Resolve to keep happy, and your joy and you shall form an invincible host against difficulties.

Posts for August 22, 2009

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

Are piano sheet music and harp sheet music interchangeable? That is, a harper/ harpist can read piano music for the harp and vise versa?

Thanks.

- music lover but no -ist (piano, harp or otherwise)

Direct Link to Question

ADear Music Lover,

Yes and no. They're in the same key, so the notes are the same. But music is written for certain instruments, so what is written for piano may be nigh-impossible to play on harp, and vice versa - I've never heard a harpist attempt Chopin, for example. A lot of music would be compatible with both, but they're really different creatures.

Love,
Waldorf and Sauron

ADear lover,

I've played a harp part on the piano for band before... the worst part is if there is a glissando in one key, there's basically no way you're going to get the same effect on the piano. Also, I understand that harps are designed to play in one key at a time - so they would have real trouble with a chromatic scale, for example (though they can change keys quickly with the stomp of a pedal). So, kind of, but not really.

-Whistler

ADear no-ist,

I asked my sister-in-law who plays harp professionally, and this is what she said:

Quote:

Depends on the music and who you ask. If there are a ton of accidentals [sharps, flats, and naturals] then it gets really tricky. Also, harp only uses eight fingers instead of ten, so if it gets too thick I usually just play chords or arpeggios in the key. Some harp snobs are very adamant that piano music is nothing like harp music, but I play the piano part in orchestras all the time. Hope that helps.

-Ineffable

Back to top
QDear Waldorf/Sauron,

Re: Question #53112. I really want to take the Photoshop class you were talking about. What is the class name/number, please? I need a three credit class and love graphic design but I am not an art major and do not have the visual arts core (which excludes me from most classes I'd like to take!) Any suggestions?

-Super Senior

Direct Link to Question

ADear Super,

The class I took was VASTU 353R, Computer Art. And I think I was the only one in the class who was an actual VASTU major.

Good luck,
Waldorf/Sauron

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

Before the invention of the scissors and the nail clipper, how did people cut their hair and their fingernails?

- Anonymous

Direct Link to Question

AA-

Knives. They were very, very careful.

- Cuddlefish

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

Why do you think Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were commanded (I assume by John the Baptist) to (re-?)ordain each other to the Aaronic Priesthood following their being baptized by each other? Presumably, they had already been ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood by John the Baptist. Wouldn't the ordination by John the Baptist count?

Also, who ordained (laying on of hands) and who gave Alma authority to baptize in the waters of Mormon? Were there special exceptions? If so, are there other examples?

- The Priest's Quorum

Direct Link to Question

ADear Priest's Quorum,

I think that Joseph and Oliver baptizing and then confirming each other is an example of all things being done in order in the Church, but certainly they represent a special situation. Another way of saying that would be that they were establishing a pattern. They first had the authority given to them to perform the ordinance of baptism. Without the authority given from someone who had it, the ordinance would not have been valid. Baptism (among other things) washes one clean of one's sins, and is a physical sign of an inward commitment and covenant to follow Christ and keep his commandments. These things are necessary qualities for someone who is going to receive the priesthood of God. For that reason, the order of baptism before ordination makes sense. Another thing to consider is that baptism, like all essential ordinances, is an ordinance that is done for and by mortal residents of this earth. So while it would be possible for the resurrected, glorified John the Baptist to actually do the baptizing, to me it makes sense that John the Baptist (and later Peter, James and John) would be involved in delivering priesthood authority, but not with the actual hands-on (ha!) work of the ceremonies associated with the priesthood authority they were delivering, ceremonies that include baptism and ordaining others to the Aaronic priesthood.

Another note about baptism and the order of things: Like I mentioned before, being washed clean of one’s sins and making a covenant with God are only part of what baptism is for. When the Church of Christ is on the earth in its organized entirety, baptism is also the way by which members join the Church. Though Joseph, Oliver, and several other early Saints were baptized before April 6, 1830 (the date of the official organization of the Church in this dispensation), all those who had been baptized previously were rebaptized in order to manifest their decision to become part of the Church. This other baptism wasn’t done because they didn’t have the authority or authorization before; it just had a different purpose. In a similar way, Joseph and Oliver absolutely were authorized, and absolutely had been ordained by John the Baptist, but in their unique situation, they were instructed to proceed as they did in order to (I believe) establish the order that things are supposed to work in this dispensation.

Now about Alma. This is actually a question that has been answered in depth in Board Question #19333. But more succinctly and officially (and not written in a distracting British, cockney accent), this is from the Book of Mormon Institute manual, quoting President Joseph Fielding Smith:

Quote:

We may conclude that Alma held the priesthood before he, with others, became disturbed with King Noah. Whether this is so or not makes no difference because in the Book of Mosiah it is stated definitely that he had authority [see Mosiah 18:13].

If he had authority to baptize that is evidence that he had been baptized. Therefore, when Alma baptized himself with Helam that was not a case of Alma baptizing himself, but merely as a token to the Lord of his humility and full repentance. (Answers to Gospel Questions)

- Rating Pending (who, once again, would like everyone to know that they can access all the Institute manuals at institute.lds.org)

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

What is the difference between inspirational and spiritual? How can one ensure that their lessons are fostering spiritual growth and not just inspiring or motivating?

- an instructor who wants to make a difference

Direct Link to Question

ADear Instructor,

I think there is a lot of overlap between spiritual and inspirational; anything that would be correctly described as "inspiring" or "uplifting" from a Gospel standpoint would be so because it contains a measure of truth. However, to make something "foster spiritual growth," I think you need to deal more specifically with the doctrines of the Church. The best way to do this would be to make sure that your lessons are grounded in the scriptures.

Also, I think that the problem with things that are simply "inspiring" or "motivating" is that they make people feel "warm and fuzzy" without really helping them change. For example, it's very nice make your class feel that being a good person is a great idea. Terrific, positively spiffing idea, actually. But, until you teach them specific steps and strategies on how to lead a more Christlike life, you aren't likely to influence your class as much as you could. The moving story about the mass-killer who was stopped in his tracks because someone thought to smile at him (please forgive the satire; I know you're not this ridiculous, but some people are) doesn't teach them principles to apply to their lives or help them see areas in which they may need to improve. Improvement is key to spiritual growth.

~Hermia

ADear,

The difference is the Spirit. Please note that this is a two-way street. If your class isn't prepared to feel the Spirit, they're not going to get anything out of it. However, you can raise your effectiveness by having the Spirit, yourself.

Do a lot of praying for the Spirit, before, during, and after you plan your lessons. Put in the time and effort. Lessons on the fly can be good, but there's a marked difference when you've prepared well. Pray also that your class will be receptive to the Spirit.

Really, the difference between fostering actual growth and merely giving the warm fuzzies lies with the student, not the teacher. You can maybe give them tools, like something to write notes on, or specific challenges, or questions that make them really think deeply, but ultimately, it's their call. Do your best, but don't fret about it too much.

Also, don't use inspirational internet forwards as classroom material. I hate that.

-Uffish Thought

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

Would you please help me understand the difference between these: stories, fables, parables, allegories, tales, and legends (others?). Which are commonly used by General Authorities in conference addresses?

- Aesop

Direct Link to Question

ADear Aesop,

Let me first say that I love your fables, Aesop.

Second, I love to explain the differences between things, so here it goes. Would you like examples? If not, just skip the italicized bits and links.

A story is a retelling of something that has happened. Example: I was born on a Thursday night. My Dad had to fly into New Jersey, and barely made it in time. The doctor jokingly told my Mom that I was born just in time for the ten o'clock news.

A fable is similar to a story, in so much as there is a plot-line of some sort. The plot-line above was the narrator's birth story. The difference is that a fable is not true, and is meant to enforce some moral point. Aesop, you should know, fables tend to have talking animals as their main characters. For example there is the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper.

A parable is different than a fable because rather than a general moral point, it usually is used to reinforce a religious principle. "Parable" can even be considered a synonym of "example," because it is an example of what a person should or should not do. One of my favorite parables is the parable of the mustard seed, Buddhist style.

An allegory is when you express something through symbolic fictional characters or events to make a point. They use much more symbolism than a regular story, or even a fable. At first glance, you may not even realize it is an allegory. For example, C.S. Lewis' series, The Chronicles of Narnia, is an allegory about Christian topics. However, when you first read, or watch, this series, you may not notice the allegory.

Tales and legends are very closely related (of course, all of these are). A tale may sound true, but can not be proven. If you told someone, "Oh, you are telling tales!", that suggests they are lying. On the other hand, a legend is older and totally unverifiable. Some things which were once considered historical fact (i.e., among the ancient Greeks and Romans, the pagan gods were considered historical figures, however now we call those legendary), are now considered legends. If one person calls something "the stuff of legends", that means it is great to a degree.

Your questions covered all the major types of stories; in the end, each of these is technically a sub-type of story. If you want more information about literary terms, this site has great explanations and further reading.

As for General Authorities, they most commonly use personal stories and parables. Parables are found in the Bible, and stories come naturally, so both are easy to use and understand.

-Mico

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

I’m a British reader and really wanted to ask you about a news story that’s getting so much coverage over here:

Do Americans really not want a "socialised" health care system? All the newspapers and TV reports keep showing lots of protests and reports of the anti-NHS adverts. Maybe it’s just hard for me to understand the opposing view (so please feel free to tell me exactly why socialised health care is wrong). Not everyone can afford expensive health care, not just because they don’t work hard enough, some people just aren’t clever enough to be lawyers or bankers and end up being gardeners or shop keepers. Why is it that the people who are doing an equally needed job and working just as hard but still can’t afford health care or have really expensive co-pay scemes should have to avoid going to the doctor or end up in debt because they get sick? Surely by not going to their doctor regularly and then ending up in the ER having to get the free emergency treatment costs almost just as much as preventative treatment?

Not being American maybe I (and most other people in Britain) have completely misread the situation, but it’s just unbelievable that people are protesting against other people being given life-improving, lifesaving medicines and treatment.

From my own experience I’m sure the NHS isn’t perfect, but it’s provided vital treatment (WITHOUT long waiting times) for my aunt’s breast cancer, my grandpa’s hip replacement and my mum’s 3-week hospital stay after my little brother was born and there were complications.

Sorry, if this is a bit of a rant...

Curious Brit,

p.s. Sarah Palin was SO, SO, SO, wrong we don't have 'death panels' and the NHS would EVER say that a person with Downes syndrome doesn't have a right to life or wouldn't be given treatment!

Direct Link to Question

ACB-

I'd personally be fine with a socialized health care system. It would not bother me. The end.

- Cuddlefish

ADear Curious,

Believe it or not, there are many reasons why the idea of socialized medicine upsets many Americans.

First, many Americans respond rather viscerally (and even irrationally) to anything with the term "socialized" attached. This is probably a relic of the Cold War; in the United States, socialism is often viewed (rightly or wrongly) as a watered-down form of communism. The U.S. differs greatly from many E.U. nations on this point; anyone who tried to further the cause of a socialist party would be about as likely to succeed in politics as Ron Paul. One example of the difference between the way the term "socialism" is viewed in the U.S. and Europe can be found in LDS history. At the height of the Cold War in the 1960's, Elder Ezra Taft Benson frequently spoke out against communism as an evil that would rob God's children of their agency. In so doing, he also frequently warned against any socialist approach to government, believing that such approaches might give communist ideals too much of a foothold in American politics and society. This caused a bit of a headache for the LDS Church as it became evident that many Church members in Europe were unsettled by his comments on socialism; where they came from, socialist parties were much more mainstream, well-received, and unassociated with Soviet-style communism. Many of them came from families that had been members of a socialist party for years, and couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.

Another reason for Americans' aversion to socialized healthcare involves a number of concerns. Many Americans don't want to pay higher taxes to help pay for someone else's health care. There is also the issue of the United States' enormous deficit; should our government really take on such a huge financial responsibility? Our proximity to Canada doesn't help; many Americans (myself included) have met Canadians who complain about their socialized healthcare system - Canadian horror stories involving being assigned a doctor and waiting for hours to receive any kind of treatment have spooked many Americans. Many Americans also wonder whether or not socialized medicine is even a feasible option for the United States; some argue that socialized medicine might be very good and well for smaller nations like Sweden, but are unsure of how such a program would work in a nation that is so large in both area and population.

Hopefully that helps get you started - what I have given is, of course, a very broad and basic overview of a complex debate - I would recommend that you continue to research the issue as you watch how it unfolds.

~Hermia

ADear CB,

I think Hermia offered some good explanations. For me, there are a couple of things that worry me. The first is this: we've been spending money we don't have to the tune of trillions of dollars, and now our government is supposedly going to come up with the money to insure everyone? I just don't see how that's going to work.

However, after talking it over a bit, I've decided that I am cautiously in favor of a government-sponsored health plan. The second problem, though, is that I am not in favor of the current rush towards one. For this to work out, it simply cannot be rushed through the government. A half-baked health plan would be far worse than our current system. I think we need to take a few years and do some careful studying, maybe try pilot programs in various parts of the country, and so on. Hey, maybe take ten years. Then, and only then, should we put something in place. What I've heard of the current proposal (and I mean actual facts, not the death panel stuff) is very unsatisfactory. So here's hoping that the people in charge hold their horses and don't just stampede toward a national healthcare system with inadequate planning.

—Laser Jock

ADear stiff upper lip pip pip cheerio god save the queen tea and crumpets saved your butts in ww2 mate across the pond,

Ha, just kidding. I love you guys. Bloody 'eck!

I agree with Laser Jock. No, really!

What bugs me about this whole ordeal is the level of rhetoric people are issuing. Most citizens, activists, heck, even the congressmen voting on it know very little about what the bill entails. It's massive! No one is debating the actual elements of the bill. The democrats have their talking points and the republicans have their scare tactics and everyone is worked up in a lather trying to demonize the other side. You either want to send poor people to the hospital or the elderly to some twisted caricature of a death camp. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves, especially the churlish loudmouths at those townhall meetings. However, I'm encouraged by the administration's recent indication that they are willing to compromise on the more divisive parts. The democrats have the majority and the power to push through radical legislation right now, and Obama is taking the diplomatic route. Good for him.

-Cognoscente

P.S. Sorry for taking the mickey!

ADear Everybody,

Like Cognoscente was saying, the "Death Panel" talks (and the billions of erroneous accusations flying around through email forwards) have actually distracted the debate away from the nuts and bolts of the bill to the simple dichotomy of "There will be Death Panels! Booo Obama!" vs. "No there won't! Booo Palin!" This is how the Republicans hope to make the bill fail, not by challenging the legislation but by making its actual text irrelevant. I think it's likely Palin's "Death Panels" meme was a work of crack political engineering that the party payed some think tank a bundle for. As Ebert wrote:

Quote:

I saw a documentary last year about Lee Atwater, the strategist for the Reagan and George H. W. Bush campaigns, the mentor of Karl Rove and George Bush. The man was a brilliant creator of memes. Among his coinages were "Whitewater," which inspired a $70 million federal investigation into a $28,000 financial loss. He made "Willie Horton" a code term. He got many people to believe "Michael Dukakis opposed the Pledge of Allegiance." He was capable of outrageous invention, as when about the Willie Horton ad he said with a straight face: "I don't think a lot of Southerners even noticed there was a black man in that ad."

Atwater might have been proud of "Death panels." Those two little words have derailed the town hall meetings, by stirring up such unruly dissent that legislators have been shouted down by their own constituents. The town halls were designed to promote rational discussion of health care, a dialogue between lawmakers and their constituents. They have failed. Now those two words threaten to derail the public option provisions of the Obama plan.

I think it ultimately comes down to the fact that in the United States, many people see health care as a privilege for those who can afford it, not as a right. I think there are many rational arguments on both sides. Are those being presented by the media? No. So thank goodness you have The Hundred Hour Board.

Love,
Waldorf and Sauron

ADear Curious,

Many Americans want as little government interference in their lives as is possible. Therefore, those who want a smaller national government want as few government programs as are absolutely necessary. Thus, they resist the idea of a massive new government program and its accompanying bureaucracy being formed. People who believe in smaller government generally want the government to be involved in things such as national defense and infrastructure creation and maintenance, but don't want the government involved in things such as health care.

Much of the fiery rhetoric being tossed around (by both sides) in this debate has nothing to do with the issues at hand and exists solely to a) demonize anyone with another opinion, b) belittle the intelligence of anyone with another opinion, c) create straw men, and/or d) incite emotional responses that spur action without deep thought. Neither side is covering themselves in rhetorical glory in this debate.

-Humble Master

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

I have questions about deferring for a mission. Do most colleges in the US let you defer for a mission? And what about Ivy Leagues? If I had high aspirations for something like Oxford, would going on a mission even be an option?

Sincerely,
I want to go on a mission, but I want to go to college

Direct Link to Question

ADear Want to Go on a Mission,

Sorry, we can't be super specific here because it depends not only on the college but also on the department. I worried about this when I applied to USC (a fairly prestigious, if not Ivy League, school), and so I asked the department head when I visited the campus and they said they had had a Mormon in their program before and it would be fine. (I ended up not accepting admission there.) My recommendation is to get on the phone and ask a lot of questions to your specific schools before you apply.

Love,
Waldorf and Sauron

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

What is the process to get into Cambridge or Oxford. How far in advance must one apply. Can I transfer from BYU to a school like that?

- Braniac

Direct Link to Question

ABraniac (do you just really, really like bran?)-

Information for Oxford can be found here, and information for Cambridge can be found here and here. Read the websites carefully. There is a lot of information there, and you'll probably need to know all of it.

- Cuddlefish

ADear Braniac,

Please don't take this too harshly, but if you couldn't figure that out researching by yourself, you probably aren't Oxbridge material. So before you click on Cuddlefish's links, why don't you try it the FUN way and see if you can do it yourself?

Love,
Waldorf and Sauron

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

I have come to the conclusion that one of the most parodied lines in literature is the opening line in Austen's "Pride and Prejudice." However, my googling skills are not what they ought to be, so all I can find is quizzes and lists of famous first lines. Can you verify my assumption, or point me in the right direction?

- Golux Girl

Direct Link to Question

ADear Golux Girl,

Quote:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains will be in want of more brains.

Any novel that can be parodied with zombies, is definitely among the top most parodied, most quoted novels.

In my opinion, it is impossible to find the most parodied first line in literature, considering all the factors that would go into that (Western literature? From what time period? Of all time? Internet parodies, or parodies in general?).

-Mico

AGolux Girl-

I bet the first line of A Tale of Two Cities is parodied more often.

- Cuddlefish

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

I have seen the movie "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"(2005) twice now and I have mixed feelings about it. For those who haven't seen it, it is loosely based on a true story of a young lady who dies in the process of an exorcism.

Most of me feels like the movie is excellent because in a very real way the message is religious and even faith-promoting, because as stated near the end, "In the end, good will triumph over evil. Through my experience people will know
that demons are real. People say that God is dead but how can they think that
if I show them the devil?" Satan is an essential part of God's plan and I think it is important for us to understand that he does have real power and can control us if we let him.

On the other hand, I feel that perhaps we shouldn't be "meddling" in things of that nature if you know what I mean.

I would love to hear your personal opinions on this movie and its message as well as any other thoughts related to such.

-CTR

Direct Link to Question

ADear CTR,

I haven't seen this film (and I doubt any of us have), but I've read about it. The first thing you should know is that it's fiction. The Catholic church has actually declared that the girl who the story was based on was not possessed by demons, but was mentally ill.

Would you recommend the film based on its apparent religious message alone? The film's suggestion that the devil, and therefore God, may exist seems to be a pretty lame reason to recommend a movie. ("Hey Sauron, you have GOT to see The Book of Mormon Movie because it's religious and thus excellent!") By the way, the argument that the devil's existence proves God's existence is a really old argument.

Personally, I find it hard for ANY fiction that tries to show the existence of God to be faith-affirming. I have scriptures and real stories and my own life experience for that. I don't need testimony dressed up in glossy celluloid and makeup and background music and composite characters—just tell me, straight up. For example, I like General Conference talks, but dislike the Mormon Messages made from them. (For an ungilded alternative to the Church AV paradigm, see Fit for the Kingdom.)

There is a place for faithful fiction, certainly, but just because a movie asserts that God exists, that doesn't make it good art or mean it's devoid of insidious messages.

So here are some questions to think about. Does the film imply that the ostensible servants of God are actually powerless against Satan's attacks? Remember that there are two points of view given throughout the film: as the film pitches religion against science, does religion really explain everything that happened? Isn't there an alternate explanation given for everything Father Moore claims—and indeed, doesn't the Jury find him guilty, thus indicating that Emily's chance to prove to the world that God exists didn't work, and thus suggesting that God and the devil may not, in fact, exist?

It's more complicated, isn't it? And it's these complications where different viewpoints converge and contradict that, I think, make the film (...well, the synopsis) interesting and maybe even worthwhile.

As for whether we should "meddle" in these sorts of things, here's a section of an Aaronic Priesthood manual:

Quote:

Explain that there are some things we should know about Satan and there are probably many things we do not need to know. Although it is useful to understand who Satan is and why he is our adversary, there is potential danger in thinking and talking about Satan too much.

Read the following counsel given by Elder Francis M. Gibbons, and then proceed with the lesson:

“How much better it is to follow the admonitions of the Savior, to speak with kindness and love, and to create in our homes havens from the turmoil of the world, which is constantly stirred up by the intrigue of our common enemy. And how much better it is to emphasize and to focus on positive rather than negative things so as to build up and to protect each other, and to minimize the opportunity for the intrusion of Satanic influences in our lives"

Or another:

Quote:

The young men should understand the reality of Satan, but you should not talk too much about him or relate personal experiences with the power of evil. Avoid discussing the occult. If the young men bring up such subjects as Ouija boards, séances, spiritualism, or Satan worship, you should tell them that such things are tools of Satan and that we have been counseled to avoid them completely. Then direct the discussion back to the lesson.

I think we're probably deluding ourselves if we tell ourselves that we're being spiritually edified by watching portrayals of satanic power. I'm not saying that the film is evil or you shouldn't have watched it, only that I don't think there's a lick of spiritual gain to be had from it.

Love,
Waldorf and Sauron

ADear CTR,

Waldorf and Sauron make a great point - there are plenty of unembellished stories that can be much more faith-promoting than something that has been exaggerated to increase dramatic effect and box-office revenues. I think that it is also important to consider the intended purpose of the film. I haven't seen all of the film, but from the portions I have seen I feel that much of the emphasis is on the possession and demonic power involved, as opposed to the power of God to overcome this dark power. This emphasis, coupled with the use of darker music and cinematography, makes me suspect that the film was designed more to appeal to a fascination with darkness rather than with the divine power, whatever rationale the filmmakers may have tacked on to the end.

Now, of course, you're the one who has actually seen the film in its entirety (I really have no desire to watch it after seeing the portions of it I did), so I'll leave it to you to decide how to take my insight. I would ultimately recommend being honest with yourself when considering how the film made you feel overall. Did you feel uplifted as though you had learned something new or valuable, or could you still feel any lingering fear or darkness at the film's conclusion?

~Hermia

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

Don't think I'm weird but I have already figured what I'm gonna be for Halloween: an aviator. I know I have to have the cap and the goggles--so there's really no place for aviator glasses, is that right? How about the pants and the shoes? Are there any special pants or can I just wear jeans? And do I have to wear boots? I saw a picture of an aviator who was wearing boots, and it looked more "aviatorish" to me, so I thought that maybe if I put jeans and some dark shoes on, I would not look as aviatorish as I really mean to.

- Aviator

Direct Link to Question

ADear Aviator,

If you want to be an old-timey aviator, you can wear a suit (maybe using old Antoine as inspiration?). It might be fun to find a flight jumpsuit - something like this or this. Looks like a trip to DI!

-Whistler

ADear Aviator,

I second the idea of the jump suit, but if you already have a jacket of some kind, I think you could make due with a pair of tan pants and calf-high boots, like this picture of Charles Lindbergh. And if you could get tan jockey pants (like the kind actual, horse-riding jockeys wear, not like jockey shorts) then you would be set!

- Rating Pending (who owns a pair of riding pants that he found at Savers, but admits it was a one-in-a-million find)

Back to top
CI was doing some random research on pendulum clocks that I think applies to Question #53153, the question about flat heads and the keeping time. A pendulum clock must be on a precisely flat surface in order to keep time because when it is on a slant the perceived gravity is increased on one side of the arc. This means that the swing is not uniform from one second to the next and the clock is destined to lose time. This is what led to one of the greatest challenges in maritime navigation, prior to the invention of portable timepieces in the 20th century, because exact time is necessary to accurately determine longitude at sea. The correlation between flat surfaces and pendulum clocks might explain the character's comments ...or it's the Simpson's and they were just being random.

My two cents,
Ineffable

Direct Link to Question