"Testosterone is a great equalizer. It turns all men into morons." - Rupert Giles
Question #82991 posted on 07/03/2015 11:15 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Have any of you experienced withdrawal symptoms after stopping a prescription medication? If so, what was it like?

-1984

A:

Dear reader,

As of 111 hours, it looks like none of us have any stories. Sorry! Readers, if you can help us out here, please do.

-yayfulness


0 Corrections
Question #82995 posted on 07/03/2015 3:08 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

In a couple of months there's a community event for my job where I'll be required to wear a t-shirt with my employer's name and logo. (Jeans with this = allowed.) I would be fine with dressing casually except for the fact that casual clothes automatically make me look like a teenager.* I want the people I meet from the community to take me seriously, since I will be working with them for a long time.

If I could wear a collared shirt and tie, I wouldn't fret, but that's not an option. Sweaters = nope, since they would cover up the front of the t-shirt. Is there any way to "dress up" a t-shirt, the most un-dress-uppy of clothes items?

-Kyle "The Yellow Dart" Smith


*(Insert some well-meaning comment from a stranger about my having a "young face." I've tried growing a beard and have the sense to not subject people to that, based on previous attempts.)

P.S. I have an unusual body shape, so a sports jacket that actually fits me right without costly alterations is about as likely to exist as the mythical city of El Dorado.

A:

Dear Yellow Dart,

Disclaimer: I know nothing of fashion. Nothing, I tell you. NOTHING! Case in point: after seeing my initial draft of this answer, yayfulgirl sent me an email and very kindly yet firmly informed me that some of my ideas were awful.

Probably your best option is to wear more professional pants with the casual t-shirt. A pair of khakis and some nicer shoes might work. Or, you might try your normal work pants and nice shoes. It depends on the shirt. If the shirt is a lighter color, wear lighter pants. If it's darker, wear darker pants. (Thanks to yayfulgirl for the advice!)

Again, though, I have next to no knowledge in the realms of fashion. If you can get the t-shirt earlier than the event, you might try making some of these combinations and then asking the advice of a fashionable friend.

Good luck!

-Frère Rubik


0 Corrections
Question #82994 posted on 07/03/2015 12:38 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Does Anne, Certainly have a bae?

-Or nawwhhh

A:

Dear Cletus,

Yes'm. If you read Board Question #81789, you'll realize that you're...

TOO LATE, NOOB!

Suerte,

--Ardilla Feroz


0 Corrections
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Question #82975 posted on 07/02/2015 11:50 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

When Joseph Smith was praying in the Sacred Grove, Satan tries to stop him. We all know the story. My question is this: what is the worst thing that could've happened, or that could happen, to someone being attacked by a devil? They don't have bodies, yet Joseph even said "it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction...not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world".
What is the worst thing an evil sprit could do?

-My Name Here

A:

Dear you,

There are scriptural accounts of people being possessed and even injured by devils, but I think the most common way they can destroy us is by trying to push these feelings of hopelessness on us. This can weaken our faith and our resolve and cause us to yield to a destruction we don't actually need to be vulnerable to.

I find that a lot of discussion about devils, etc., is rather apocryphal, so unfortunately I don't have a lot of good sources for you. Sorry!

-Zedability


0 Corrections
Question #82964 posted on 07/02/2015 9:58 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Recently, I've returned from Las Vegas, NV to the shadow of the everlasting hills and the ancestral homestead. My family and I are currently living in my parents' home while they serve a mission.

While going through some of my old stuff this week, I found an item of BYU memorabilia that intrigued me. The item in question is a Cougar Club medallion or key chain. It is roughly the size of a one dollar coin, and bronze in color. There is an image of a cougar on one side (an old "linear" design of the cougar), and on the other, a membership number and a "return postage guarantee". I have sent a query to my folks, but would like to see what you all dredge up too.

I know that my parents were members of the Cougar Club for a while, and this was likely some swag that they didn't mind giving me after they were done with it. The membership number and postage guarantee got me wondering, "am I holding a secret token that will allow me access to a vault full of BYU mint brownies?". Are there other medallions like this? Or, is this just a keychain with return postage on it in case Cougar Club members lost their keys?

Any info you find would be most appreciated!

-Folsom8k

A:

Dear reader,

My wife and I did a fair bit of searching. In the end, the only promising lead was with the library's Special Collections, which we visited today. We were able to find two documents, one addressed to "former athletes" and the other to "season ticket holders," both dated November 1975, which described something similar to what you talk about:

"As a member of the Cougar Club, you will receive a handsome bronze Cougar Club medallion mounted on a walnut shield—something you'll be proud to display in your office or den."

So, we can basically confirm that this does indeed appear to be an official Cougar Club item. We don't know exactly when it would have been issued, or when or why the club quit mounting them on plaques. Readers, if you have more information, pray tell!

-yayfulness


0 Corrections
Question #82959 posted on 07/02/2015 9:08 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm surprised that with the new airport line TRAX added, they haven't added a line straight from the U to the airport. They seem to have all the capacity and relevant infrastructure needed and the green line seems popular.

Why haven't they done this?

-Coug' up north

A:

Dear reader,

After a bit of searching, the best source I could find was actually Wikipedia. I quote directly:

On January 25, 2014, UTA announced it had won a federal grant with the intention of establishing a new TRAX line that would directly connect the Salt Lake International Airport with the University of Utah... The new line would use existing rail and trains, but more funding is required for software development, minor signal adjustments, and operator training. UTA is currently seeking these funds, but has no estimate for when the new line could begin operation.

The article also mentions that UTA's current priority is to focus expansion on lower-cost endeavors such as bus rapid transit and on extending service to areas outside of Salt Lake City. This meshes well with what I have heard from members of regional planning agencies in the area.

-yayfulness


0 Corrections
Question #82985 posted on 07/02/2015 9:07 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

It seems that most people suspect that Jim Jones committed suicide, and wasn't murdered. A) Why do you think he killed himself with a gun rather than taking poison like the 900 of his followers who killed themselves did?

I listened to the Peoples Temple "Death Tape" on the Jonestown Wikipedia page, and Jones tells his followers that the poison will act quickly and there will be no convulsions. However, if I'm recalling correctly, it was reported that some died with convulsions. So, B) Do you think he killed himself with a gun instead of the advised poison because he saw how painful (five minutes of torture) a poisonous death is? If so, that's really cowardly.

I know he wasn't one of the first to die, but C) do we know when he died? Was he one of the very last; that way he could make sure everyone was dead beforehand and that no one could see him take the easy way out?

--Mystery is Me--

A:

Dear reader,

According to this page run by San Diego State University, nobody really knows the answers to these questions. While the author's suspicions tends towards suicide, forensic evidence is inconclusive. As such, all speculation is exactly that--speculation.

It does appear that at least one person died significantly later than Jones. Annie Moore, the only other person killed by a gunshot wound, was killed two hours later with a different gun.

Really, though, other than what is recorded on the "death tape," the few written notes, and the few survivors, little is known about the details of the mass suicide. Unfortunately, it looks like this is one question that we just can't answer.

-yayfulness


0 Corrections
Question #82992 posted on 07/02/2015 5:14 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm pregnant with my second child! Yay! I have to have C-sections, so I have a little more control over when the baby will be born. My first child has a math-y birthday (like 10/3/13 or 03/11/14) and this new baby is due the third-ish week of February, meaning there's potential for a 2/14/16 birthday. I think it would be cute for both kids to have birthdays that add up, but is being born on a holiday worth it? Is it a good idea? Were any of you born on a holiday?

-Mom 2.0

A:

Dear Mom 2.0,

The thing is, whether or not your kid will like it depends on their personality. For me, I really like fun number correlations like that, but it still wouldn't outweigh the cons of being born on Valentine's Day. On the other hand, while it would have bothered me more when I was younger (birthday recognition getting overshadowed at school, etc.) by this point in my life it wouldn't really matter to me. Just do what you think is best.

-Zedability


0 Corrections
Question #82972 posted on 07/02/2015 5:08 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I saw this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSiehK2asbI and am now wondering, who creates the political opinion of Google? Do you think it's just Larry Page, or a board of people?

Then, realizing I know nothing about politics, how do most companies set political agendas?

#proudtoaskaquestionanonymouslyabouthomosexualloveonthebyuboard

A:

Dear Hshtg,

[Not so] surprisingly, there's not a lot of published information about this. (I could only find conspiracy theories and angry comments.) My guess would be that the decision comes from a larger group, rather than one CEO or director. It seems unrealistic and incautious to base a whole platform on just one person's political swingings. 

I'm sort of skeptical about company's political opinions in general, though. I'm not convinced that they don't use it to draw in the general public, whether or not all their board members/head honchos agree, banking on the logic that "people don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it." If they side with the masses in their "why", the masses will be more inclined to side with them. 

Sorry I couldn't find any good sources about this! You might be interested in this Wikipedia article, which goes into depth about agenda-setting in the media. 

-Auto Surf


0 Corrections
Question #82979 posted on 07/02/2015 3:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Recently I've had a question pressing urgently on my mind. But first I'd like to talk a little bit about Consent: I feel like we can all agree that whatever the status or nature of a relationship (romantic, familial, intimate, superficial) the issue of consent is ultimately important. I know that the consent discussion usually revolves around sexuality and "no means no" (and it does!) , but I've always understood it to be a sort of umbrella concept, which also includes equality and mutual respect.
For example: while in the presence of individual A, if individual B is ever made to feel unsafe, threatened, inferior, or in any way treated in a manner that violates their consent or approval, individual B reserves the right to, in one way or another, "say no".
This could mean anything from leaving an emotionally abusive friendship, to standing up for yourself or excusing yourself from hostile criticism.

Now: I have recently had the opportunity to spend a great deal of time with my family. Revisiting my family dynamic as an adult has been, in a word, horrifying. I love my parents both, but seeing the way they interact makes me feel sick inside. The dynamic of the home is ruled by my father's mood and my mother cowers at his temper and runs to relieve his every discomfort. She jokes about 'babying' him, but I was shocked at how critical he is of her efforts, while making no effort to go out of his way to do similar favors for her. Today, full to bursting with incredulty, I mentioned off-handedly to my mother that, 'if he had that many complaints about the toast, he could make his own darn toast.' And that 'I reserve my unalienable right to leave as soon as he decides to conjure thunder clouds over the house.' My mother became immediately defensive, and started citing gospel doctrine for reasons we should never speak ill of husbands and should serve and support willingly, etc.. Although I don't think my father is a bad person and he does have good and happy days, I don't think that justifies treating others (especially his wife and children) poorly.

Sorry this question is so long, but this is really important to me. Basically, the way my mom explained it, consent seems like a lot less of an ideal standard in the church and especially in an LDS marriage. My mother seems to have no say in the running of the household, how she is treated, or what she does. Everything defaults to my father. This crushes me. And after seeing it in my own home, I'm realizing it in almost every marriage in my family/circle of friends. The gospel is everything to me. But I feel like I could never sacrifice my respect for myself for another person. I always thought that marriage meant two people who build each other up, respect unconditionally, and SPEAK UP when or if they feel unsafe. My two worldviews are colliding. How can I reconcile them? Is there something I'm missing?

-Split down the middle

A:

Dear friend,

When this happens in the Church, it is because of culture rather than doctrine. Our theology does not intend wives to be subservient to their husbands. It is not okay for men to be domineering and tyrannical simply because they are the "patriarchs" of their homes. Does it happen sometimes? Yes. And yes, some people justify it using doctrines taught in the scriptures or in the temple, but that doesn't mean that Heavenly Father condones it. 

Just keep in mind that your marriage doesn't have to turn out like your parents' marriage. When you date seriously, make sure that your significant other knows how you feel about consent in a relationship and watch for indications that werf respects your feelings. If you feel like your consent is being violated, get out of the relationship.

Yours, &c.

Heidi Book

A:

Dear you,

I'd like to agree with what Heidi said. The way your parents understand doctrine doesn't mean that it's the way the Church teaches it. My husband and I have always understood the "ideal standard of the Church" to be pretty much exactly like you described - a marriage where two people build each other up, respect each other, and communicate when something is wrong. The Family Proclamation makes it clear that husbands and wives are to help and treat each other as equal partners. Now, there may be circumstances where one spouse is going through a particularly difficult time emotionally, which may cause them to behave unkindly, and in that situation, I think it is good for the other spouse to have charity and behave in a Christlike way. However, being Christlike doesn't mean you can't also stand up for yourself; Christlike behavior is patient while encouraging the other person to improve. Christlike behavior never enables another person to continuously behave badly or sets up a situation where they are never encouraged to change when they are doing something wrong.

As an example, on my mission I had a companion who was going through a chronic illness. Over time, the effects of the constant pain wore on her and she became very negative and unpleasant towards me. I maybe would have been justified in standing up for myself and retaliating, but because I instead chose to react with love, longsuffering, and patience, we are still great friends after she got better and returned to her usual kind self. I chose to react this way because I knew that she was suffering a thousand times more than she was making me suffer, and reacting angrily wouldn't have helped. If she had just been being unkind because she realized she could get away with it, that would have been a totally different situation and I wouldn't have stood for it. Similarly, there are times in a marriage when I think it is better for a spouse to be patient in order to preserve the loving feelings in relationship, which could later return to that mutually respectful, loving, and supportive marriage that it hopefully started out as. However, a situation where one spouse domineers over the other should not be the status quo, and anyone in any relationship should always feel free to speak up and say, "What you are doing to me is not okay, and you need to change."

So long story short, I think your original idea of what a marriage should be is right, and I don't think there's something you're missing. I think some people take the true doctrine of being patient and loving during someone's bad times, and misapply it to mean that you should tolerate someone's ongoing bad behavior without asking them to change. I'm sorry you have to deal with this in your own family. I want to assure you that not all marriages in the Church are like this - my own parents, for example, have always set a great example for me of what a loving, respectful, equal relationship looks like. Don't lower your standards or feel like you'll have to put up with this from your own husband someday, because it is not what the Church wants.

In other words, the Lord's standard of marriage is a marriage that is based on mutual charity and Christlike behavior for each other. One spouse is not required to excuse another spouse for blatantly ignoring this standard.

I also found a quote from David O. McKay that says: "Let us instruct young people who come to us, first, young men throughout the Church, to know that a woman should be queen of her own body. The marriage covenant does not give the man the right to enslave her, or to abuse her, or to use her merely for the gratification of his passion. Your marriage ceremony does not give you that right" (in Conference Report, Apr. 1952, 86). The quote does seem to focus on more the physical side of marriage, but I think its spirit and intent can be very easily extended to any other aspect of marriage.

In closing, I'd like to share a couple of very paraphrased stories about how modern prophets treat their wives. The first is about Joseph Smith. It shows up in some cuts of the Prophet of the Restoration movie. Joseph was beating rugs outside and doing some household chores, when another man admonished him for doing "women's work," which he believed was unbecoming to a prophet's dignity. The man suggested that he could have his wife speak to Emma about being a better housewife. In response, Joseph admonished the man and told him that if a man didn't love and cherish his wife in this life, he could hardly expect for her to want to have him in the next life. Apparently, this man took the lesson to heart and started helping his wife around the house more. The second story is about President Monson, as related by Elder Walker in a CES fireside on my mission. Apparently, all the General Authorities were gathered together for a very important meeting in the Salt Lake Temple. The time to start the meeting arrived, but the prophet was not there. He eventually showed up very late and simply said, "I'm sorry for being late, brethren, but my wife needed me this morning." President Monson valued his duty to cherish and support his wife over every General Authority of the Church. Now, these stories don't exactly answer your question about relationships, but I think they do illustrate that the prophets of the Church do not understand Church doctrine to mean that they should expect everything to default to their convenience or comfort just because they are the husband. I agree with my fellow writers that such an attitude is an unfortunate relict of a general patriarchal culture, and is not the doctrine or expected standard of the Church.

-Zedability

A:

Dear reader,

This is actually a problem with deep roots in the history of Christianity. If you want to see what it's like when taken to an extreme, look up stories about the Quiverfull movement (but only if you can handle serious rage against a very real and intentional patriarchy). On the other hand, I don't think I have ever personally seen what you have described in the LDS church. I don't doubt the truth of what you say, I'm just saying that I don't think it's a universal tendency of members of the Church.

Long story short, it's not a Mormon problem. It's the remnants of a society-wide cultural problem, and by recognizing the problem you are taking a very important step towards helping it die out in the coming generations.

-yayfulness


0 Corrections
Question #82983 posted on 07/02/2015 7:26 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Along the lines of the anecdote Zedability shared in Board Question #82898, what are some other wedding night horror/looking-back-it's-now-funny stories you've heard? I once heard a woman, again, at a bridal shower, share how she was so scared on her wedding night that when her husband went to use the bathroom shortly after entering the suite, she promptly got under the covers and feigned she was asleep by the time he got out. I bet he was disappointed...haha.

-RedLocks

A:

Dear Strawberry-blonde-ilocks,

It doesn't look like we have very many stories about this! The closest thing I could think of is a story one of my mission companions told me. She's a convert, so she knew a little more about intimacy than most of her Mormon friends. The night before her friend's wedding, her friend asked, "So...what has to happen?" They ended up sitting in the bathtub (don't ask me why) and having a last minute educational talk.

So the wedding happens and it's nice, as weddings are. The next day, my companion got a rather distressed call from her friend. Apparently, they had been up until four in the morning and couldn't figure it out.

That's pretty much the end of the story, or at least as much as I heard of it.

-Zedability


0 Corrections
Question #82989 posted on 07/02/2015 12:56 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

How do you prevent dehydration when fasting?

-Not a huge problem, just curious

A:

Dear Doctor,

I actually drink water while fasting, at least partially because if I don't, I have a chance of getting a bad headache.

-Tally M.

A:

Dear aquaman,

An old roommate always recommended drinking a Gatorade or two prior to fasting. This seems legit to me, as you need electrolytes in addition to good ol' H2O to maintain proper hydration.

--Ardilla Feroz


0 Corrections
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Question #82984 posted on 07/01/2015 4:56 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Concerning Board Question #1931. I know in the past the Board was much more snarky and sarcastic. Can this story be re-verified? Is there more information on it? Who was the girl who died?

Take your time.

-100 Hour Student

A:

Dear Not a lot of time to get some learnin',

Snarky or not, to me the story mentioned in Board Question #1931 reeks of urban legend. Ouija Boards? Deseret Towers? 1978? Highly suspicious stuff there. 

The thing is, I can't find hide or hair of this story. I can't find any details about girls dying in DT at all, ouija board-related or not. All I can seem to find are websites run by ex-mormons talking about how there were supposedly brothels in Heritage Halls. Not the most enlightening material, let me tell you.

My next course of action would be to contact the writer who answered that question all those years ago, but unfortunately, "The captain" isn't associated with any account here on the Board. Hopefully he or she still reads the Board and can shed a little more light on the situation.

-Frère Rubik


0 Corrections
Question #82981 posted on 07/01/2015 12:44 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Can I get some numbers or a graph showing what percents of writers support legalizing gay marriage and what percent don't? Names don't have to be included if not everyone wants to share.

Thanks,
how now brown cow -the Monkees

A:

Dear now,

I sent out a survey to the Board writers and received 15 responses. Here is the breakdown:

Capture.PNG

The person who selected "other" said, "It's not that I'm undecided about it; I just feel decidedly neutral about it. I didn't necessarily want it to pass, but my world isn't ending because it did."

Now for my unsolicited soapbox opinion: I think this data reflects the general attitude of the members, in that it's a complicated and divisive issue. We could all do to remember that everyone has different opinions, even if some people aren't comfortable expressing them, and that doesn't make anyone a worse or less faithful member because of it. Let's speak kindly of those who disagree with us, understand that someone else's opinion is not an attack on our own, and express our own convictions with love. My husband and I have come to the conclusion that contention in the Church over gay marriage is going to become a more serious issue than gay marriage itself, and that puts all of us at fault if we contribute to unChristlike behavior.

-Zedability


0 Corrections