you feel that way. However, hopefully, you would feel open to the idea that somehow, someday, the Spirit will help you resolve this concern. Hopefully, you feel like having doubts about polygamy doesn't mean you can't have a testimony of other principles taught in the Doctrine and Covenants. The issue doesn't consume you so much that it taints the rest of the Church for you, and you're open to new spiritual perspectives on the subject. Sometimes, thinking about polygamy makes you feel so anxious that you just have to push it to the back of your mind and avoid the topic, but in the long term, you're open to ideas.

On the other hand, "cafeteria Mormonism" implies, at least to me, an attitude that it's okay to only participate in the parts of the Gospel you're comfortable with, without ever trying expand your comfort zone. You're not really interested in receiving further personal revelation on coffee, because you've just decided that it's okay and you don't want to change your mind, for example. You don't have a testimony of X, so you just avoid everything related to X unconditionally. Etc. However, other people may see the term differently.

I think that if each of us were to take a long, hard look at our lives, we'd find at least one area of the Church that we don't have a specific testimony of, an area of Church history that we don't understand fully, or a commandment that we're not observing as faithfully as we could. However, for some of us, these areas of doubt or weakness are less easy to notice, or aren't brought up as often in Church. Furthermore, I don't think it's appropriate to judge the intents of other people's hearts; the behavior of a "doubting member" vs. a "cafeteria Mormon" may appear the same from the outside. Being rude to people because they have a personal struggle with some aspect of the Church is never okay. It's also never okay to assume that someone just isn't trying hard enough because they're struggling with something. We should never make someone else feel like they're not observant enough to come to church with us.

Basically, we shouldn't be Pharisees about things, and we shouldn't judge the sincerity of another person's effort to follow God.

-Zedability

A:

Dear you,

I agree with Zed on the difference between accepting doubts and picking and choosing. It's clear that living some righteous principles is better than living no righteous principles. Every true thing we have faith in and every righteous action we choose to sacrifice for will bring us closer to God. To that extent, if we are willing to focus on those things that we understand and use them as our basis for moving forward in righteousness, then I don't think God's going to fault us for not knowing or understanding everything at once.

What I think becomes a problem is what Zed identified above: picking and choosing. Contrast these statements:

"I do not understand X doctrine, and so far my searching has not given me complete understanding. I am going to accept that it's okay to not know everything right now and focus on Y and Z, which I do know." (Zed goes deeply into a version of this above.)

"I don't like that the Church says I shouldn't drink tea. Medical science has some good things to say about it, though, so I'm going to drink tea anyways." (Zed gives the corresponding coffee example).

"I really struggle with participating in Sunday School because of my social anxiety. I'm going to go on the weeks when I can and participate in an at-home devotional with my spouse or a close friend or do personal study when I can't."

"I believe in the Church, but I just don't think that home teaching is important. It's fine for some people, but I don't really need home teachers and I don't want to be one either."

Here we have four examples that tend to display two divergent attitudes.

In scenarios 1 and 3, the individual might not have either a) total belief or b) total participation. They are, in a sense, picking and choosing what aspects of the Gospel to focus on.

In scenarios 2 and 4, the individual again apparently does not have a) total belief or participation and likewise picks and chooses. So what's the difference?

I think the difference is in the attitude of the individual. The individual in some of these situations appears to be approaching from a situation of a) seeking to understand the Church and b) trying to align their behavior with commandments. In other situations the individual appears to have a) made up their own mind as to what should be understood and b) made up their own rules for what behaviors are truly important. In essence, one individual is approaching the limitations of their ability to understand and participate in Church activities from a position of humility and desire, while the other appears to set limitations and then justify them from a position of pride.

To clarify, Zed is right above: the attitudes of other individuals that impact their faith or action in the Church aren't ours to make judgments on, and the exterior appearance of two people who leave Church early or who don't stand up to defend one particular doctrine may be identical. That does not mean their hearts are.

I think that the negative "cafeteria" attitude is that of the person who chooses these things because they think they know better than the Church or don't really need all the Church offers. By contrast, everyone is imperfect in living or understanding the Gospel in some way, and our individual struggles and limitations may impact the focus of our faith or our devotion - but the correct attitude here is to be striving for more and to focus on what is present while seeking what is lacking.

Essentially, I think the problem with "Cafeteria Mormonism" is that it implies that an individual can decide what parts of the Gospel are necessary or important for them as an individual, and then they can just not seek after the rest of it.

Love,

~Anne, Certainly


0 Corrections
Question #85379 posted on 02/08/2016 10:52 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm graduating in April, and on the BYU Scholastic Honors page it says: "Scholastic honors are determined each graduation about 6 weeks before graduation." My Winter Semester grades wouldn't even be finalized at that point.

Does this mean that I can tank my last semester and still graduate Magna Cum Laude, since I qualify for it right now? Do you know anyone that's done this?

Sincerely,
Senioritis

A:

Dear you,

I emailed the Graduation department, and they clarified that your last semester's grades will still count. Tanya Gibson from the Registrar's office replied that "The determination 6 weeks before graduation just gives us a general idea of who might receive honors. And it establishes  the cut-offs for the three honor areas. There will be another evaluation of all students after grades for the semester are processed and the final designations for honors will be attached to the student records. If a student's final GPA stays in the range for any of the honors designations, they will receive that designation as their final honors. If a student improves their GPA sufficiently to move to the next highest honors designation, they will have their honors moved up. However, if they do poorly their final semester and their GPA goes down below the cut-off designations, their honors will be taken from them or moved to a lower designation.

"Thus any honors posted to a student's record and printed in the April Commencement program are only preliminary and are subject to change as needed depending on the student's final GPA after grades are processed."

There you have it.

Love,

Luciana


0 Corrections