"If you are not getting the hint after the lingering hug with back rub, no amount of 100 Hour Board answers are going to help you." - Rating Pending
Question #82387 posted on 05/05/2015 6:56 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have an ex-friend from college that I don't talk to anymore. You could say things ended badly, but if she had some tragedy in her life and wound up with a go-fund-me or whatever I would still donate. We'll call her Karen. I never bothered deleting/blocking/limit-profiling Karen from facebook because I just didn't care and I'm not in middle school.

I haven't thought much about it for the past few years until one of my friends asked me if I saw Karen's wedding dress (it was apparently really pretty) on her facebook. So of course I went to look and I could see NOTHING on her page. She had limit profiled me. She can still see everything on my profile.

So basically, Karen wanted to hide everything (pictures, posts...everything) from me while still getting to see all of my stuff. I feel stupid for being bothered by this. But I feel like I'm letting myself be a doormat, a sitting duck, or some other idiom.

I'm pretty sure I'm just going to ignore it, but what would you do?

-Duchess of Nope

A:

Dear Duchess,

I think you're right to ignore it. If you have a specific privacy concern about her being able to see your information on Facebook, you can block her.

That having been said, unless you really do have a specific concern I don't know if blocking her would really be appropriate. Using blocking as retaliation seems petty to me.

- Haleakalā


0 Comments
Question #82372 posted on 05/05/2015 3:38 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

You're going through the repentance process for something rather large. You're doing everything you can, but you still hate yourself, because it's not really something you can make restitution for. You go to sleep at night with a pit in your stomach. How in the world do you forgive yourself?

-anonymous (duh)

A:

Dear Anonymous,

Everybody always talks about how the Atonement is necessary in order for us to be forgiven by Heavenly Father. We've got that idea down.

But the power of the Atonement is also necessary for us to be able to forgive ourselves.

Rely on the Atonement through prayer and fasting to be able to move on from your sins. When you notice yourself dwelling on it, make a conscious effort to think about something else. It helps to purposefully remind yourself that Satan is the one who wants to keep you dwelling on past sins, not Heavenly Father. So every time those feelings of self-loathing enter your mind, kick them out and try to replace them with something positive. Sometimes we allow feelings of self-loathing to remain because we think we deserve to feel pain because of what we have done. That is simply not true! The whole purpose of the Atonement is for us to be able to move on from the past and replace those negative feelings of regret with hope and joy.

At some point we all have to face the fact that we simply cannot make restitution for many of our mistakes. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that you don't deserve to be forgiven because you can't undo what you have done.

Instead of focusing on making restitution when restitution is impossible, focus your energy on going about doing good in other ways. The past is gone and you simply cannot change it. There's no way around that. But the future is wide open and full of possibilities and opportunities to influence the world for good! Don't let Satan make your future bleak because of things that happened in the past!

Finally, give it time. Remember, healing requires the Atonement and some personal effort, but it also often requires time, and that's just part of life. But it can be a beautiful part of life, and a part of life that teaches us to depend more fully on the Savior if you strive to live the Gospel and allow Christ to be your healer.

Good luck, and remember, God loves you!

Love,

Vienna


0 Comments
Question #82371 posted on 05/05/2015 3:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

MY friend recently got engaged and it made me think, do you think that a guy should ask permission from the girl's father? Do you think he should ask before he proposes? IF you are in support of it, is it entirely necessary, or just kind of a nice thing?

-Sophwerf

A:

Dear Sophocles,

It doesn't offend me that grooms ask the father for permission to marry the bride, but I don't personally like the tradition. It's a holdover from a not-too-distant past when a woman's decision to marry was not entirely her own. It was an arrangement between two men, one that excluded both the intended bride and her mother. Of course, the girl's feelings often held a lot of sway in the father's decision, and many young couples made imprudent but happy marriages because the father relented to his daughter's pleadings. But the transaction was a way of transferring the daughter from her father's household to her husband's, in a way denying her an identity and volition of her own.

Fortunately, we don't view marriage the same way anymore. The decision to marry rests with the participants alone, so actually asking for "permission" seems like a moot point: if he says no and you marry her anyway, it was just a formality, and if he says no and you obey, you're giving him more power over his daughter than I think he should have.

Does that mean we just throw the parents out the window? I suppose it depends on the couple and their relationship with their families. Like Anne, Certainly, I would be extremely hesitant to marry someone my parents actually said no to. But to me, there's a big difference between not marrying someone because I trust my parents' judgment and not marrying him because my dad said I couldn't. One of them is still my own choice. 

In short, if ever I were to become engaged, I should hope that my intended would ask for a blessing from my parents, but not permission from my father. And, yes, I would reciprocate - I'd call up his folks and ask for their blessing, too.

Yours, &c.

Heidi Book

A:

Dear Sophwerf,

Mr. Z asked my parents for their blessing before proposing to me. We'd already discussed that I thought he should. I don't know if we discussed which parent to talk to, but he ended up talking with both of them. In my opinion, at this point in society, it's probably good to base it on the feelings of the girl in question and her parents. If anyone has strong feelings about it, I don't think it's worth fighting for or against something that's just a tradition if it's going to offend a family member.

-Zedability

A:

Dear you,

I'm with Zed - do what the girl and her family will feel comfortable with. In my case, this meant that Man, Certainly called and asked my father before proposing to me, and that's the way I'd want it. Is it totally necessary? Probably not. But, at least based on my relationship with my family, anyone my father actually wouldn't give permission to marry me I'd have serious questions about committing to anyways, so there's that.

~Anne, Certainly


0 Comments
Question #82380 posted on 05/05/2015 11:38 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Where can I hear a recording of the recent gay marriage supreme court case argument? Also, I heard on the radio that this case will be as historical as Brown v Board or something like that. What do you think?


-Knows nothing about politics

A:

Dear Reader,

You have no idea how glad I am you asked.

The court divided oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges, the gay marriage case, into two parts. The first part was about whether the fourteenth amendment (which guarantees "equal protection") requires states to issues marriage licenses to same sex couples. (Basically, the question is "are bans on gay marriage constitutional?") The Court calls this part of the oral arguments "question one." Question one is The Question we've all be waiting for the court to consider. You can find the Court's official audio for question one here, and the transcript here. If you've never listened to Supreme Court oral arguments before, you might find the Oyez Project audio helpful. As it plays it will identify who is speaking for you.

The second question, although somewhat less interesting, provides important clues about potential compromises and other aspects of the Justices' thinking. You can find the official court audio here and the transcript here. Question two asks whether states are required to recognize the marriages performed in other states. In other words, if a same sex couple gets married in state A and then moves to state B, is state B required to recognize their marriage if they don't perform same sex marriages? Question two is only relevant if the court decides there is no constitutional right to marry in question one.

Listening to Supreme Court oral arguments can be a little disorienting, so allow me to give you some background information that might help your listening.

The Supreme Court has been very hesitant to rule on gay marriage in the past. The first (relatively recent) time the Court considered a case that included "the marriage question" (as question one is sometimes called) was in 2013. That case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, was actually argued before the Court, but the court ultimately ruled that one of the parties in that lawsuit did not have standing, which basically means they dismissed the case on procedural grounds and declined to actually answer the "marriage question."

The Court also declined to grant a writ of certiorari in another gay marriage case several months ago from the state of Utah. (A writ of certiorari means the court has agreed to hear a case.) That was surprising to many legal scholars, who had thought the Court would be anxious to accept another gay marriage case to resolve such a fundamental constitutional question. Four justices must vote to accept a case, but those votes are secret so it's difficult to know what changed between Hollingsworth v. Perry and the Utah case, or what changed between the Utah case and the case the court is now considering.

Unlike Hollingsworth v. Perry, no one really believes that the parties in Obergefell v. Hodges lack standing, so this case is unlikely to be rejected on procedural grounds. Once the Supreme Court issues a writ of certiorari, it's unusual for it not to issue a ruling. It seems like this time we really are going to get a ruling on the constitutionality of banning same sex marriage

It's pretty clear where 8 of the justices stand on this issue, but there are 1, and possibly two, swing votes. Here's where most legal scholars think the justices lean:

Support a Constitutional Right

to Same-Sex Marriage

Swing Vote

Do Not Support a Constitutional Right

to Same-Sex Marriage

SBreyer.jpg

Justice Stephen Breyer

Nominated by Bill Clinton

EKagan.jpg

Justice Elena Kagan

Nominated by Barack Obama

AKennedy.jpg

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Nominated by Ronald Reagan

SAlito.jpg

Justice Samuel Alito 

Nominated by George W. Bush

AScalia2.jpg

Justice Antonin Scalia

Nominated by Ronald Reagan 

RGinsburg2.jpg 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Nominated by Bill Clinton

SSotomayor.jpg

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Nominated by Barack Obama

 

CThomas.jpg

Justice Clarence Thomas

Nominated by George H. W. Bush

JRoberts.jpg

Chief Justice John Roberts

Nominated by George W. Bush


We're more certain about some of these justices than we are about others. For example, although it's not super likely, some people have speculated that a question asked by the Chief Justice during the oral arguments for question one (the marriage question) might have been an effort to set up a compromise that would allow same sex marriage by applying existing sex discrimination law rather than accepting a broader view of the fourteenth amendment. That would mean he would actually vote in favor of same sex marriage. (He's the "kind of" swing vote I was counting earlier.) On the other hand, we're pretty sure about Justice Ginsburg. She has been fairly vocal about her support for gay rights and several months ago she became the first Supreme Court Justice to perform a same-sex marriage. Nothing's certain, but this is the way we think they're leaning.

As you've probably noticed, Justice Kennedy is going to play a very important role in the outcome of this case. He spoke very little during the oral arguments (which is not unusual for him), but he had good questions for both sides. If you want to get a sense of where this case may go, play close attention to what Justice Kennedy has to say.

You're going to hear three lawyers argue during the oral arguments for question one. They each had thirty minutes. The first lawyer to argue was Mary Bonauto, the lawyer for the gay couples. The second lawyer you're going to here is Donald Verrilli. He's the current Solicitor General and is there representing the United States, or more practically, the current administration. He argues for the gay couples. The final lawyer you'll hear is John Bursch. He directly represents the state of Ohio (which James Obergefell, the gay man trying to marry his partner, is suing in this case) as well as the states of Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky, for reasons that aren't important to get into right now. He's arguing in favor of the gay marriage ban.

There are a few nuances that might help you understand what you're hearing. First of all, interruptions from the justices are not uncommon. In fact, it's the basic format of the typical Supreme Court oral argument. The arguing lawyer normally doesn't get very far into their initial statements - they can go anywhere from a few minutes to only a few short sentences - before one of the justices interrupts with a question. This isn't unique to this high-profile case. It's also not uncommon for most questions to come from justices who are expected to oppose your position. For example, when Mr. Bursch argued in favor of the gay marriage ban, the majority of the comments came from Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, all of whom believe that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional (we think).

Second, the justices never directly address each other. This is important because sometimes the Justices are having "arguments" with each other by asking the arguing lawyer very leading questions. For example, if Justice Sotomayor makes a point about something that opposes the current arguing lawyer's case, Justice Alito, perhaps sympathetic to the lawyer's cause, could say to the lawyer: "...but wait a minute Mr. So-and-so. I thought that the Such-and-such Act of 2011 said x-y-z thing. Wouldn't that make Justice Sotomayor's point irrelevant?" At times the arguing counsel can struggle to get a word in inbetween the justices' comments.

Third, you need to understand that Mr. Bursch, the lawyer arguing in favor of the gay marriage ban, isn't actually arguing that marriage is between a man and a women. Rather, he's arguing that voters have a rational basis for choosing to pass an amendment (or law) defining it as such without necessarily being motivated by animus. Animus is ill will or hostility towards a person or group of people. Under his view of the world (one in which laws curbing the activities of LGBT people are only subject to rational basis scrutiny, as opposed to heightened or strict scrutiny) that's all he needs to do to win. It has do with the different levels of judicial scrutiny, an explanation of which is beyond our scope here. Suffice it to say that there's some ambiguity about which level of judicial scrutiny applies to LGBT people, and because of this ambiguity Mr. Bursch believes he can win merely by proving that the voters of Ohio (as well as Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky) were not motivated by animus when they defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. 

When you listen to the oral arguments for question two you'll hear two lawyers. For reasons that aren't important, different lawyers represented the same parties for question two. The first lawyer you'll hear is Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, who argues on behalf of the couples. He argues that states that don't perform same sex marriages should still be required to recognize same sex marriages that occur in other states. The next lawyer you'll hear is Joseph Whalen, arguing on behalf of the states. He'll argue the opposite. All the advice I gave about listening to question one also applies to question two.

Okay, now I've covered everything you need to know to listen to the oral arguments. Go listen and then come back and read the rest of this answer!

So what happens now? The justices held their conference on Friday, where they took an initial vote and gave out assignments for who will write the opinions. Typically, the most senior member of the "winning" side gets the first claim on writing an opinion. They can either do it themselves or they can hand it off to a more junior justice. The Supreme Court has been tremendously successful at maintaining confidentiality about opinions before they're released, so we're unlikely to hearing anything before they want us to. Technically, they could release their decision any day they're scheduled to be in session, but as a practical matter the Court typically releases decisions for high-profile cases the last day of the term. That's currently scheduled for June 29th, but that may change. In some prior terms when the Court didn't complete all its opinions in time, it simply added more non-argument days to the term. No one really knows what the decision is going to be. Prior to the oral argument, most people believed the Court was likely to strike down bans on same sex marriage. Although most people still believe that's likely, the general census seems to be that the oral arguments were not the "slam dunk" for the couples that everyone was expecting.

Up until now I've tried to be impartial, but now I want to answer the second part of your question and tell you what I think. I'll also answer some potential criticisms of my opinion. 

Honestly, my biggest issue with the gay rights movement has never been the changing definition of marriage. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I don't think so. What's always bothered me about the current gay rights movement is their lack of respect for religious conviction. Unlike racial discrimination, the traditional definition of marriage is firmly rooted directly in the doctrine of many major religions, certainly not just Christianity. As a result, religious values and people of a religious conscience have been a more direct target of this civil rights movement. That's a problem for me, and I've written about it before. Some people would respond by pointing out that Mormons don't follow all Old Testament teachings, or even all teachings by early modern prophets. For reasons that I think are already obvious to most of our readers, that fundamentally misunderstands how religion generally (and our Church specifically) operates. 

Despite my concerns about the implications for religious freedom, my biggest issue with this case is about the potential loss of certain democratic aspects of our republic. Issues about homosexuality are extremely complex. How do we decide difficult issues? Democracy! Democracy is a beautiful thing. It requires neighbors, friends, and others to come together and speak with each other. You have to persuade other people you are right. This was well described by Paul Clement, a well known Supreme Court lawyer, in United States v. Windsor, another important gay rights case:

The last point I would simply make is in thinking about animus, [remember, animus means 'ill will' or 'hostility'] think about the fact that Congress asked the Justice Department three times about the constitutionality of the statute. [part of the Defense of Marriage Act] ... Now the Solicitor General wants to say, well, it was want of careful reflection. Well, where do we get careful reflection in our system? Generally, careful reflection comes in the democratic process. The democratic process requires people to persuade people. That's what the democratic process requires. You have to persuade somebody you're right. You don't label them a bigot. You don't label them as motivated by animus. You persuade them you are right. That's going on across the country. 

I want to draw your attention to a potential criticism of my concern about loss of democracy. It was well articulated by a comment Justice Kagan made during the arguments for question one:

Mr. Bursch (remember, he's the guy representing the states): When you enact social change of this magnitude through the Federal courts, [you] cut off ... dialogue and say one group gets their definition [of marriage] and the other is maligned as being irrational or filled with animus. And that's not the way that our democratic process is supposed to work.

Justice Kagan: Of course Mr. Bursch, we don't live in a pure democracy; we live in a constitutional democracy. And the Constitution imposes limits on what people can do and this is one of those cases. ­­We [the Court] see them every day; we have to decide what those limits are or whether the Constitution speaks to something and prevents the democratic processes from operating purely independently; isn't that right? 

(page 74 of the transcripts, edited slightly for readability)

I agree with Justice Kagan in principle. We are a constitutional democracy, and the Constitution - of necessity - preempts the democratic process (unless we chose to amend it) in order to maintain the rule of law. But there's a problem with her logic, which was described by Justice Scalia during the oral arguments for Hollingsworth v. Perry:

I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?

To accept that the fourteenth amendment bars bans on same sex marriage, you logically must accept one of three facts. First, you could say that the citizens of the United States intended to legalize gay marriage when they ratified the fourteenth amendment in 1868. In this case, it became unconstitutional to bar gay marriage as soon as the amendment was ratified. However, this is a demonstrably false premise. Legislators were not trying to legalize gay marriage when they ratified the fourteenth amendment. The second possibility is that the legislators simply hadn't thought through the fourteenth amendment when they passed it. Had they, they might have realized that one of the implications of "equal protection" was that gay couples would be able to marry. I assume the problems with this view are self-evident.

The third view - and the one most cited by those who would have the Court take an active roles in social issues - is that the meaning of the fourteenth amendment changed as society's understanding of "equal protection" changed.

This is problematic. First of all, we already have a way for our country's laws to change as our understanding of right and wrong changes - its called the democratic process. We elect legislators. We as citizens apply our moral and religious conscience. We talk to each other. We work together. We do our best to do the right thing. That's how our country makes changes. We work together.

The most common response by gay marriage proponents would be "This is a matter of civil rights. It shouldn't be subject to the democratic process." It's a dangerous thing to say your position shouldn't be subject to the democratic process. How do you distinguish what is and is not a legitimate civil rights claim? For example, many people (including me) believe that they have a civil right to bring their religious views into the marketplace - even if it means that we don't serve gay and lesbian weddings. Laws protecting these rights have been unpopular in some areas, but fortunately for me, this is a civil right. It isn't subject to the democratic process. Right?

Come to think of it, these people believe that animals have civil rights that are in some ways comparable to humans. This person believes that pedophiles are being denied certain civil rights under current law. This person feels that the country's current anger towards the "one percent" is discrimination worth comparing to Nazi Germany. Merely using the words "discrimination" or "civil rights" can't constitute the only reason something circumvents the democratic process, otherwise all these people's positions should be enacted immediately. Merely being a minority as a demographic matter can't be the exception either. (Otherwise members of the Church, pedophiles, and the richest one percent in the country would all qualify.) 

So I'm concerned, I guess, by the changing definition of marriage. But I'm much more concerned about the implications of the process.

Phew! That was probably way more information than you ever wanted. Believe it or not, we've only just scratched the surface of information relevant to this case. We skipped a lot of stuff. If you want to know more about these kinds of issues, you should start reading better coverage of the Court. Most major newspapers (The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or Washington Post, for example) have pretty good coverage. SCOTUSblog also does a great job. And, of course, you can ask the Board questions. I love this stuff, and I'd be happy to further elaborate on any of the things I skipped over in this answer, even if it means I have to look stuff up.

Also, if this whole thing was "tl;dr," here's a summary: Basically lots of smart people (and some less smart people, like me) have really strong opinions and despite the fact that we've all yelled at each other and written every conceivable argument, no one really knows what's going to happen. No one knows how this case will be viewed in the future. Sorry. Oh, and you can find the audio here.

- Haleakalā

Photographs of the justices courtesy of SupremeCourt.gov.


0 Comments
Question #82385 posted on 05/05/2015 1:02 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I heard recently another section of Campus Drive will be closed soon (booo!). Last time they closed it we all received emails from BYU telling us the details. So is this true? And why haven't we (as students) received official word from those in the know?

Thanks,
Michelle

A:

Dear Michelle,

I'm not sure why they haven't sent an email to students yet, but BYU has already announced their official plans for phase two of the Campus Drive Redesign Project. This summer BYU will close the street between heritage drive and north campus drive. The tentative timeline, according to BYU, looks like this:

May 2-8:

  • The intersection of Heritage Drive and Campus Drive will be closed. Access to the parking lot east of the Harris Fine Arts Center and north of the Wilkinson Student Center will only be accessible from Campus Drive coming from the north.

Beginning May 9: 

  • There will be a traffic guard on Campus Drive near the west pedestrian bridge informing drivers of the through-street closure but allowing faculty, staff and visitors access to the ASB and MOA parking lots. All other drivers will be directed to turn around. 
  • Campus Drive between the entrance of the Museum of Art parking lot and the intersection of Heritage Drive will close permanently. 
  • The parking lot east of the Harris Fine Arts Center and north of the Wilkinson Student Center will only be accessible from Heritage Drive coming from the east.

CampusDrive-Summer2015_720.jpg

I'm sorry you don't like the redesign project, but I personally think making campus more pedstrian-friendly (and, cough cough, less vehicle friendly) is a great idea. People here are terrible drivers, and walking is cheaper, healthier, and better for the environment.

- Haleakalā


0 Comments
Question #82384 posted on 05/05/2015 12:08 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Hopefully some of you are piano players. I'm a very mediocre piano player. To give you an idea of my skill level, I can play most of what's in the hymn book with a little practice (I'm not quite good enough to play them well if I'm sight-reading). I'd like to get better but my work schedule won't allow for private lessons in the foreseeable future. What music books would you recommend for someone of my skill level to improve themselves and learn some new music to play?

-no longer a student

A:

Dear no longer,

The key to getting better at piano (or anything, really) is to spend time doing it; it won't matter what music you get if it's a chore to motivate yourself, so get something you like. Maybe you like the Star Wars soundtrack, or the Pride and Prejudice soundtrack, or Frozen, or Taylor Swift. (There are often "Easy Piano" versions of these if you're more comfortable with that level.) Whatever it is, just find something you'll enjoy, something you'll want to come back to. Jon Schmidt has a number of piano books out there that are both fun to play and approachable to beginners; I'd recommend those if you can't find anything else. When you're learning a new piece of music, find a performance of the song online so you can get an idea of what you're aiming for. Sometimes the hardest part of learning a song is the first part when you're just trying to make sense of what the music is going for.

Good luck!

-Yellow


0 Comments
Question #82383 posted on 05/05/2015 12:02 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have a dream. This dream is to someday be able to reach down and touch my toes. Without bending my knees. I'm a 33 year-old male in generally decent shape (I run, I do a few pushups once in a while, I'm not overweight and I don't have ), but I've been blessed with gloriously limited flexibility. As far back as 3rd grade I can remember being embarrassed doing the "sit and reach" and failing horribly at it.

So, in the next hundred hours, cook me up a plan to get my fingertips to the floor. I measured yesterday, and I currently need 7.5 more inches before I can scratch my toes with my knees locked. How often should I be stretching, and what stretches are going to be most beneficial? Also, what do you think would be a reasonable rate of progression? Is my goal realistic? How long will it take? (Assuming of course that I follow your most excellent stretching plan to the letter.)

Thanks,
-The Anti-Gumby

A:

Dear Gumby,

I love stretching! I love teaching people how to be flexible! I love you for asking this question! 

If you really want to improve your flexibility, you first must commit to consistently stretch 3-4 times week for a minimum of 10 minutes. While stretching less than this will be beneficial, you won't see many results unless you do it more often then once or twice a week. Personally, I would begin stretching every day if you really want to see your body change. As you begin your stretching regimen there are a few things you need to remember to do: warm up a little before you start stretching. You can do this by simply jogging around the house a couple of times, doing jumping jacks, or some other light warm up exercise that gets your blood flowing through your full body. While you are stretching remember to hold each stretch for 20-30 seconds to get the maximum benefit. Finally, you don't want to be in pain when you stretch. There should be pressure and tension, but if there is pain then you are stretching too hard and are in danger of hurting yourself. In flexibility, pain is not gain.

With those guidelines in place, you can begin a regular stretching regimen. One principle that will help you reach your goal of touching your toes is the "law of specificity" which states that in order to achieve a particular goal in stretching, you need to practice that stretch. In other words, you should be doing the "sit and reach" often in your stretches. You can also do this one standing up, which is really nice. Additionally, I suggest that you practice the hurdlers stretch (reach with both hands though, not just one as pictured). Other hamstring stretches you will want to do include the standing hamstring stretch, and the scissor stretch. Also, if you have a partner to stretch with, do the reclined hamstring stretch. With this one it is especially important that you recall what I said about pain. Your partner can't tell how much you are feeling the stretch and you need to clearly indicate to them what it means to go too far.

In addition to doing various hamstring stretches you should also be stretching other parts of your legs. Don't forget about your glutes, groin, quadriceps, and calves. It is important to stretch the rest of the muscles in your legs (as well as the rest of your body) in order to achieve your flexibility potential.

There are a few other notable things aspects to stretching, that you may have figured out already, but I will describe here. The way you stretch matters. Meaning, if you are bending from your hips, or curving your back to get the stretch, you are stretching different parts of the muscle. This is also true if you flex or point your toes while you stretch, or straighten/bend your knees, keep your head up or down, or reach with one hand or both. As you begin to stretch on a regular basis you will find that doing each of these things will modify the stretches a little bit. I would suggest implementing these modifications as you see fit. 

If you have any further questions for me on this, please email me at the.soulful.ginger@theboard.byu.edu. 

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger  


0 Comments
Monday, May 4, 2015
Question #82369 posted on 05/04/2015 9:14 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

How did you learn to hear spiritual promptings? Was there someone significant who supported and taught you, either by example or by coaching and encouragement? How do you get confident in the process if you don't really have anyone? I've read D&C 8, and a lot of conference talks, but if there is a scripture or talk that you personally found helpful, please share.

-My new Bishop looks at me like I'm crazy, and I might be.

A:

Dear Doctor,

Learning to hear spiritual promptings is, in my opinion, the exercise of a lifetime. Sometimes I'm really good at identifying promptings, other times I don't realize until much later that they were promptings.

I don't have someone that I've had support me through learning how to listen to the Spirit, so, like you, it's been mostly self-taught. The most important thing to remember is that if you feel like you should do a good thing, you should do it, regardless of whether or not you think it's a prompting from the Spirit. It won't hurt anyone to tell that girl that you like her dress, or the guy that you like his tie. 

The other advice that I think is important is writing things down. It's really easy to forget spiritual experiences and think that you aren't having any, but when I feel like that, I go back through old journals and find that the Lord really has provided me with promptings and blessings. This also helps you to recognize patterns of revelation.

There's not much else I can say, just that you should keep working on listening for those promptings and acting on those that you receive. As you do so, you'll be able to eventually come to hear more and more of them.

-Tally M.

A:

Dear Not Crazy,

You know one thing that we don't really talk about, but that really helps us to learn how to better receive promptings? Becoming more familiar with how our own emotions feel. We can learn a lot if we pay attention to the times when we think we are receiving a prompting and it turns out that we probably weren't

For instance, once upon a time, a few years ago, there was a boy who I thought I was supposed to marry. I felt like I had received a spiritual prompting that he was the right one. Yep, I was one of those people.

Well, guess what? We are definitely not married and we are never going to get married. I had to come to terms with the fact that what I thought was the Spirit was actually just my own emotions. That was hard, but realizing it helped me not to make the same mistake again. I am now more familiar with my own emotions, so when I get those same feelings again, I know it is me and not the Spirit.

There was another time when I was really into this guy but I kept getting this quiet, but constant feeling that I should look elsewhere and that he wasn't for me. I kept ignoring the feeling because I really liked him and I ended up suffering the consequences. Now I know that that feeling of warning probably was a prompting from the Spirit, and I know to pay attention for it when I feel it again.

Overall, I have learned that my own emotions tend to feel a lot more anxious and desperate than promptings of the Spirit. I used to think that any time I got a sudden and intense urge to go do something, it was the Spirit. Now I know that it is part of my nature to get sort of restless when life gets hard and to want to go do crazy things that are really only urged on by my own emotions.

When the Spirit speaks to me, I feel much more calm and level-headed. I have also noticed that spiritual promptings are usually accompanied by a feeling of hope for the future and a greater desire to be righteous and go about doing good.

The trick is to focus both on better understanding the Spirit and on better understanding ourselves and our own emotions. Sometimes we shrink from really analyzing ourselves, our feelings, and why we do the things we do because it can be kind of uncomfortable. But we have to do it!

I have a lot of thoughts on this subject, so feel free to e-mail me any time to talk about it, but since we are talking about it right now, I will also leave you with a set of questions that I often ask myself while trying to make decisions with the guidance of the Spirit:

1. What are my motives behind this desire? Are my motives pure or I have selfish or unrighteous desires that could be causing me to want to make this decision?

2. Is this desire in accordance with all of the teachings of the prophets and apostles?

3. Does this desire or decision give me a sense of peace and surety in my mind and in my heart?

4. Do I have the right to receive revelation in this matter? (i.e. no, you can’t receive revelation that the bishop should make you the RS President, nor can you receive the revelation that the cute girl in your Spanish class needs to dump her boyfriend and marry you instead.)

5. Though I cannot foretell the future, do I predict the consequences of this decision to be good, in line with gospel principles, and beneficial to myself and others?

I have learned that if I can answer each of those questions well, the best thing to do is to just go for it! After that, one of two things will happen.  Either all will proceed well, or God will intervene, if necessary, and guide me toward a different path. And that's okay. There is simply no way to get through life without making mistakes, no matter how well-intentioned we may be, and you know what? It's probably for the better because it's how we learn!

Always be patient with yourself and remember that nobody receives perfect revelation, especially in their youth! Keep trying, keep praying, keep listening, and everything will work out.

Love,

Vienna


0 Comments
Question #82379 posted on 05/04/2015 5:20 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm 26 and single. I'm trying to remedy that, but I've run out of date ideas. You can link me to the archives with answers, but I have another caveat.

Most of the women I date are ages 25-30. For the most part they've seen and done it all dating-wise, so things like riding a tandem bicycle to the park and feeding the ducks just aren't eye-catching enough anymore. Adding gimmicks (ride the bike backwards in thrift-store clothing!) is, frankly, a little too immature to be fun anymore, especially on a first or second date. I've fallen into the "can I buy you dinner" rut, which is fine, but not particularly interesting. It's also really awkward if you're not clicking and need something to do to help conversation along.

Do you, your older siblings, in-laws, or parents have any suggestions for fun, moderately-priced, and interesting dates that provide opportunities for conversation, but also something to do when you're not talking?

-My Name Here

A:

Dear Rel'ar,

For someone who doesn't date very much, it would seem I have a lot of ideas for you.

  • Go to a museum (It doesn't even have to be your normal everyday museum. Go to a ridiculous museum if there is one in the area. It will make for loads of conversation topics.)
  • Mini-golf
  • Real golf (My ex-boyfriend and I used to call it golf-balling, because we were really, really bad.)
  • Bowling 
  • Rock climbing
  • Laser tag
  • Hiking
  • Go to a play
  • Ice blocking
  • Fly fishing
  • Play board/card games together
  • Fly a kite
  • Go to your nearest planetarium
  • Go to a poetry reading in your area
  • Plan a murder mystery party with a group or play Diplomacy (You may not talk to your date about anything but the game but you will certainly get to know each other.)
  • Have food of some sort and ask each other all of these questions
  • If there are any cool conventions or events going on in your area, go to that (It could be a comic con, but it could also be a renaissance fair, an art in the park event, or something like that.)
  • Check out if there are any of the following in your city to join in for an evening: community dance classes, astronomy club, movies in the park, etc. 
  • Go dancing
  • Join a service project 
  • Watch Youtube videos together 
  • Go shooting at an indoor firing range
  • Choose a dinner or dessert that you both want to try, and make it together, including going to the store to buy ingredients
  • Go to a museum and draw pictures of paintings or statues there (this is made all the more fun if you are a terrible artist)
  • Go to a library or bookstore and share your favorite books with one another 

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger 


0 Comments
Question #82283 posted on 05/04/2015 2:38 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Someone I had a crush on didn't add be on Facebook. What should I do?

-Anonymous

A:

Dear anon, 

I'm a Facebookaholic so here is my advice when dealing with crushes and Facebook:

Step 1: Find crush on Facebook.
Step 2: Add crush on Facebook. 

It's really no big deal to add someone as a "friend." I've added people on Facebook that I have literally met once and may never see again. Just add them! 

-Ms.O'Malley

A:

Dear Anonymous,

I completely disagree with Ms.O'Mally. Find the nearest corner. Curl up into a ball. Weep. Repeat until the bad feelings have consumed you.

- Haleakalā

P.S. If having the bad feelings consume you isn't your end goal here, you might consider following O'Malley's advice.

A:

Dear anonymous,

If the issue is that you've already added them, but they haven't accepted it, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Some people just don't get around to checking Facebook or dealing with their notifications very quickly, and it can seem like a much longer time when you're interested. If you want to know how they feel about you, in-person cues are probably a more reliable way of seeing if they like you back.

-Zedability


0 Comments
Question #82359 posted on 05/04/2015 1:39 p.m.
Q:

Dear Ardilla Feroz,

Please help me understand why you post "answers" like Board Question #82004 and Board Question #82263 when you could hold them longer (like the whole lot of questions out there doing overtime waiting for a response) and then answer when you DO have free time? And, if they're not aimed at you, like the Wendy's question, why not let someone else answer it, or if no one wants to, then hold it 'til someone eventually researches it?

-Lost

A:

Dear Lost,

If you are unsatisfied with the answers you get from our free volunteer service, we offer double your money back.

-Board Policy

A:

Dear Lost,

The answers you linked to can easily be interpreted as slacking on Ardilla's part, but I promise they're not. If you're mad at him, your wrath is a little misdirected. Let me explain why.

Sometimes our inbox of unanswered questions gets so full and we lot get so busy that we can't keep up. When that happens, we have little choice but to give cop-out answers to some questions, particularly those that remain unclaimed - i.e., those that no one appears to be even in the process of answering. 

Ardilla does what most of us are unwilling to do: he cleans out our inbox by writing the cop-out answers. Because he's a good guy, he words things to make them sound like the cop-out is his fault, which is where you get things like "this week is really crazy" and "I am on a crazy time crunch."

Really, though, the cop-out is our fault collectively, and Ardilla is simply taking the heat for all of us. Tally M. and Zedability have also been criticized for doing the same thing. We're very sorry when we have to cop out on any question y'all ask, and we do encourage you to resubmit the question later in the hope that it will be better received - but please don't do our writers the discredit of assuming they're lazy or selfish. They're not. They're actually really great.

Hope this helps.

Yours, &c.

Heidi Book

A:

Dear pacific polar bear,

I think everyone else has got things nailed down pretty well, but since you addressed me specifically I'll add as a long-time reader I personally would rather have my questions answered in some snarky way in the 100 hour range rather than have it go over for a long time. I suppose my tendency to put down unanswered over-hours questions reflects this desire.

Of course, I have an answer coming up on 675 hours in the inbox, so apparently I make decisions as I see fit.

As for Board Question #82263 specifically, I do have a great story but I'm also on a three-week trip and answering it really isn't a priority right now. If the asker really wants an answer to that question, they have the option to re-ask me after that. You know, free country and all.

Thanks for spelling my name right,

--Ardilla Feroz

A:

Dearest Hurley,

Folks, I don't think you should be getting up in the grill of the man who wrote this for copping out. Ardilla is more dedicated than most to bringing you informative, funny, and incredibly lengthy answers. Calm down. We are real people and have real lives that can occasionally hinder our ability to write answers satisfactorily.

-Inverse Insomniac


0 Comments
Question #82364 posted on 05/04/2015 1:38 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Is it possible to graduate the same semester that you study abroad? For example, I am planning on studying abroad in Jerusalem this upcoming fall. However, I only need to take two more classes to graduate. Would it be possible for me to take those two classes this spring/summer, study abroad in the fall, and graduate in December?

-Just trying to plan my life

A:

Dear Professor John Smith,

Yep.

Klaus' (and my) friend Roosevelt is doing the Washington Seminar in the fall and then graduating that semester.

-Tally M.

A:

Dear life,

It's totally possible. I completed an internship during spring and summer semesters, came home in August, and graduated less than a week later. 

-Ms.O'Malley


0 Comments
Question #82374 posted on 05/04/2015 1:32 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What is family search indexing?

-non-LDS

A:

Dear Not-yet-LDS,

Indexing is the process of making indexes for genealogical record collections, by lifting information about an individual from a census, birth, or death record. Indexing allows researchers to search through records of specific individuals, rather than leaving them to sift through hundreds or thousands of records to locate information on a single individual. 

For more information on what indexing is and how to do it, see this page on Family Search

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger  


0 Comments
Question #82302 posted on 05/04/2015 1:20 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What's the most expensive software you ever paid for with your own money?

-H&R Block, ~$35

A:

Dear reader,

You know, I thought it'd probably be some expensive thing, but I'm pretty sure it was actually just $10 for Age of Empires II HD Edition. I do use the free versions of quite a few expensive programs, though, and someday I might have the professional need to purchase the full version of ArcGIS or SketchUp for my own use.

-yayfulness

A:

Dear H&R Block,

A few weeks ago I paid $15 to play a game called Child of Light. All my roommates have been playing it, and it looked fun. I played for like an hour or two and then stopped. I just can't get into video games. 

I felt sure there was another (more expensive) example, but after racking my brain for a while, I just can't think of it. I guess I just don't really pay that much for software. 

- Haleakalā


0 Comments
Question #82297 posted on 05/04/2015 1:20 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,
Why does the church only have audio recordings of certain languages of the scriptures on their website and on the gospel library app? My sister speaks Spanish, and my best friend speaks Portuguese and they both have access to the audio version of the scriptures in their language of choice, but for a poor little francophone like me no such thing exists. I know the church has an audio version of the scriptures in French, but I just don't understand why I have to order it specially instead of it just being available on the website. Do you have any idea why this is? Is there anyway I can take this concern up with the website administrator, or whoever would be in charge of this? I'm not trying to be a pain, I just don't understand why they have some languages available but not mine. Especially since it's something as common as French and not something less widely spoken like Gilbertese or Papiamento. Let me know what you find out.
Merci beaucoup!

-Liberté, égalité, fraternité

A:

Dear French Speaker,

I'm sorry for the (very) late response, I was trying to reach out to someone who works for the Church to find out what the reasons might be, but I haven't heard anything back and this really needs to post.

I'm not sure what the reasons are. The only think I can speculate is that there are copyright issues involved. Maybe the Church used a contractor and the terms of the agreement didn't allow internet distribution? I don't really know. You can try contacting the Church's support by submitting feedback here, though I'm not sure you're super likely to get a response that way.

My gut feeling is that apathy isn't the reason Church hasn't made these available online. That just doesn't seem likely to me, especially with something as doctrinally central as the scriptures; but I can't imagine what the other reasons might be.

Regretfully unhelpfully,

-Haleakalā


0 Comments
Question #82233 posted on 05/04/2015 1:02 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

We are told all the time how the family is central and fundamental to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how important marriage and children are, etc. So why then, if it is so fundamental, did Jesus never talk at all ever about marriage, children, family, etc? I can't think of anywhere in the Bible or Book of Mormon where he talks about the importance of getting married, having and raising children or about eternal families. I have a strong testimony of the importance of families but why didn't the Savior ever talk about it and modern day prophets an apostles seem to talk endlessly about it.

Sincerely,
Something's Missing

A:

Dear you,

So, I think it's important to note that one of the main reasons we have (and need) modern day prophets (who give us the words of Christ that he has for us today) is that the dangers and problems we face often vary from those faced historically. The odds of us being oppressed by the Roman empire at this point are pretty much nil, but the odds of pervasive societal action against the family as a basic social unit are very good. I don't think the basic assumption that family is critical was under attack in Christ's time the way it is now.

That doesn't mean that Christ didn't know we'd need scriptures and teachings about family in the future, but it's important to remember that he had only a few years of mortal ministry: not so much time to say a lot about anything, and it may not be surprising if his focus was on problems that are universal and longstanding rather than on things which are more relevant to our particular era, and which he can tell us about through modern prophets.

That being said, there are still plenty of instances in the scriptures that point to the importance of families. Here are some examples from both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, coming either directly from the teachings of Christ or from the teachings of his ancient prophets:

  • When the Pharisees came to Jesus and basically asked his opinion on no-fault divorce, his response was: 
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
   
    I'll note that Christ says that man and women are joined together by God. This is not an institution people just made up. 
  • Christ also teaches beautifully of the importance of taking care of family even while he was on the cross, pointing to his mother and ensuring that one of his disciples would care for her as his own mother
  • Christ very often teaches with parables of a bride and bridegroom, focusing on the bond between a new husband and wife and the preparation for their being brought together. When it comes to teaching critical doctrine like how we are to understand our relationship to Christ and his Church, the relationship he focuses on is often that of a couple about to marry. He also commonly brings up the love of parents as an assumed and powerful love so that he can show by comparison that his love is even greater (see these examples).
  • In the Old Testament, the Lord sent Moses down from Sinai with Ten Commandments. That's not a huge list, and one of the things that specifically made it onto the list (repeated in the Old and New Testaments as well as the Book of Mormon) is the importance of honoring one's father and mother. 
  • The Lord specifically tells Lehi to send his sons back to Jerusalem (where, remember, they've been threatened with death previously) because it is not good for their family to go alone, without any wives (and future families) for their sons.
  • The concepts of inheritance and genealogy are incredibly prevalent in the scriptures (for example, consider the reasons the genealogy of Jesus is given or why it was important for the children of Israel to keep track of which people had a lineal right to the priesthood). It is very clear that the family that we come from gives us rights of inheritance - where we come from binds us to certain blessings.
  • Paul discussed the importance of family and family obligations in multiple contexts. In Ephesians, he discusses the importance of love between spouses. In Corinthians, he discusses the importance family members can have in each others' conversion, which is amazing.

So, while Christ may not have given many recorded sermons akin to modern day conference talks focusing on the family, themes of parents, spouses, inheritance, family love, and sacred relationships actually completely permeate his teachings. I think that's beautiful: family may not always be the foreground subject of Christ's recorded teachings, but it clearly informs the way we interpret much or most of what he said. And, now that the background assumptions of the importance of family are shaking in society, we are getting both background and foreground focus on its importance: this is one of the reasons I'm grateful for living prophets: the ability to speak to us according to the language and the problems of our day.

Feel free to email me if you'd like to chat more about this; I didn't get to do all the research I'd like to because business, but hopefully this gives you some place to start! I highly recommend looking up family-related search terms in lds.org's scripture search and seeing what you find!

Love,

~Anne, Certainly


0 Comments
Posted on 05/04/2015 12:57 p.m. New Comment on: #82361 I almost submitted this question last week but accidentally skipped the final submit button, which for ...
Posted on 05/04/2015 12:57 p.m. New Comment on: #82361 I almost submitted this question last week but accidentally skipped the final submit button, which for ...
Posted on 05/04/2015 12:57 p.m. New Comment on: #82373 So we've all heard that AmHer 100 is killer. And I know that it isn't typically ...
Posted on 05/04/2015 12:57 p.m. New Comment on: #82373 So we've all heard that AmHer 100 is killer. And I know that it isn't typically ...
Question #82361 posted on 05/04/2015 11:26 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I almost submitted this question last week but accidentally skipped the final submit button, which for some reason made me very sad. So here I am, finally gaining the courage to re-submit. Please know that this one will probably be more emotional and less polished than my last draft.

After recent drastic changes to my health, I realize that I think I need therapy. I've lost all of my friends, hobbies, and goals. Everything that I used to be, I don't have anymore. Sometimes I can't even take care of myself. It probably sounds like I'm over-stating the situation, but it really is bad. Sometimes even I don't believe that my life is real.

All of these changes and experiences have left me feeling very anxious, frustrated, and depressed. I think I need to talk to someone, but for various reasons (including the fact that I can't leave the house easily), seeking a therapist through my community or bishop isn't possible. Then I remembered the CCC. I don't live in Provo right now, but I am still a BYU student. Am I still eligible for their services? And if so, is there some kind of email-appointment option? I feel like time is just 'whoosh'ing by while I'm stuck here being sick. And I realized the other day that if I don't take care of myself emotionally, no amount of physical recovery will be able to make me normal again.
I think therapy seems like a good place to start.

Please help,
Always love,


-The Lily Maid

A:

Dear Lily Maid,

You are eligible for services at CAPS as long as you are a BYU student enrolled at 9 credits or above during the fall/winter semesters. You do not have to be taking classes during the spring/summer to qualify for services at those times as long as you will be taking classes in the upcoming fall semester. Unfortunately, CAPS does not do any kind of distance therapy; you need to be in the office in order to receive treatment. Unfortunately, you are likely going to need to leave the house in order to go to therapy, unless you want to pay someone who does Skype or phone therapy. 

-Divya


2 Comments
Posted on 05/04/2015 9:37 a.m. New Comment on: #82355 I was sad to learn that the Payson temple dedication is only being broadcast to stakes ...
Question #82355 posted on 05/04/2015 9:14 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I was sad to learn that the Payson temple dedication is only being broadcast to stakes within the temple district rather than to all (or most) of Utah. In the 12 years I've lived in Utah, I'm pretty sure I've been able to attend broadcasts of all the Utah temples dedicated during that time, even though I haven't lived in any of the respective temple districts.

Why is this dedication only available to the Payson temple district? Is this going to be the new procedure for future Utah temples to be dedicated (Provo City Center, Cedar City, etc.)?

Thanks!
Skitch

A:

Dear Skitch,

To be honest, I have no idea why this is. However, to my knowledge, the only temple to be dedicated in Utah in the last 12 years (not rededicated) was the Brigham City Temple Dedication, and as far as I am aware, state-wide temple dedication broadcasts are not common in most places. I know when the temple in my hometown was dedicated that it was not broadcast to the whole state, just the temple district. That is the common practice, as far as I understand. 

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger  


1 Comment
Question #82373 posted on 05/04/2015 8:02 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So we've all heard that AmHer 100 is killer. And I know that it isn't typically recommended to take it your first (fall) semester. But I am coming summer term and planning on taking it fall semester, as I'm taking writing summer term. Is this just a terrible idea? I'm taking writing from Matthews and Heritage from Karpowitz. Any advice...?

I'm also taking ASL 101 over the summer. Any tips for this?

Any general tips on surviving my first year of college?

-terrified for college

A:

Dear Terrified,

American Heritage's reputation as a "killer" is undeserved. It's roughly equivalent in difficulty to any other general education class. Taking it your first semester is very doable. I think its reputation exists because American Heritage students tend to be freshman who aren't familiar with the way studying works in a university setting.

College is fundamentally different than high school. In high school, the majority of the actual learning takes place in the classroom. You have one class every day for a set period of time, which adds up to hundreds of hours of classroom instruction. In high school, homework tends to be important, but supplementary. In college, an average course (3 credit hours) meets only three times a week for fifty minutes. During the average fall semester, that only adds up to about 35 hours of classroom instruction. Face-to-face time with the instructor is very limited.

Given these time constraints, the learning process is somewhat "flipped" in a university setting compared to what most students experienced high school. You should expect to do most of the "learning" for each course by doing the assigned homework and reading. Lectures serve only to introduce new material and review material completed during the homework. This is why BYU suggests that students plan to spend about three hours per credit hour per week doing homework. In reality, I think most BYU students spend somewhat less time than that, but nearly all students would agree that you should plan to spend significantly more time doing schoolwork than you spend in lecture.

If you have this attitude during your university career - the learning is my responsibility, not the instructor's - you'll be well-prepared for most of your GE classes, including American Heritage. Each major is a little different, so once you begin taking more major courses you'll have to learn what study habits are best for your course of study.

As for your writing course, remember to start assignments early. Although there are some people at the university level that can still get away with turning in first drafts, they are vastly in the minority, especially compared to the amount of people that get away with doing this in high school. Even for those that do get away with turning in first drafts, most could have done better by proofreading. Think of coming up with a first draft as only one step in the writing process. 

I've never taken ASL 101, so I can't really say anything about that.

Good luck! You're going to do great!

- Haleakalā


2 Comments
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Question #82351 posted on 05/03/2015 9:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

There's been a rumor circulating in my ward for quite some time now that our ward has the highest marriage rate at BYU. I need to know if this is true without actually telling you what ward I'm in. So. Which BYU ward has the highest marriage rate?

-Hoping to get out of the singles' ward

A:

Dear Single,

I'm pretty sure there is no possible way that we could figure that out. Well, I won't say there's no possible way... I guess there's just no way that any of us have the time to do that kind of research. Sorry!

But hey, if any readers out there feel like using their summer to answer this question, great! Also, please e-mail me your results before I decide where to live next year.

What I can tell you is that my friend's ward (which I'm about to move into, actually) has a 50% marriage rate. FIFTY PERCENT. So, if your ward doesn't have a higher rate than that, it is not the ward with the highest marriage rate at BYU.

And how, do you ask, is a ward able to attain this 50% statistic? Well, apparently a couple people in this ward are called to be "the ward matchmakers." Their job is to set up guys and girls in the ward who they think could be compatible. There is also a way to make a "request" to the ward matchmakers in the hopes that you might get set up with a certain somebody.

AND IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN WORKING.

I am 100% serious right now.

What can we learn from this? THAT IF BOYS WOULD JUST ASK OUT EVERY GIRL THEY WERE INTERESTED IN, NEGATING THE NEED FOR A WARD MATCHMAKER BUT HAVING THE SAME EFFECT, A LOT MORE PEOPLE WOULD BE GETTING MARRIED.

So to everybody reading this I say: go forth and date.

-Vienna


0 Comments
Question #82307 posted on 05/03/2015 9:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So, looks like Studio C was thinking the same thing I was:

A big part of the Civil War conflict in the comics was that the Registration Act required superheroes to reveal their secret identities (to the government, at least). Now, we're gearing up for a Civil War in the MCU...but no one really seems to have a secret identity. What do you think is going to be the driving force of the conflict, then?

-Donald Blake

A:

Dear Odinson,

First off, spoilers for Age of Ultron (and the Civil War comic arc) below. Just warning you.

If we look back at the comic books, I tend to see people saying things like "It's because of the Thunderbolts" or "You can't do it with out Spider-man" about Civil War. I disagree. To me, if I were to break down Civil War, I'd say it came down to Iron Man's business interests conflicting with Captain America's principles. As much as Tony claimed to be about the greater good, etc. we saw in Wolverine's storyline at this time that that was definitely not true. Tony spearheaded the Registration Act and without him it would never have happened. Captain's "No, you move" speech has gone down in the hall of fame of comic book dialogue. To me, though, the most interesting character storyline was not Spider-man, but Reed Richards. I think it'd be harder to do Civil War without Reed than without Peter. Reed, in his mind, saw no possible way of avoiding the Registration Act - it was a necessity. But the intellectual understanding conflicted with his emotional intuition and tore his life apart. His was the most compelling character development, in my mind.

So with that, let's turn to the movie. We know that we will have a conflict between Tony and Cap that kicks it off. That's pretty much a given. But what will it be? Some have suggested privacy but that seems too similar to Winter Soldier in my opinion. I think what we saw in Age of Ultron is that Tony and Cap can fight about anything. Cap doesn't like it when people "try to win wars before they've begun." Tony wants to create a shield around the earth. These are diametrically opposed viewpoints. The specific issue that will kick it off will need to be significant enough without feeling like we've done this already. What that is, your guess is as good as mine. But I did have a thought at the end of Age of Ultron - we almost had a role reversal in Tony and Cap's farewell. Tony talked about giving it up and retiring to family life while Cap seemed to imply that a military-type life was the one he was used to now. It made me wonder if we could have an almost reversed kick-off to Civil War, with Cap pushing the military efforts and Tony opposing it. Just a thought.

Whatever it ends up being, I'm predicting that Tony and Cap will be on opposite ends, Tony will end up dying (instead of Cap), and someone will be extremely conflicted about which side to join and his or her switch will end up swinging the balance so they side he or she finally chooses will determine the "winner."

-M.O.D.A.Q.


0 Comments