Men and women belong to different species and communications between them is still in its infancy. -Bill Cosby
Question #83032 posted on 07/06/2015 11:52 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Really excited about the new Provo temple. How can I help with the open house?

-City Center

A:

Dear you,

Your best bet would be to ask your bishop, who will have specific information about what your ward has been asked to do. When a temple got built in my hometown, all of the information came through the stake and ward leadership.

-Zedability


0 Corrections
Posted on 07/06/2015 11:38 a.m. New Correction on: #82995 In a couple of months there's a community event for my job where I'll be required ...
Question #83030 posted on 07/06/2015 11:04 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Are you excited for Windows 10 to come out? Do you think it will be successful?

-Spectre

A:

Dear Spectre,

Windows seems to follow a pattern of a good OS, then a terrible one, and then another good one. Windows 7 was good, Windows 8 was terrible, so Windows 10 should be good. I'm excited for it because I really dislike Windows 8 and I'm hoping for my Macbook to cling to life long enough for Windows 10 to be the default when I get around to buying a PC.

But yeah, I think it will be fairly successful. Most people using Windows 8 will be willing to try it since it's almost impossible to have anything worse, and I think a good portion of Windows 7 users will be interested in it just because their system would be a bit old at this point.

-Zedability


0 Corrections
Question #83013 posted on 07/06/2015 9:51 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Can you give me a 5 word summary of your favorite song? (ex. Shake it Off by Taylor Swift could be "People suck, I don't care")

-Spectre

A:

Dear reader,

A couple examples from two of my favorite bands:

"The revolution becomes the establishment." ("Won't Get Fooled Again," The Who)

"You're not unfaithful, I'm lost." ("Fool in the Rain," Led Zeppelin)

-yayfulness

A:

Dear you,

This really great flute bit.

-Zedability

A:

Dear Spectree,

"I need this dismal town."

-Frère Rubik

A:

Dear Specs,

Right now I really like "Why Do We Build a Wall?" by Anais Mitchell. It basically sounds like she is singing "boundary activation" with every word. 

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger  

A:

Dear Tre,

"With his stripes, we're healed" summarizes "This is He" from Rob Gardner's Lamb of God. I feel like that whole album could be summed up with something like, "He loves us, trust him." Now excuse me as I continue to binge listen to all 25 tracks.  

-Auto Surf


0 Corrections
Question #83024 posted on 07/06/2015 9:26 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What's the express nutshell version of how Greece ended up in such financial shambles? Was it spending money it didn't have for the 2004 Olympics that was the major catalyst or something(s) else?

-tl;dr

A:

Dear tl;dr,

Greece spent lots of money it didn't have. That includes the Olympics, but also other things, like excessively large pensions for retirees. Every country that spends money it doesn't have has to get other people to buy bonds. "Bonds" are like a loan - you offer the Greek government money and they promise to pay you back more money later on.

Basically, everyone on the same day realized that there was no earthly way Greece could pay them all back, so suddenly everyone tried to cash out their Greek bonds at one time. Since the whole point of bonds is to spend money you don't have, the Greek government couldn't fulfill all the requests it got. Have you ever heard of a bank run? This is basically the same thing.

The European Union bailed Greece out, motivated partly by self-interest. It would hurt the rest of the Eurozone if Greece collapsed, because they all share the same currency. Greece applied for a loan from the International Monetary Fund, and the rest of the Eurozone backed its application. They helped Greece make debt payments with the understanding that they would eventually get their money back. As part of the agreement, the Eurozone required Greece to make some changes to its government in order to stay financially viable. These are called "austerity measures." A lot of economists think that some of the austerity measures went to far, but no one agrees on what the "right amount" would have been.

Anyway, all this happened several years ago. More recently, Greece got tired of these austerity measures (no one particularly loves high taxes and low government spending), so several months ago the Greek people elected a party that promised to try to renegotiate its debt deal with the rest of Europe. It went very badly. The rest of Europe refused to back down from their position. This is dangerous because Europe's economic situation is still tied to Greece's economy since they all share the same currency.

Several days ago, the Greek government failed to make a payment to the International Monetary Fund, placing it in default. It can't print new money because it now shares its currency with Europe, and the creation of new Euros is controlled by the European Central Bank. In order to protect its financial system, Greece has now begun using a tool called "capital controls." Capital controls prevent people from withdrawing too much from their bank account at one time. This is a very, very bad situation for Greece. Unless it manages to renegotiate its debt deal, it's on the verge of financial ruin.

As an interesting side note, the United States' debt operates in basically the same way that Greece's does. You can go buy a U.S. government bond right now and own part of the national debt. The only reason we aren't in Greece's situation is that people still think we'll eventually pay them back. If too many people at one time happened to decide they wanted to cash out their U.S. government bonds, the entire world financial system could be left in ruin and the U.S. government would not be able to function.

Sleep tight.

- Haleakalā

Yes I know that last bit was an oversimplification. Do not submit corrections telling me this. It was a joke.


0 Corrections
Question #83022 posted on 07/06/2015 9:26 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So, we all know the counsel for women to only have one set of ear piercings, and preferably only in the lobes.

Would you consider wearing a non-pierce-related ear cuff (like this: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/5b/72/cf5b728c988130fd284f61506276d766.jpg) to be a violation of this counsel?

What is the basis for the one-piercing-only rule, anyway?

-pinterest lurker

A:

Dear Rose,

I see it as a test of obedience and following the prophet. Yes, it's small. Yes, it's simple. But following that counsel can mean a lot.

And no, I don't think it would be. It's temporary, rather than permanent.

-Tally M.

A:

Dear Pinterested,

In short, I agree with Tally. In long, I didn't think it was too serious until I looked into it and found this talk from Elder Christofferson. It's a fantastic talk as a whole, but I'll just include the part that talks about piercings. 

"I now turn to another example of our theme—the sacred nature of our physical bodies. As God and Christ are deserving of our reverence, so Their works are deserving of our respect and reverence. That of course includes the marvelous creation that is this earth. And yet as wonderful as this earth is, it is not the greatest of God’s creations. Greater still is this marvelous physical body. It is in the very likeness of the person of God. It is essential to our earthly experience and key to our everlasting glory.

Some have mistakenly supposed that, with respect to their body, they answer to no one. We are specifically told, however, that we remain accountable to God.

Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. [1 Corinthians 6:19–20]

'If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are' (1 Corinthians 3:17). 'I beseech you therefore . . . , by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service' (Romans 12:1).

How are we to preserve the sanctity of this most important and sacred of God’s creations? At a minimum, we would not in any way defile our bodies. To be specific, if we possess a sense of the sacred, we would not deface our body as with tattoos and piercings. Some wonder at the fact that the President of the Church has taken notice of this matter. They are puzzled at the directness and specificity of his counsel on this subject. He has stated:

'A tattoo is graffiti on the temple of the body.

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. . . . The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position "on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings"—one pair.'

Why would the prophet of God talk about things so seemingly insignificant? Because they are not insignificant. Defiling or defacing God’s creation, His temple, makes a mock of that which is sacred. This can be perceived as insignificant only to one who has lost a sense of the sacred. Don’t do it."

So, dang. I was surprised and a little blown away the seriousness of this topic. I feel the need to make sure I'm not making light of other prophetic declarations. 

As for as the cuff you asked about, I don't think it's bad. Other people may have different interpretations based on the quote above. Pray about it and see what feels right for you according to the given counsel. 

-Auto Surf


0 Corrections
Question #83021 posted on 07/06/2015 9:25 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have just accepted my first teaching job! I'm so excited! I'll be teaching 3rd grade. What was your favorite thing about 3rd grade? Is there a particular experience, lesson, etc that stands out? Did you have a favorite book? Is there anything that would have made 3rd Grade better?

-Ms. Caracatus

A:

Dear Caracas,

I can't remember a lot about third grade other than the time I cut out letters from the newspaper to make anonymous love notes for a boy in my class...

My roommate, on the other hand, has a lot of repressed emotions about third grade. I asked her what her favorite part was and she said, "The best part was that the gang in my class didn't beat me up like all the rest of the uncool kids because the gang leader had a secret crush on me and would protect me. That was definitely the highlight."

She then proceeded to tell me what could have made third grade better, which included not being the teacher's pet because it made her uncool; not having a gang in her class; not having the teacher get mad at her and her friend when they had pencil sword fights under their desks; and not ignoring the uncool boy who liked her. 

A lot of this was said in humor, but it reminded me how important it is to create a safe environment in the classroom. As a teacher, you get the chance to create that special atmosphere with the help of your students. I think it'd be awesome if you planned every activity or lesson with the goal of uniting the class and helping the students understand their own worth. Both of my sisters taught elementary school so I know that it's easier said than done, but it's important nonetheless.  I also realize that you've had far more education on the subject than I have, so I won't advise you too much more. 

I can't remember a lot of specific lessons or activities that made any elementary school class fantastic, but I remember the feeling of each class. The best ones were with teachers who really believed in their students, and showed that belief in all that they taught. The excitement in your question makes it seem like you can be that kind of teacher, too. Congratulations on your new job, and good luck!

-Auto Surf

A:

Dear Ms. Caracatus, 

I have a love/hate relationship with teaching third grade. They were by far the hardest grade to sub for because they're old enough to do a lot of things and therefore think they can take on anything. They're still young enough to want to do the right thing and what the teacher may ask, but you can get attitude from some kids. But the best thing by far about 3rd grade is that you get to actually teach! K-2 students are still learning how to "do school." Want to teach about volcanoes? YOU CAN DO THAT IN 3RD GRADE. Want to learn about the Declaration of Independence? YOU CAN DO THAT IN 3RD GRADE. Want to go on a field trip to the Levell Edwards Stadium to calculate how far a collegiate football player can throw a ball? YOU CAN (probably) DO THAT IN 3RD GRADE!

Thinking back to my personal experiences, I loved that we had a pet frog. I'm sure it was a pain for the teacher but I thought it was awesome! We also played a game every Friday using Brain Quest. My teacher was energetic all the time which kept everyone in class engaged. We sat in groups of 6 or 7 and I remember wishing they were smaller because I never got along with all of the kids at my group. I can also clearly remember her reading The Best Christmas Pageant Ever aloud and thinking it was the funniest book I've ever heard. 

Best of luck! Send me an email if you ever want to chat education! 

-Ms.O'Malley


0 Corrections
Question #83035 posted on 07/06/2015 8:38 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

If you're a girl who doesn't flirt how are you supposed to get dates?

-The Mango

A:

Dear Mango,

From my experience, you don't.

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger 

A:

Dear Mango,

Start flirting!

Also remember that flirting doesn't have to mean batting your eyelashes, laughing at everything boys say, or acting like a ditz to get attention.

You can flirt and still be yourself. After all, there is more than just one way to be flirtatious. If you think physical touch is awkward, show a guy you are interested by complimenting him or by inviting him to go do something. If you are afraid to invite him out, start by asking sincere questions to better get to know him and be a good listener when he responds.

If it helps, think of flirting as just... being extra nice.

Good luck!

-Vienna, a girl who knows exactly what you are going through

A:

Dear Mango,

Go to a party. Awkwardly hover behind your roommate as she socializes. Make eye contact across the room with someone you met briefly. Don't smile or make any attempt to acknowledge him. Make him approach you and start up the conversation. Admit you've forgotten his name. Discover you like the same music. Somehow end up in a deep, 5-hour conversation. Add him on Facebook. Awkwardly avoid him when you seem him on campus. Run into him in line. Get walked home. Get asked on a date because he's having relationship trouble with the other girl he's interested in. Enjoy the date. Repeat the last several steps. After several months, he will ask for your phone number. Make sure to wait a good couple of months before you text him. Start texting regularly. Hang out five days in a row. Go on an awkward dollar theater date where you feel super friendzoned. Have an 8-hour conversation after a devotional. Agree to start dating. Get married three years later.

-Zedability doesn't know how she managed to get married
(But is proof that you can be really bad at flirting and still end up on a date)


0 Corrections
Question #83033 posted on 07/06/2015 8:32 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What are some silly competitions you compete/used to compete in? (My old roommate said he always tries to pee longer than the guy at the urinal next to him. We even slow-clapped for a different roommate who had a particularly long urination at home, which made roommate #2 feel sufficiently uncomfortable.)

-World Champion of Landing Half-Full Water Bottles on their Caps

A:

Dear reader,

When I was in high school, my friends came up with a set of events we called the "Nerd Olympics." I don't remember much about it except that there were competitions in pencil flinging and endurance water fountain drinking. I wasn't the best at flinging pencils, but I did capture the water fountain drinking record at just a few seconds past ten minutes.

-yayfulness

A:

Dear Champion,

Let me start off by saying that I had the coolest 4th grade teacher of all time: Mr. Sonovich.

He made up all sorts of cool games and competitions. I actually remember learning about the Revolutionary War because he made it so fun! He assigned us all revolutionary characters and split us into the Loyalists and the Patriots. Every day we had to write in our journal as if we were our assigned character.

Then he made it even more exciting by putting a Survivor spin on it. We had immunity challenges and everything. My friend, Kevin, ended up winning the whole competition and he got to invite 6 friends to a pizza party to celebrate. Given the fact that I thought I was in love with Kevin, that pizza party (and the fact that he had invited me) was pretty much the highlight of the 4th grade.

Probably the weirdest competition that Mr. Sonovich invented was the "Stuff 'n' Fluff Pagaent."

It was pretty much a beauty pageant for stuffed animals. There was a runway portion where we had to walk our stuffed animal down the catwalk. There was a talent portion where we had to make our stuffed animal do something impressive. What any of this had to do with the 4th grade teaching curriculum, I have no idea, but it was pretty fun. The winner was a giant stuffed bear that could rap. Which you gotta admit is pretty impressive.

Guys, these memories are making me think that being a 4th grade teacher could be pretty fun.

-Vienna


0 Corrections
Question #83020 posted on 07/06/2015 8:26 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I am a very pale Caucasian woman. I was walking down the street and a Latino man started shouting at me, "Hey! The sun is out! Why don't you get some?" And then he started slapping his arm, indicating his very dark tan.

Would you consider this racism? Why or why not?

-Whatever

A:

Dear Whatever,

I wouldn't consider that racism.

I have pretty pale skin myself and have received a decent number of such comments over the years.

In fact, just yesterday I was sitting outside with my family when my uncle turned to me and said, "Hey, you're really pale. Oh wait, you've always been pale, huh?"

Um...Yep. Thanks, uncle, for bringing that to my attention. I haven't been self-conscious about it since 8th grade, but I'm glad you're trying to bring that back.

In all seriousness, embrace your fair skin! Fair skin is classic. And beautiful.

People may continue to make comments about how pale you are, but in my experience I have found such comments to be pretty harmless.

I wouldn't consider the example you gave to be racism because it seems he was poking fun more at how pale your skin is, rather than at the fact that you are Caucasian. It may not be the nicest thing anyone has ever said to you, but I doubt it was said with the intent to hurt your feelings.

Sometimes we assume there is malice behind the things people say or do when, in reality, it's just a momentary lack of filter. People are people, yo.

-Vienna


0 Corrections
Question #83025 posted on 07/06/2015 7:08 a.m.
Q:

Dear 300 Hour Board,

A lot of my questions seem to take more than 100 hours to answer. If it takes a long time to answer a question, is it because they require more research than the average answer, or because nobody wants to do it and you spend a week arguing who has to answer it?

-Deep thinker

A:

Dear Deep Thinker,

To answer your question, yes! Both of the things you mentioned contribute to questions being answered over hours.

But there is a third reason why so many answers come in late, and I feel like it's about time I admit it.

To the general readership:

I confess. I am one of the worst when it comes to getting questions completed in time.

I honestly start to feel kind of guilty about it when I remember that there are actual people out there checking to see if we have answered their question yet. So, to everybody who has ever received a late answer from me, I am sorry!

If you want the honest reason as to why my answers often come in late, well, it's a simple matter of priorities. There are just a lot of things that come before the Board on my list of priorities—things like family, temple attendance, work, school, exercise, my social life, doing my calling, etc. Us writers are really busy! And sometimes, when I'm not busy, I'm just so exhausted from being busy that I decide I would rather paint my nails or strum my guitar than put intellectual effort into answering a Board question.

The point is, there are various reasons why Board questions get answered over hours. Sometimes they are good reasons and sometimes they are bad reasons. We are all just people.

Except for Tally M. and Zedability. I'm pretty sure they are superhuman. I hope you readers all know that it is because of consistent, responsible writers like them that the Board is still functioning. If all the writers were like me, half the questions would never get answered and we would probably cease to exist.

So, dear readers, if you ask a question that gets posted a day late and Tally, Zed, and I were the ones that answered it, I give you full permission to blame me because I was almost definitely the reason it was late. Sorry!

Love,

Vienna

P.S. Yes, I finished this question late. It's currently 108 hours old.

A:

Dear thinker, 

Unfortunately, I keep quite a few questions over. Like right now, I have two that are way over 100: one that I actually finished within hours but have yet to get around to typing up and another that is so ridiculously easy to answer it's a little embarrassing that it's over. 

Finding a balance between life and writing for the Board can be hard. For example, I've spent the last two weeks trying to find a new apartment that is closer to the school I will be teaching at this fall. I have literally spent more time in a car just commuting between Provo and West Jordan than I have spent on the Internet TOTAL. It's crazy! And while I know that it would take me 30 minutes max to type up an amazing answer with pictures and puns and opinions and what have you, sometimes all I really want to do after a long day is read or relax by the pool. I don't want to look up how many calories are in an ear of corn or which breed of dog is the best for underwater basket weaving. Now don't get me wrong- most days the majority of us would be happy to definitively rank countries by cheese exports or lineup all of the dinosaurs in an epic battle to the death, but we're people too and sometimes we just need a breather. 

So, yes, sometimes research questions take longer and yes, we do have questions that nobody immediately wants to answer so they sit in the inbox until they're at 90 hours or more, but we all do love the Board and try our best to answer your questions in a timely manner.

-Ms.O'Malley


0 Corrections
Question #83038 posted on 07/06/2015 4:50 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Is this tumblr post about vaccines true?

http://carlboygenius.tumblr.com/post/117176412426

Thanks,
might as well double check

A:

Dear reader,

Short answer: Yes.

Slightly longer answer: You'll notice at the bottom of the page that there is a "source" link, which takes you to this page. (If you didn't notice it, don't feel bad. I didn't notice it either until after several minutes of googling... which had already led me to the same result.) Pears are included in the list of foods containing naturally occurring formaldehyde, clocking in at between 38.7 and 60 milligrams per kilogram of pears. The picture assumes that the higher value is most accurate, but even taking the lowest possible value, that's still around 80,000 micrograms of formaldehyde in a 200 gram pear.

For more information on formaldehyde in living things, click here. For instance, did you know that the human body naturally produces formaldehyde? Now you do!

-yayfulness


0 Corrections
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Question #83036 posted on 07/05/2015 11:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Does the BYU Air Force ROTC detachment allow law students to join if they want to become a Judge Advocate for the AF?

http://www.airforce.com/jag/entry_programs/students/graduate_law_program#how_to_apply

This program says that if your school is willing to enroll you as a cadet while you attend law school, you can graduate and commission directly as a judge advocate general for the Air Force. Does Detachment 855 allow graduate student cadets?

-Future JAG

A:

Dear reader,

According to my contact in the AFROTC wing staff, it sounds like the answer is yes:

Yes, Detachment 855 does allow graduate student cadets. There is currently a student enrolled as a cadet who is attending law school. You can contact Colonel Kucharek for more information:

Colonel Paul M. Kucharek
Professor of Aerospace Studies
Detachment 855
Brigham Young University
380 Wells ROTC Building
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-2671
paul.kucharek@byu.edu
paul.kucharek@us.af.mil

Best of luck!

-yayfulness


0 Corrections
Question #83034 posted on 07/05/2015 10:14 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I expected that I would be living in my current place of resident for at least 2-3 years, and I needed to order some new checks. In doing so, I now have two boxes of checks with my current address. However, I unexpectedly will be moving before I even make it through the last box of my old checks (that had my parent's address on them).

How bad is it to keep using my new checks even though my address has changed? Should I just order new checks? I don't really know how long I'll be at this new place, but I suppose I could put my parent's address back on them.

-My Name Here

A:

Dear TARDIS,

I've been doing that for two years, since mine still has my Heritage Halls address. I just cross it out when I remember. Sometimes I write my current address if it's really important, like when I was applying for a passport. I only ever use checks for tithing though.

-Tally M.

A:

Dear reader,

I've been doing the same thing as Tally, except with checks with my Helaman Halls address where I haven't lived since 2009. I've never had a problem, but then again, I literally only used them to pay rent.

-yayfulness


0 Corrections
Question #83028 posted on 07/05/2015 3:44 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What is the easiest/best class to take to fulfill the Civilization 1 GE?

- Someone who really doesn't like homework

A:

Dear Homeworkphobe, 

ENGL 201: Masterpieces of World Literature (I took it from Dana Bunn, but I've heard good things about the other professors who teach it, too). Let me warn you right off the bat that this is probably not going to be very light on homework. In my class, besides reading, we had a weekly one-page response to write, as well as two research papers and a group presentation spread throughout the semester. But don't let that faze you by any means; I still think ENGL 201 was one of the best classes (if not the best class) I've ever taken at BYU. The literature was interesting, the class discussions were engaging, and I walked away with broadened horizons and a greater understanding of different cultures (not as great as what you could possibly get from a study abroad, but still significant).

Seriously, take the class. It might be hard, but it's one of those hard things that is totally worth it in the end.

-Frère Rubik

A:

Dear Wade,

I'm taking Western Humanities right now. In my class we have two short paper assignments and like, maybe 6 or 7 reading quizzes. Just throwing that out there.

-M.O.D.A.Q.

A:

Dear sorry,

I don't know if this is the same course Frère Rubik is advocating, but ENGL 201: Masterpieces of World Lit (with John Talbot) may have changed my life. You will read more than you ever thought possible and be more enlightened than you ever thought possible. It's worth the homework.

Yours, &c.

Heidi Book


0 Corrections
Posted on 07/05/2015 3:36 p.m. New Correction on: #83017 Board Question #82906 (about people being sealed to multiple people) got me wondering about a proxy ...
Posted on 07/05/2015 3:35 p.m. New Correction on: #82935 Japanese student and incoming freshman here. What are some resources BYU offers to language students? For ...
Question #83027 posted on 07/05/2015 3:32 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I've just recently learned how to express interest in guys and get asked out on dates. While I've had much more success than previously anticipated, I'm still having some trouble gauging the right level of interest to show for various guys and situations. What are the social cues I should be looking for to try to hit the sweet spot between expressing too little interest and coming on too strong? Any other helpful advice you could give me for putting my new skills into practice?

-flirting novice

A:

Dear Martha,

The point system is sometimes good, but the basic idea is to pursue them at the same level or slightly more than they're pursuing you. Is he asking you to do things? Is he responding to texts? When you bring up something you'd want to do, does he say, "Hey, we should do that some time"? 

It's also important to remember two things. First, you may be more subtle than you're intending, which means he might not pick it up. And second, he may actually be picking it up but not responding because he doesn't want to make things awkward (which in my experience just ends up making things more awkward).

In the end, it's okay if you end up coming on too strong or expressing too little interest once in awhile. You're not always going to be able to figure out the perfect amount of interest to show, and it's always going to be different with every guy. When that happens, cut your losses and move on; it's never worth pining over someone it didn't work out with.

-Tally M.


0 Corrections
Question #83026 posted on 07/05/2015 3:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Who manufactured the PCBs for the very first batch of Apple Is when they were literally in the Jobs family garage before Mike Markkula or any other investor with real money had come along?

-Jeff

A:

Dear Jeff,

I think it was just Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak themselves. I found an old copy of Byte online that has an interview with Wozniak about the beginning of Apple. Talking about an Atari project they worked on before making the Apple I, Wozniak said "I was the designer—the engineer—and Steve was a breadboarder and test technician." So, Wozniak designed the boards and Jobs actually put them together. When it came to the Apple I, I believe something similar must have been the case; Wozniak doesn't mention anyone else being involved in the process. They funded the venture by selling Jobs' van and Wozniak's calculator, and by borrowing some money from a friend. 

Wozniak doesn't just come out and say "we built the computers ourselves;" the closest thing I can find to a statement like that is him saying "We had everything set up to build the computers and deliver them in 10 days, and it worked out great..." So, I'm pretty sure that was the case.

-Frère Rubik


0 Corrections
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Question #83018 posted on 07/04/2015 11:50 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

My phone keeps running out of storage space. I don't have that many apps or pictures on it. When I look at the usage, more than half of it is taken up by miscellaneous files. I want to clear them out, but I'm scared I might delete something that I shouldn't.

Are the miscellaneous files like temporary files on your computer that you can just get rid of every once in awhile, or are there potentially important things in there? Is there someway I can find out which ones are important and which ones are not? The filenames are all gibberish or one word so they don't give me a ton of information.

-My phone is an LG Android, if it makes a difference (L3, maybe? Is that a thing?)

A:

Dear LG Android,

Yes, that makes a lot of a difference (always provide the make and model of your device when seeking tech support). Had you not told me what kind of phone you had, I would've assumed it was an iPhone. This isn't because I automatically assume that everyone with a smartphone has an iPhone; it's because I had essentially the exact same problem with my iPhone 4. Since you did, though, I was able to do more specific research into your problem...

...and reach the conclusion that the exact same thing was happening. 

Basically, some kind of glitch has worked its way into your phone's OS, causing it to waste lots and lots of space with the Miscellaneous files.

How do you fix it? Well, Android is a lot more open source than Apple, so there might be a couple of ways. This site mentioned a couple of apps that might be able to clean your phone up. Having never owned an Android, I don't know if they'd actually take care of the problem or just delete common space-wasters on phones like internet cache or browsing history.

What I think should work is to reset your phone to factory settings. Make a backup of all of the data you want to save, and then follow this site's instructions on how to reset the phone. I think that ought to do the trick.

Since I don't have your device in front of me, I can't 100% guarantee that this will work. But, I am pretty sure. Email me if something's still going wrong after you've tried the above steps.

-Frère Rubik


0 Corrections
Question #82980 posted on 07/04/2015 11:32 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Was the Supreme Court's ruling actually legal? Is their defense of gay-marriage actually justifiable by the constitution or just sentiments such as "it's lonely to not be married if you're gay."? Isn't their job to base things off the constitution? Why can we exclude polygamy and not gay marriage? Is there any way to change this ruling? What can I do to contribute to that change?

Thanks,
not happy with the supreme court

A:

Dear not happy, Bob, NOT HAPPY,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the Supreme Court that decides if the ruling is actually legal or not?

-Probably ignorant and likely to be corrected below, El-ahrairah

A:

Dear Unhappy,

I'm really glad you asked this question! I recently answered a question about immigration where I tried to help the reader understand a different point of view by providing an opinion for both sides. I was surprised by the amount of positive feedback I received when that answer posted. That format helped people understand the complexity of the issue more than I expected.

Since I got such positive feedback last time, I'd like to do the same thing to answer your question. In order to help you understand the different arguments in favor of and against the constitutionality of requiring states to marry same-sex couples, I'll provide you with two viewpoints. First I'll answer your question as if I believe that the Supreme Court's decision was entirely legal and that they interpreted the constitution correctly. After that I'll present you with a counter-argument. To be clear, both sides will present an opinion that primarily addresses the legal issues.

Please don't let the length of this answer deter you from reading it. It's long, but it isn't dense. I've done my best to make it readable. Here we go:

The fourteenth amendment's guarantee of equal protection requires state governments to recognize and preform marriages for two people of the same sex.

Before I go too far, I need to explain why the fourteenth amendment and the concept of "equal protection" are so important. In order to do that, I'd like to present you with an analogy. For this analogy to work, you can't live in a Mormon-majority state. So if you actually live somewhere like Utah, let's pretend for a few moments that you actually live in Florida:

One day, a fellow Floridian - we'll call him "Fred" - notices a minivan pull in front of him suddenly. He's upset. He feels the owner of the minivan was driving recklessly. Fred follows the van and watches it pull into a parking lot for some kind of Church. He Googles the address and finds that it belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - minivan guy must have been a Mormon, Fred thinks to himself.

Whether fairly or unfairly, over the coming weeks it seems to Fred like people are always driving unsafely on the road leading up to the Mormon Church. Fred thinks about what his pastor has said about Mormons - aren't they a cult? - and wonders if cultish harsh penalties for tardiness are motivating its members to drive dangerously to arrive on time. Also, their parking lot is always full on Sundays, often for hours at a time. Do they ever go home? The whole thing made Fred uncomfortable.

Concerned, Fred contacted his state Senator, Senator Delford. Senator Delford agreed that the problem needed to be addressed. "But," he explained to Fred, "these types of things are tricky. You can't make laws targeting specific groups of people. Let me see what I can do." After hanging up with Fred, Senator Delford had a member of his staff do some background research on Mormons. Senator Delford was worried about the situation. His pastor had made similar comments about Mormons.

A few weeks later, Senator Delford's staff came back to him with a report. There is some initial evidence that Mormons are worse drivers, but it's far from conclusive. However, if the senator is certain about wanting to pursue the law, the staffers explain, they believe they've found a politically and legally feasible way to do it. Most Mormon chapels use the same architectural design, and that includes a fairly unique way of organizing their parking lots. There's zero evidence that this type of parking lot actually results in worse driving, but a law targeting these unique type of parking lots would effect almost no one but Mormons.

Senator Delford has his staff begin drafting a bill. It increases the fine, by a factor of 5, for any ticket issued to someone traveling to or from any location with the "Mormon" type of parking lot. The law gets some pushback from a local newspaper, but the Senator's spokesperson skillfully addresses the issue: "This bill is absolutely not about Mormons. Senator Delford has nothing but the greatest respect and love for Mormons personally. This bill is about addressing a specific traffic issue and improving the safety of our roads."

The bill passes by a wide margin. Police officers start patrolling roads surrounding Latter-day Saint chapels carefully, and fines for going 6 over, which would normally only be $129, are now $645 for members of the Church while they're traveling to and from Sacrament Meeting. The police are relentless about enforcement, and several people in your ward get tickets, often for violations that seem petty (going 3 over, not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, and so on). Everyone is upset.

At this point, you probably want to object that this shouldn't be allowed because the first amendment provides freedom of religion. That's true, but not everyone would agree that freedom of religion is at issue here. It would be different if the new Florida law specifically prohibited something that was part of Latter-day Saint doctrine. For example, if the health department tried to stop Mormons from gathering together and taking the sacrament, that would certainly be a first amendment issue. That isn't the issue here, this is merely about transportation.

Hopefully you see a problem now. In a democracy, the majority sometimes imposes an unfair, arbitrary, or bad-faith will on minority groups. This doesn't mean that people are always explicitly motivated by bias or hate. For example, in this analogy implicit bias and misunderstanding - but not hate - impacted Florida's ability to govern both democratically and fairly simultaneously. (Hate did, however, play a role in gay marriage laws, and we'll get to that later.) The United States passed the 14th amendment to the constitution in order to address this problem of "majority tyranny." The part of that amendment applicable to our discussion here reads as follows:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis added)

That last phrase - "equal protection of the laws" - is extremely important. It was designed to protect minority groups from this type of majority tyranny. The amendment was passed in 1868 to deal with laws that were directly racist, as well as laws that were discriminatory in a round-about way. For example, many southern states passed laws like literacy tests and poll taxes and then exempted those whose grandfathers had been able to vote. These laws didn't directly call out any race, but no one doubted the real reason for their existence.

Do you see why this is relevant to your question? Your objection seems to be that the Supreme Court isn't really basing its decisions on the text of the constitution. But when the United States passed the 14th amendment, they were specifically instructing federal courts to look for and correct this type of majority tyranny. The other argument - or "opposing me," as I'll refer to him from now on - is going to try to argue that gay couples aren't protected by the fourteenth amendment because legalizing gay marriage was not the country's intent when they passed the equal protection clause. This fundamentally misunderstands how we apply the fourteenth amendment in this country.

Have you ever read a mystery novel? If the author was skilled, you probably felt confused throughout most of the story. You might have had different competing theories in your head about who might have committed the crime. However, when the truth was revealed, the best mystery stories make you say "Oh! Of course! How did I not see that before?" Suddenly it became clear, and evidence that previously seemed conflicting suddenly felt undeniable. Our country's understanding of discrimination sometimes works in the same way. Some forms of discrimination are not clear until our society's understanding changes. Some discrimination (which, again, is not always motivated by explicit hate) is so built into our culture that it takes time for us to see it. This is why we allow our understanding of the fourteenth amendment to evolve to include discrimination that wasn't immediately apparent when the fourteenth amendment was originally passed. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, explained this more elegantly than I can:

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, [in this context "stricture" basically means "restriction"] a claim to liberty must be addressed. 

My analogy is flawed because a simple fine while you're driving, however severe, does not even remotely compare to the indignities suffered by LGBTQ+ people as a result of discriminatory laws. Gay couples are excluded from tax benefits, military notification, and the ability to start a family via adoption. This type of legal bullying has resulted in an astronomically high suicide rate for teenagers who identify as LGBTQ+. Few social scientists believe sexual orientation is a choice. That means that we are preventing an entire class from legal benefits.

One final thought: it's worth noting that the Supreme Court has almost always held that laws motivated by animus (animus means "ill will") toward a group of people nearly always automatically fail equal protection analysis. When you look at some of the rhetoric regarding laws that have limited the definition of marriage, it's easy to see that these laws have not always been pushed by people with kind intentions. In fact, the house report for the Defense of Marriage Act admitted the that the purpose was to "to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." They literally stated their animus as part of the official record! If these laws do not qualify as being motivated by animus, it's extremely difficult to see what laws possibly could.

The fourteenth amendment's guarantee of equal protection does not require state governments to perform marriages for two people of the same sex.

First of all, let's all recognize that protecting minorities from majority tyranny is a worthy and important goal. We should all work towards a world where everyone exists free from political and legal retribution. I don't believe my other's self's concerns about majority tyranny were nonsense. Such situations are dangerous to our democracy and should be avoided at all costs. Whether or not you agree that bans on gay marriage qualify as an example of this, you would have to be ignorant to claim that this type of majority tyranny never occurs at all.

However, my first objection - of several - to my other self's analysis has to be his unwavering confidence that article three courts (federal courts authorized by article three of the constitution) can rise above the human fallacies that cause majority tyranny in the first place. I'd like to extend the Florida analogy briefly:

Although the Church as a whole took no action when Florida passed its discriminatory law, one member, Todd Allan, seemed particularly upset. Todd had received three tickets totaling over a thousand dollars. He felt he was being unfairly discriminated against because of his faith. So Todd spoke to another member of the stake, Alice Carter. Sister Carter was a well known attorney in the area. Together, they decided to sue the state of Florida for violation of the fourteenth amendment.

They filed suit in the Federal Circuit Court for the Northern District of Florida. The case was randomly assigned to the Honorable Judge Thomas Matthews. Judge Matthews had grown up in Florida and completed his undergraduate work at the University of Florida. He studied at a prestigious law school before returning to Tallahassee to practice law. He was put on the bench about 16 years later. He had never lived outside the state of Florida longer than it had taken to complete law school. He was a devout baptist. The oral argument for the lawsuit was scheduled quickly. On the specified day, Judge Thomas looked down from the bench at Ms. Carter with a look of

Let's pause right there for a moment. Honestly, what kind of look do you imagine Judge Thomas - who is fictitious, by the way - gave the two Mormons alleging discrimination in his courtroom that morning? This is kind of unfair, because you were prepped - you know what position I'm arguing, and I went out of my way to highlight his differing religious affiliation. However, the point still stands. Why exactly is Judge Matthews so much more likely to see the discrimination that Senator Delford and Fred failed to see? 

This isn't just a matter of federal courts missing discrimination. In some cases, giving judges wide latitude to interpret the constitution "as our understanding changes" has actually increased, rather than decreased, discrimination in federal law. The most obvious example is Dred Scott v. Sandford. In that case, the Supreme Court actually limited, without strong constitutional basis, the rights of a black man under existing law. I'm fully behind my other self's goal to eliminate majority tyranny, but I disagree with his proposed methods. Judges aren't necessarily more likely to see discrimination than citizens as a whole are. In fact, take a look at the "mystery novel" analogy again. If our understanding of discrimination is really as clear as he presents it, why can't people simply vote to change the discriminatory laws they created?

Your point about the constitution was valid. My other self was correct that the couples technically sued under the fourteenth amendment, but he was wrong to suggest that a "changing understanding" of equal protection is the only correct way to read the amendment. First of all, there is little to no evidence that the people of the United States were trying to solve all "majority tyranny" problems everywhere when they passed this amendment. They were trying to deal with a specific problem. The fourteenth amendment must be read in context. Second, if you really want to know if this decision was about the constitution, ask yourself "Would this decision have been any different had the United States dealt with racism in the 1860s using tools other than a constitutional amendment?" Of course not! The justices thought they knew what was best, and they were going to find any justification to do what they thought was right. This had nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with 5 justices taking into their own hands power reserved for the people of the United States. The Chief Justices pointed this out in the closing paragraph of his dissent:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. 

Finally, I want to validate your point about polygamy. You're more right than you know. In fact, the Chief Justice also cited that example in explaining the problem with the majority's thinking: 

If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? 

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners [the "petitioners" are the gay couples] have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either. 

Other me was correct to point out that the justices really were reading from the text of the 14th amendment (and not just pulling opinions out of thin air, as you had supposed), but he presented his method of 14th amendment interpretation as the only possible correct way to understand the phrase "equal protection of the law." His view is not supported by the historical context of the amendment's passage, and plenty of legal scholars - including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States - disagree with his point of view.

Conclusion: There's basically nothing you can do.

So what can you do? Not much I'm afraid. Despite his lack of confidence, El-ahrairah is correct. One common nickname for the Supreme Court is "the court of last resort." Its decisions are final. Even if you somehow packed the Court with people who shared your point of view, Supreme Court justices are often reluctant to overthrow precedent, even if they disagree with it. 

If you want the Court to more closely reflect your views in the future, your best bet is to select a presidential candidate who's views you believe in and help them get elected in 2016. A lot of justices are expected to retire during the next president's term.

- Haleakalā

P.S. Many readers who are informed about legal issues will recognize that I made some huge generalizations and glossed over a lot of issues. I know. First of all, I'm not a lawyer and mostly follow this kind of stuff out of my own personal interest. Second, I omitted a lot of information and legal nuance I did understand in order to make the answer readable. Finally, before anyone complains that I didn't represent their side well enough, let me remind you that these arguments were designed only to address legal issues.

A:

Dear not happy,

The difference between polygamy and gay marriage, based on the recent Supreme Court decision, is that they made their decision with the understanding that orientation is a fairly fixed part of who a person is. However, polygamy is not an orientation. 

I will also point out that both in banning polygamy and allowing interracial marriage, the government has set several precedents for marriage to be defined and regulated at the federal level. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court set a precedent that marriage is a fundamental right. They set that precedent and decided to legalize it against an overwhelmingly disapproving public opinion - only 30% or so of the population approved of interracial marriage at the time, compared with 60% approving of gay marriage today. Does that make our Supreme Court more or less "activist" than the judges back then? I don't know, but it's interesting to consider. 

Anyways, I don't want to wander into the can of worms that's comparing interracial to gay marriage in the Church. I think there are fundamental differences between the two. However, statistically, if you had lived back then, you would have thought the Supreme Court was wrong. Today, we agree with their decision. To me, this simply demonstrates that the legal soundness of a ruling isn't contingent upon your opinion of the outcome. I 100% believe in the Church's doctrine of marriage. I also don't see a legal justification for banning same sex marriage aside from that belief, and the thing about a free society is you can't impose your personal beliefs on others. 

For the record, the Supreme Court's ruling is far narrower than Canada's protection of same sex marriage, and the U.S. has far more robust protections for religious freedom than any other country where gay marriage has been legalized. Nevertheless, the Church has never had to close a temple or had a leader face legal action because of gay marriage. In the ten years it's been legal in Canada, I have never once seen my religious freedom imposed upon, nor anyone else in the Church, nor anyone else in any church. So I understand why you're not happy, and I understand that change can be scary, but I'd like to encourage everyone to avoid feeling attacked. That just leads to defensiveness, which can lead to harshness, which leads to the other side feeling attacked too, which leads to both sides seeking more and more stringent legal protections that actually do begin to attack both sides. Everything escalates and things get worse. But if everybody would react in love and good faith, we'd all realize we can disagree while being respectful, and nobody's freedoms need to be infringed upon. 

-Zedability


0 Corrections
Question #83017 posted on 07/04/2015 10:50 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Board Question #82906 (about people being sealed to multiple people) got me wondering about a proxy sealing situation.

My grandma married Husband 1 and had a daughter, my mom. They were divorced fairly early on and Grandma remarried Husband 2 and had a son, my uncle. When my grandparents die, my mom plans on sealing Grandma to Husband 1, and getting herself sealed to them.

What if my uncle joined the church and wanted to be sealed to his biological parents? Could he do another proxy sealing for Grandma and Husband 2 after the first sealing?

-Glad God will work it all out, but still curious

A:

Dear Glad,

I asked my dad about this, who instructed me to ask a member of the temple presidency. I tried to find one of them at the temple today, but wedding season made it unfeasible. I want your question to post on time, so I'll leave this one up to readers' corrections. 

I'm sorry for the cop-out answer, but it also testifies to me of Heavenly Father's greatness. I see how much we don't understand now, and find comfort knowing His plan will still cover us with justice and love. 

-Auto Surf


1 Correction
Question #83008 posted on 07/04/2015 10:05 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

There is a girl in my ward, A. When my roommate, C, moved into the ward, he expressed that he would perhaps be interested in asking A out. Later, another friend, G, who is not in the ward, came to one of our ward activities and met A. He also seems interested in A, seeing as how last week he asked me to invite her to a frisbee game he organized and today asked if she'd be coming to our FHE activity tonight, trying to see if he should come (he's currently living with his brother and his brother's wife and not currently attending a single's ward, so it's not super weird that he's been coming to our activities).

Thus far I've been able to remain a neutral party because I couldn't make it to the frisbee game (and it would be weird if I inivited A to something I wasn't even going to) and I don't think I can make it to FHE tonight. Still, it seems inevitable that one of these times I'm going to have to pick which friend I'm going to wingman for and let the other one down (in which case I'd probably side with C, but I would still feel bad about G).

What would you do in this situation?

-J

A:

Dear J,

The first thing I would do in your situation would be remind myself not to overthink it too much. A lot of the drama and awkwardness of dating is created in our minds when we overthink things. I know I'm part of the problem, so it's something I'm working on.

Then I would try to look at the situation as realistically as possible. The way I see it, it's possible that nothing will ever happen between either A and C or A and G. And even if something does develop, who says you have to be a wingman to either guy? I say just let them each give it their best shot on their own without getting too involved. That way you get to keep your friendship with each guy no matter what and A is free to choose between C and G for herself.

Good luck!

-Vienna


0 Corrections
Question #83016 posted on 07/04/2015 8:20 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I found this on my keyboard this morning: Picture

It's made of dust (I think), and it wiped right off.

Did a (six-legged) spider walk across my keyboard and spontaneously combust?

If so, AWESOME! And how can I make that happen to all the bugs in the house?

No one else entered the room - my wife isn't into pranks (although, I'm not sure how you'd fake that anyway) and my 2 year old isn't that good of an artist. Whatever happened, it was without human intervention.

-Bugged

A:

Dear Bugged,

I know I haven't been writing for very long, but this is seriously one of my top five favorite questions asked since I joined the Board.

So, is Spontaneous Combustion responsible for the ghostly spider that graced your laptop? My guess is probably not. Though searching for "Spontaneous Insect Combustion" on Google is probably one of the cooler things werf will do in a week, said search is sadly unproductive; no one seems to have documented any sort of insects (or arachnids) randomly catching fire. As awesome as it sounds, it also seems more than a tad unlikely to me; it's hard for me to imagine a spider (a six-legged one, at that) maintaining that position while burning to a crisp, and there don't seem to be any burn marks around the shape.

(Perhaps this didn't need to be said once we ruled out spontaneous combustion, but other people have tried to kill spiders or other bugs by lighting them on fire, and generally that's not a good idea.)

So, if it wasn't a spontaneously-combusting six-legged spider what made that mark...what was it? After giving the matter careful thought, here are my alternatives:

-Your laptop is being haunted by the ghost of a spider that crawled inside of it and lost two legs in a cooling fan.

-Spider-man was warping through different dimensions, perhaps in a battle with The Spot, and some of his webbing ended up sticking to your laptop and dissolving in that shape.

-Potential residue from the Heart of Gold, powered by the Infinite Improbability Drive.

-[INTERSTELLAR SPOILERS] A future you has entered a tesseract construct in the middle of a black hole and is trying to warn you about going to the Spider Nebula by making shapes in the dust.

-An ashen snowflake was mysteriously transported from the post-apocalyptic future of The Road.

That's all I could come up with in the time I had. Let us know if it happens again!

-Frère Rubik


0 Corrections
Question #83004 posted on 07/04/2015 8:20 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

In my experience, the vast majority of ex-Mormons identify as atheist, agnostic, or "none." Is there any research into this?

---Portia

A:

Dear Portia,

Less than I expected. The most recent reputable research I could find was conducted in 1981. The authors conducted a mail poll among Utah adults. This is what they found for current religious affiliation among those that identified as having previously been affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

mormons_chart_2_converted.jpg

Yayfulness pointed out - and I agree - that these numbers would probably be different if you restricted the population to those that had been members for more than a brief period of time.

- Haleakalā


0 Corrections
Question #83015 posted on 07/04/2015 8:02 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What are your thoughts on mission/marriage situations like from these past board questions?

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/37763/ (guys foregoing a mission to get married)
http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/10289/ (pre mission dating leading to not serving)

I don't mean to discount the past board writers, but I'm more familiar with you guys and would like to hear from the current writers. Thanks!


-Future Californian

A:

Dear Future Golden Stater,

I'd like to share a story President Packer told during the April 1998 General Conference:

As mission president, I attended a mission Relief Society conference. Our mission Relief Society president, a relatively recent convert, announced something of a course correction. Some local societies had strayed, and she invited them to conform more closely to the direction set by the general presidency of the Relief Society.

One sister in the congregation stood and defiantly told her that they were not willing to follow her counsel, saying they were an exception. A bit flustered, she turned to me for help. I didn’t know what to do. I was not interested in facing a fierce woman. So I motioned for her to proceed. Then came the revelation!

This lovely Relief Society president, small and somewhat handicapped physically, said with gentle firmness: “Dear sister, we’d like not to take care of the exception first. We will take care of the rule first, and then we will see to the exceptions.” The course correction was accepted. (Boyd K. Packer, "The Relief Society")

Now, the issue we are discussing was not my situation when I left on a mission, so I cannot speak from experience. But, I see it in the same light as any other important decision we have to make. When we have to make decisions, we're counseled to study the matter out thoroughly, pray, fast, and then make the decision. Throughout the process, we should make sure that our choice is in harmony with the teachings of the prophets.

"But wait!" cries the imaginary protester I created as a source of counterpoint, "Both of the options in this decision, getting married and serving a mission, fall within things that the prophets have told us to do! And isn't getting sealed in the temple the crowning ordinance of the entire Plan of Salvation?"

While that is true, let's look at it this way: God has asked young men to do to things. One is more important than the other, but He still wants both things done. If you had the option of doing both things God asked you to do or only doing one, which would you choose?

Now, getting back to President Packer's story, yes, I know there are exceptions. I know that there genuinely are men that are supposed to get married so promptly that it prevents them from serving a mission. I met one on my mission; his name was Brother Lasker. This man was one of the strongest members of the church I've ever met, and definitely the best Ward Mission Leader. Here's the thing, though: he only got married instead of going on a mission because he was getting very distinct, powerful promptings from the Spirit to do so. It wasn't a question of whether he wanted to serve or not, it was a question of what God's will was for him at that time.

So yes, there are exceptions, but we are going to deal with the rule first. If you're in this situation, assume that God wants you to serve the mission and fully commit yourself to the idea. Make all the necessary preparations and plans. Just like any other decision you make, if it's not what Heavenly Father wants you to do, He'll find a way to let you know.

-Frère Rubik


0 Corrections
Question #82996 posted on 07/04/2015 7:56 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

At what point is it time to start considering that maybe my only options really are to either live alone and celibate for the rest of my life or look outside the Church for a spouse?

-M.N.H.

A:

Dear you,

I think this is a really individual question and is probably best answered by going to the temple and praying about it. I know some people who eventually started dating non-members and ended up married to a supportive non-member who didn't make Church activity any more difficult, but I also know people who married a non-member and found that the religious differences caused a lot of stress. Similarly, I know people who stayed single in the Church until their late 30s or beyond and finally found someone to marry, but I've also met people who ended up single their whole lives.

If there's a specific non-member you're interested in pursuing, I would especially pray about that, but also ask any trusted family members or friends for their opinions on the person and potential relationship.

Basically, I don't think there's one specific time to start considering it. It's a pretty personal decision and is the kind of thing that depends a lot on circumstance and on the Lord's own plan for your life.

-Zedability


0 Corrections
Question #82987 posted on 07/04/2015 7:20 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

My husband is an avid hunter, and eventually, we would like to have a dog that would be able to retrieve birds and the like. We're looking at eventually getting a Tolling Retriever or another similar dog that can withstand cold, is typically good around kids, and can point or flush birds, then retrieve them.

Here's the thing, I see a lot of people who end up being fairly irresponsible dog owners and I don't want to do that to a living animal. We're waiting until we're settled and probably have a house before we get a dog, but there's a problem that I've been thinking of. Of most of the breeds that we're interested in, they tend to need lots of exercise, as in, at least one hour a day of vigorous exercise.

Of the cities that my husband and I will likely end up (northern Utah, southeast Idaho, parts of North Dakota) I've found that there's a lack of large dog parks, and dogs aren't allowed off leash on BLM land (so they don't get shot).

Other than having a large yard, how can I give my dog the exercise they'll need and love?
What other things should my husband and I consider before getting a dog?
(we're definitely open to having professional training etc)
Any tips?

-Shrinky Dink

A:

Dear Shrinky Dink,

My family got a labrador retriever when I was in 7th grade. We did have access to dog parks, but more often than not, my dad would just take him on a long walk. It can be pretty great motivation to get exercise yourself, and great family time if you and your husband go on walks together. Other than that, just playing fetch in a regular-sized backyard can provide good exercise if you keep it up for long enough.

My husband also mentioned that his mom goes running with her dog, which can give even more exercise if that's something you enjoy or want to start doing.

I would definitely recommend going to a professional dog training class. The only command my dog still responds to is "come," but that can be super, super useful. Going to a class could also give you general insight into good training techniques, which would probably be useful to you if you want to train your dog in specific hunting-related things.

-Zedability


0 Corrections
Question #82943 posted on 07/04/2015 7:14 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Recently I visited Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. At the park's visitor center was a video about Daniel Boone and the passageway he found through the Appalachian Mountains. The video mentioned that at the time, there were Forest Buffalo (admittedly, I don't recall the exact name of the species, but I know "buffalo" was in the name and it had something to do with forests) living in the dense forests of the mountains. I have tried Googling for an image of this animal, but couldn't find it. I believe that they are possibly extinct, but I'm really curious to see what kind of a buffalo could possibly fit between the dense woodlands. Or am I wrong in believing that this animal is different from the bison (who I don't think could easily traverse heavy tree areas) who roam Yellowstone?

-Gentrification Thing

A:

Dear Gentrification,

The only varieties of bison alive during that time period were the plains bison and the wood bison. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any information about whether the wood bison's habitat ranged that far south during that time period. All other subspecies of bison went extinct well before the American settlers, though, so those are the only options if you're sure it was a type of buffalo/bison. Hopefully if it was a wood bison, the name will ring a bell for you!

-Zedability


0 Corrections
Question #82935 posted on 07/04/2015 7:14 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Japanese student and incoming freshman here. What are some resources BYU offers to language students? For the last several years I've been living in Hawaii, which offers plenty of opportunities to meet and speak with Japanese people. It helped that I lived only a few minutes away from BYU-Hawaii, which has a considerable population of international students. But now that I'm living in Utah, which is decidedly less diverse, I'm starting to worry about finding consistent methods of practicing the language, especially speaking and listening.

- daigakusei

A:

Dear daigakusei,

Your best bet is to take a Japanese class or two here at BYU to keep up your language skills and meet other people who are interested in practicing Japanese. BYU used to have a Japan Club, and while I'm not sure if it's still active, you could try posting on their Facebook page and see if anyone has any information for you.

While you can't actually major in Japanese at BYU, the Asian Studies major has a Japan emphasis, and the Asian Studies minor has a Japan track. You could consider adding the minor (or applying for a double major if it's feasible, especially if you know enough Japanese to challenge the introductory classes), or even just take some of the classes they suggest.

Finally, the Foreign Language Student Residence has Japanese housing and is a fantastic way to get an immersion experience at BYU.

-Zedability


1 Correction
Question #83014 posted on 07/04/2015 5:14 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Cheating on your girlfriend/boyfriend with someone else, whether or not you're LDS, is generally considered to be a duck move (intentionally censored!). This includes all types/forms of cheating.

But why don't we (as Mormons) really consider it to be immoral? I've never seen anything in Church that counsels us to keep our relationship commitments UNLESS we're in a civil or eternal marriage. We often hear about the dangers of even "less bad" kinds of cheating like forming strong emotional attachments to people who aren't our spouses, but there's no analog standard imposed on dating couples.

Why do you think this is? Do you personally think that cheating on someone you're dating is something that one should formally repent of, or do you see it more as just a social transgression that should be avoided in the future?

-a serial dating player trying to reform her ways

A:

Dear Rose,

Any time you do not nice things to someone is an opportunity to repent.

-Tally M.

A:

Dear reader,

I also think that we act under the assumption that what is true for marriage is true to a certain degree for dating, since our culture sees dating as essentially practice for marriage. Given that assumption, it's easy to also assume that counsel given on marriage is also meant to apply to dating.

Personally, I agree with that idea. If something is wrong in marriage, then it is usually wrong (but less serious) in dating.

-yayfulness


0 Corrections
Question #83010 posted on 07/04/2015 12:50 p.m.
Q:

Dear Ardilla,

Have you ever asked Squirrel on a date?

-Pachirisu, I choose you!

A:

Dear tiramisu,

Wouldn't you like to know?

--Ardilla Feroz


0 Corrections
Question #83007 posted on 07/04/2015 12:30 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Re: Board Question #82899, that's cool if none are able to muster up a public admission of like for any living President.

Here's another personal opinion question hopefully not unhelpful: of the humans that want to be elected president in 2016, which one or ones do you think would be the best or at least good for this country?

-Joe

A:

Dear Joe,

My passive-aggressive senses are tingling.

Now, I could be wrong, but to me it sounds like you weren't very happy with yay's answer to your question. Sorry about that. Know that we actually offer double your money back if you're not satisfied with our responses.

The thing is, there seemed to be a consensus that your previous question was a loaded one. I don't really identify as conservative (or, anything, really, politically speaking), so I wasn't planning on answering, but even to me it seemed like there were some hidden motives behind its asking.

Again, if we've misinterpreted your question, we're sorry. It's just one of the drawbacks of communication via the internet. It can be hard to tell the intention of something if there's no body language behind it. In general, political debates can stir up strong emotions, so perhaps that's why we saw the question the way we did.

Not sure why I felt the need to respond to that, but I did, so I did. Did did did.

As for your current question, unfortunately, I haven't given it much thought yet. Primary and Caucus elections are still fairly far off in the distance, so my more pressing concerns have kept me from doing much research into the various candidates and their opinions. My only opinion so far is that, despite the potential advantages TSG listed, I don't think it would be a good idea to elect Donald Trump.

That's my two cents. Please don't be mad. Let's all just love each other and have a good time.

-Frère Rubik

A:

Dear Joe,

I also don't identify as a Republican (honestly I identify WAY more with the Green Party than anyone else), but I am probably ultimately more right of center than left of center. The question that you originally asked is so politically charged that it's practically worthless for anything other than the media sensation that would come about if any of the Republican candidates showed even lukewarm support for ANY of the currently living presidents. Additionally, I've come to believe over the past several years that a lot of things that happen during a president's term in office would have probably happened no matter who was in office at the time. I also think that the American system is no longer capable of electing a president that can bring about real change or have a huge impact on society based on their own willpower. In the past we elected men like FDR and Lincoln who really did make a difference. I haven't seen that sort of decision-making and personal authority in the presidency in a long time, though President Obama comes closest. I'd maybe answer Clinton to that question because I think balancing the federal budget was a huge thing, but again, I bet you that events would have conspired to make that happen during that time regardless of who was president.

For what it's worth, I'm a huge fan of Dr. Jill Stein. I don't really love any of the Republican or Democratic contenders. While I don't love the idea of having another Bush in the White House, Jeb Bush does seem to be sort of reasonable. All the rest of the Republicans seem like raving lunatics to me. Also, to be honest, Hillary Clinton gives me the heebie-jeebies. That whole thing with her Secretary of State emails was the final nail in her coffin. I'm facing the same problem that I faced in the last presidential election: total apathy. No one in the major parties stands out. If they do, they're crushed to bits by their party. It's sad, really.

People, it's not a waste of a vote to vote third party.

-Inverse Insomniac

A:

Dear Wade,

I didn't answer the question because I don't identify as Republican or "hard right" but I am a fan of both Jimmy Carter and George Sr. It'd be tough to pick between them.

Really, I like all the living presidents, with only one significantly less than the others.

-M.O.D.A.Q.

A:

Dear reader,

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in my last answer, although I probably could have been more clear about that. (I also wrote most of that answer under the assumption that it would not be the only answer.) After reading this question, particularly the phrase "none of you are able to muster up a public admission," I'm withdrawing the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear to me that you're using this as a subtle attack.

Whenever you criticize an entire party rather than the party's (or a candidate's) stance on issues, you are driving one more wedge into the partisan divide that is in the process of destroying American politics. I don't care what your party affiliation is, that sort of behavior is irresponsible and divisive, and ultimately just creates anger.

And for the record, the political stance I identify with most closely is democratic socialism and my preferred candidate is Bernie Sanders.

-yayfulness

A:

Dear Joe,

If I could choose anyone, I would be pretty in favor of Lincoln Chafee. As for mainstream candidates, my husband and I both took the I Side With quiz and ended up with nearly equal support for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. We had significantly lower support for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, according to the quiz, but they are the Republican candidates we matched with, and also the ones I prefer most in real life. If the election ended up being either a Clinton or Sanders vs. Bush matchup, I'd be pretty happy with the election no matter what the outcome. I'm less of a fan of Rubio, but I could handle it if he won too.

My husband and I tend to fall pretty much between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to political opinions, but we're currently happier with the Democrats than the Republicans. Both parties are exhibiting a lot of political immaturity, but the Republicans' brand is particularly obnoxious. I think there's a lot of infighting among the Republican party (there's a cool graph in this article showing that trend just among the Supreme Court Justices), and that contributes to a generally negative vibe I get from them right now. I also won't vote for a party that's willing to ignore demonstrable facts about immigration, climate change, vaccines, or anything else, and I won't vote for a party that seems to focus on anger over solutions.

Meanwhile, the Democrat party does tend to exhibit an attitude of "if you disagree with us, you're either an idiot or a bigot," but at least they get things done. Even if I disagree with some of their decisions, gridlock just makes everything worse.

-Zedability

A:

Dear Human, 

For the record, you asked Republicans, and I identify as Independent. I happen to really like our current president.

In response to the current question, I clearly believe in the power of the toupee

Just kidding.

Honestly though, I would like to propose a potentially revolutionary idea: it doesn't matter so much that the president will be good for the country, as much as it matter that he/she will be good for the world at large. In the long run that will be better for the country as well as mankind. 

Just a thought.

Sincerely,
The Soulful GInger 


0 Corrections
Posted on 07/04/2015 12:30 p.m. New Correction on: #82991 Have any of you experienced withdrawal symptoms after stopping a prescription medication? If so, what was ...
Posted on 07/04/2015 12:29 p.m. New Correction on: #82991 Have any of you experienced withdrawal symptoms after stopping a prescription medication? If so, what was ...
Posted on 07/04/2015 12:29 p.m. New Correction on: #83009 Changing majors as a senior, can it be done? Success stories? I'm two classes from graduating ...
Posted on 07/04/2015 12:29 p.m. New Correction on: #83005 (I hope this won't count as one of the housing things you won't post) I'm thinking ...
Posted on 07/04/2015 12:26 p.m. New Correction on: #82972 I saw this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSiehK2asbI and am now wondering, who creates the political opinion of Google? Do ...
Posted on 07/04/2015 12:26 p.m. New Correction on: #82990 Two years ago now, we started having some health issues that took my energy away. Asthma ...