|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Login Ask a Question Search About Us Policies Frequently Asked Questions Top-10 Favorites Order T-Shirt Archives Today's Posts (18) 21 20 19 18 17 16 14 13 12 11 10 09 07 06 05 04 03 02 31 30 29 28 27 26 24 23 22 21 20 19 17 16 15 14 13 12 10 09 08 07 06 05 03 02 01 30 29 28 26 25 24 23 22 21 19 18 17 16 15 14 12 11 10 09 08 07 05 04 03 02 01 31 29 28 27 26 25 24 22 21 |
Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, I've recently been reading Churchill's (abridged) memoirs of World War II. So far I've been enthralled at his style and the quality of his writing. Obviously the book is written from a British point of view - the book is right at the half-way mark when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor when to the typical American mind the war began. He was also privy to information that was still very sensitive right after the war (the A-bomb, Engima, etc.) and therefore couldn't tell everything. Because of that, I'm curious what modern-day historians think of the book. So, because you are at BYU, and I'm not at a university, you have much better access to professional historians than I do. I've already looked at Wikipedia at the book's entry; but of course, you never know how good Wikipedia is at any given moment. So, my very closely related questions are: What do professional historians think of Winston Churchill's memoirs as accurate history? Just how self-serving was Churchill in his presentation of the story? Are there any glaring intentional/unintentional errors? - Patata Brava
ADear Patata Brava, I'm sorry that this took so long to get back to you. Although I contacted every professor at BYU that I thought might have an opinion on The Memoirs of Winston Churchill, only one responded in the affirmative. Dr. Mark Choate teaches several European history classes and this is what he had to say:
If you are interested, this is the biography he was referring to (that preposition was for you, Churchill). Dr. Choate made a good point: there is no such thing as unbiased history, only good history. Look at David McCullough: his books are extremely well-researched but there's no denying he has a strong pro-American bias. Churchill's writings are generally embraced because his conclusions were astute and his facts are for the most part correct. His memoirs do have some critics, but no widely read history doesn't. -Ineffable Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, What size CC four-wheeler should I get? I have two little kids, so I'd prefer to not get a monster machine for safety reasons. Also I need it to be able to plow a lot of snow off my driveway and sidewalks. I'm also a pretty big, beefy man, so it needs to move and support my weight. - Done Shovelin'
ADear Done Shovelin' After thorough consideration, I would get a 475cc if I were you. I was riding my friend's Honda FourTrax some time ago and it seems to do the trick quite nicely. It isn't too big (although I wouldn't let little kids operate it; for that matter, I wouldn't let little kids operate anything big enough to effectively shovel snow) but it isn't too small. It has four-wheel drive and the low-end torque is awesome. It should fit you pretty well; I don't know what your standard of 'big, beefy man' is but I am 6'2 and 160 and my friend is 5'8" and 210 and it serves us both pretty well. For shoveling snow, anything from 420cc up would work pretty well, but I would choose a 475 based on how big I think you are. Dr. Smeed Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, The 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee introduced a new model, the Overland. Between 2002 and 2004 the new Overland model used a special 4.7 V8 High Performance engine. There were many similarities between the standard 4.7 V8 and HO 4.7 V8, but the most effectual difference lied in the piston’s domed head with an accompanied low pressure ring. If the gasket blows on your HO 4.7 V8 engine and you need to replace the rings, where would you get them? Assuming they are not manufactured by Chrysler or any other company, will any of the 2005- 2009 pistons/ring sets function in this particular engine (taking into account engine variations, such as connecting rod dimensions, camshaft diameter, compression discrepancies, wrist pin incongruities and other factors)? - Clegdor
ADear Clegdor, My savvy pal T-Fish had this to say;
There you go. Do you really need new rings? If not, don't worry about it. If so, you can probably just use 2005 4.7 pison rings. Dr. Smeed Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, I am wondering if anyone can tell me why Prop 8 in CA was a good idea, other than "we follow the prophet." That idea was a good enough one for me back when I voted for it in November, but I don't think it is healthy to just accept that answer for the rest of my life. No one has been able to respond to my objections to it, which I will briefly summarize below. Basically, in my heart of hearts I believe that Prop 8 is both silly and morally wrong. It is silly for one big reason: the actual legislation protects only the word marriage without doing any protecting of marriage itself. If gay relationships are legally the same as marriages under Prop 8, then why does it matter if you call it marriage? The word itself seems very insignificant to me. It is morally wrong for two big reasons: 1)It forces others to accept legally what we accept doctrinally, because we believe it. Because God said it is wrong. That seems wrong to me, to make other people live my religion if they don't want to. To quote one of my favorite movies A Man for All Seasons, "Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake." And 2) it legitimizes and perpetuates hateful comments and jokes that are EVERYWHERE here at BYU against gay people. Because I believe the prophet, I really, really want to not agree with what I have written. I want to see the light. Do the arguments I have raised HAVE valid counter arguments on the pro-prop-8 side? Thanks, Conflicted
ADear Conflicted, Here are the two counter-arguments I would present to your two points: 1. Accepting gay marriage would ultimately do just the same thing: turning a group's beliefs into legislation. Why would it be morally reprehensible for those who oppose gay marriage to "force" their belief system on others, but perfectly alright for those who do not believe it to be wicked to do likewise? Let's remember that the definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman has the precedent of millenia on its side - to change the definition after all this time would certainly be a more radical act than maintaining the status quo, thus it could be argued that the legislation of pro-gay beliefs would be even more aggressive and blatant than the legislation of anti-gay beliefs. 2. If anything, all of the attention that same-gender attraction is currently getting should provide members of the Church with the perfect opportunity to learn what the Church is and is not saying on the subject. Elder Oaks and Elder Holland have recently published articles in the Ensign that declare that while the Church views the act of homosexuality a sin, there remains much to be learned about the nature of same-gender attraction. In the October 2007 Ensign, Elder Holland encourages us to treat those who struggle with same-gender attraction the same way we would treat someone with any other trial: with Christlike love and kindness. If members of the Church fail to follow this council, it is the result of their own pathetic bigotry and poor use of their agency rather than the Church's stance on Prop 8.As to whether or not the use of the name "marriage" makes a difference, I would argue that yes, the name does matter. Quite simply, calling a union between a man and a woman by the same name used to describe a union between two members of the same gender would make the two unions seem much more the same than any piece of legislation. This is a large reason why those who opposed Prop 8 are so adament - they believe that calling a gay union "marriage" will prove to the world that their union is the same as a traditional one. To approve this use of the word "marriage" would appear to concede that they are the same. ~Hermia AConflicted- I'm going to take a different stance than the other writers, and say that I also believe that Prop 8 was a bad idea. I do believe that homosexual relations are wrong. I just also believe that the government has a responsibility not to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. To me, the ban on gay marriage parallels the ban on interracial marriages that existed, both legally and socially, up until this century in our country (please understand that I am speaking legally rather than religiously). I have always disagreed with the brethren on this, and I don't even feel bad about it. My political decisions are my own, and if they happen to align with those of Church leaders, that's great. I will not, however, change my political beliefs just to fit the Church's stand on things unless I receive personal revelation that tells me that I need to do so. - Cuddlefish ADear Conflicted, Your question bothers me a bit on a couple different points. First, I don't think that we necessarily have to understand all the reasoning behind something that the prophet/Church endorses in order to back it ourselves. That doesn't mean I'm saying that it's bad to question, but it ultimately comes down to faith. As an example, I have asked quite a few LDS church-going females over the past few years what their perspective is on polygamy. Many answers have been given, but when it comes down to it, most say that they don't really like the thought of it and aren't completely sure why it happened, but it's something they take on faith. Now, polygamy was definitely something very divisive, or in your words, that appears to most outsiders (and some insiders) as silly and wrong (and I would go so far as to say that many find it entirely morally repugnant). Yet, most of us accept our history and thus, polygamy (which, ironically, was illegal for a good chunk of the time it was practiced) without a second thought when we attend church and participate in its ordinances. So, we may not always get all the reasons for something that the Church asserts itself on, but we can trust that the Lord isn't going to lead us astray. That, for me personally (note: I'm not casting stones), is reason enough. Really though, my secular mind agrees with many of the points you made. Constitutionally, I see no problem with it, which is why I have to take it on faith. Personally, I like to think that, much like God can add to the canon of scripture whenever he wants, He can suspend our mortal law (the Constitution, in this case) and supersede it with his own (polygamy, for example) when necessary. Or at least, He can try. He certainly still leaves us as free agents to choose what we'll do. I hope this makes sense, because I often feel like we as U.S. citizens and Church members feel that we have such a broad perspective on what is morally right and wrong when realistically, we see no more than a fraction of what Heavenly Father does (and I'm willing to apply this to my own answer as well - I don't think I contain all truth). Who are we to assign morals? So, I go off of what God says through his servants. Just in case I haven't stated it, I'm not saying that we just go blindly off of faith. Question things, poke around a little bit, because there's no harm in doing so. But, the prophet will never be wrong when acting on behalf of the Church, and that's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not judging those that have opposing opinions (so please don't take it that way - I don't want hate mail), but that's where I stand, even if it makes me sound like a religious zealot to some. Lastly, I really haven't seen too much gay-bashing around campus, especially considering that you say it's EVERYWHERE. Come to think of it, I have never seen a single example in my time at BYU. Seriously. Maybe I'm just missing it because I hang around at all the wrong places. But, we especially can't take isolated examples where they do happen and say that it's a campus-wide problem. Generalizations are where the real problems come from, and I mean that on both sides. Obviously, gay-bashing is wrong (just so you know that I don't support such a thing) and is very small-minded, but if it does happen, the backlash shouldn't be widespread anger or discontent against the entire student population for those times where it may occur. This only serves to further divide any involved. That, and I really don't feel like Prop-8 is direct causation for legitimizing such comments when they do occur. If people do wrongly take that opportunity, we should all have enough common sense to disregard their opinions anyhow! Their thoughts are only as powerful as how much attention and heed you give them. Anyhow, I apologize for the soapbox. I was just gonna delete this, but since others have used me in their responses, I'll just let it post. -Commander Keen ADear Conflicted, I think Hermia's on target about the naming issue. For 1), Hermia also makes a good point, but I'd like to elaborate. I’m going to give two examples of government policies. 1) Theft is evil and will be punished by jailtime. 2) Cat owners are evil and will be penalized $50/cat/year, with the resulting income distributed among dog owners. You surely agree with the first and disagree with the second. Why is that, do you think? I’d imagine that your reaction was something like "Theft is actually evil and harmful, as a moral fact, while whether or not cats are evil is only an opinion." You’d have the same opinion no matter how many people announced their disapproval of cats or their approval of theft (even though you might be seen as forcing your morality on them, whatever that means). The question now is whether the morality of not recognizing homosexual "marriages" is a matter of fact or opinion. If it would be factually evil and harmful to recognize homosexual "marriages," then the government should not do it regardless of how many people it would please. If it’s a mere matter of opinion, than a more permissive policy would seem appropriate. The Church, as I understand it, holds that homosexual "marriage" is factually evil, just as theft is, and should be legally prohibited accordingly. (There are also statistical arguments that homosexual "marriage" is harmful, but since you are willing to accept the Church’s doctrine I’ll here make my stand on that much firmer ground.) This is obviously then not a restriction of freedom; there is no natural "freedom to commit legally endorsed sodomy" any more than there's a "freedom to steal without consequences." I think these verses from Alma 30 are relevant:
I think you can see the attitude I just outlined here – adultery is factually evil, so the Nephite government punished it regardless of the fact that adulterers and co. likely didn’t approve, and this was no restriction on freedom because there never was a "freedom to commit adultery" without consequence. This wasn’t the Nephite government forcing their opinions on anyone; they were just aware of, and enforced, the moral facts of the universe. On 2, I am not sure what you’re talking about when you say "everywhere" – the people I hang out with don’t go in for gay-bashing. (I'm curious where you've encountered it.) Hermia’s again correct here. The Church rejects the sin, not just without hating the sinner, but while actively emphasizing love for the sinner; any BYU students who do otherwise are acting as ignorant bigots and represent nothing more. Lastly, I agree with what Hobbes says below about belligerently disagreeing with the Prophet of God. All legitimate debate about whether a member who sustained the prophet could support Proposition 8 ended when the First Presidency issued its statement; the only question from that point was (and is) how members can best argue in support of the announced position of the Church that they ostensibly believe is guided by revelation. ~Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe ADear Conflicted, A little after the elections, I wrote my answers to Board Question #48512 and Board Question #48532. I've had a lot of struggles with the Church's stance on Prop 8, too, especially (and I'm going to strongly disagree with Commander Keen here) with the attitude on campus toward gay people. A lot has already been said in answer to this question, but maybe my old thoughts will help, even though my views have changed since then. - The Black Sheep ADear Conflicted, Commander Keen brings up a good point in that we don't always have to understand the reasoning behind something in order to accept it. Sometimes it takes faith. I would, however, like to add something to this statement. Although I do believe in what I just typed, sometimes I have a problem putting it into practice. A glaring example, in my case, would be polygamy. I've read the scriptures and heard the talks about polygamy. I know that it wasn't some terrible practice put into place within the Church by immoral men. However, I can't stop myself from being freaked out at the thought of polygamy. I'll admit that if God were to command that we begin to practice polygamy once again, I would have a huge problem with it. Not that this commandment would make or break my testimony of the Church--it wouldn't--but it would be one of those things that I would have a difficult time accepting. I don't think that this makes my testimony any weaker, just that it would be something that I would have to work very hard at to be okay with. People who judge members of the Church who are against Prop. 8, or require more explanation than just "because," should try to put themselves in the other person's shoes. How would you feel if the issue were not "Yes on 8," but instead, "Yes to Polygamy"? I think there would be much greater variance in opinions if that were the case. I take issue with Prop. 8 for the same basic reason that you stated as your first reason. It does seem like forcing our beliefs down other people's throats, which I have a huge problem with. I get mad enough when people give me weird looks for drinking caffeine on campus; telling me that I can't marry who I want to would multiply that frustration to the extreme. Like Cuddlefish, I do believe that homosexual relations are wrong. Ultimately, however, it comes down to agency. We are free to choose, for better or worse. Who am I to try to control someone else's agency, as long as werf is not causing the public any harm? On the other hand, I can see why people pushed so hard for Prop. 8. It seems like the more moral transgressions society accepts, the greater the transgressions become. I think many people asked themselves, "If gay marriage is allowed, what next?" Some people think that allowing gay marriage will bring about the end to any morals that are left within society. The difference between gay marriage and other things that members of the Church usually view as wrong, however, is that most of these things cause others harm. Gay marriage doesn't explicitly harm anyone. Looking at the issue from a purely religious standpoint, I probably would have voted yes on Prop. 8. I believe that homosexual relations are wrong, so, if there was only religion involved here, I would have voted in line with the Church's view of things. Looking at the issue from a political standpoint, however, I would probably have voted no. America was built on the concept of freedom. Who am I to take the freedom that I enjoy away from others who have just as much of a right to enjoy it? Since we live in both a religious and a political world, and there is no way to completely separate the two, I am left to be a fence-sitter. I can tell you how I would have voted religiously, and how I would have voted politically, but I cannot honestly say which side I would have chosen in the end. It makes me glad that I'm no longer a resident of California--I honestly don't think I could have made a choice between my two points-of-view. Still a fence-sitter, ⋯Anomalous ADear Conflicted~ Wow, there are a lot of writers' opinions here. It's exceptionally rare for the Church to take a stance on political issues, and when they do, I think it does, in fact, become a matter of faith, as has previously been stated. Nonetheless, I believe protecting the definition of the term "marriage" is important. I read a column in which it was pointed out that marriage is far older than our government, and the writer (whose name, unfortunately, I forget) pointed out that if we screw around with definitions the way we are, our government, not marriage, will fall. My reasons for believing this is true are somewhat complicated and not entirely relevant. What drives me crazy about this debate, however, is that you have one side screaming about how we're trying to impose our moral compass on others, when in fact both sides are trying to impose their moral compass on others. Either decision in this debate is settling a question of morality, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. Additionally, belligerently disagreeing with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the Prophet of God is, in fact, apostasy. I'm not condemning anyone to Outer Darkness, here, but I also would like to issue that reality check. If you find that you're consistently at odds with the words of God's servants, it is probably your attitude, and not the position of the Church, that needs reassessment. Again, I'm not passing judgment here. I think it is unwise to just automatically change your opinion or feelings to align with the Church's. However, such disagreement should definitely be raising some big red flags, and you should carefully analyze your stance through study and prayer. Incidentally, as has also been stated: hatred toward homosexuals is not EVERYWHERE here at BYU. In fact, as someone who is politically active and who talks to a lot of people about this exact subject, I'm not sure I've ever encountered a BYU student who said anything hateful about homosexuals. (I'm sure they exist, but they're by no means common.) The only way I think you could see hatred as omnipresent would be if you've bought this silly propaganda about anything being said against gay rights as "hate speech," in which case, yes, you will find that the vast majority of Americans engage in "hate speech," self included, and they have nothing to apologize for. ~Hobbes ADear Conflicted (and anyone else who is patient enough to read all these answers), Seeing the sheer volume of answers already here, I almost wince to add to the tumult of opinions. Just a few observations: First, I think that one could support Proposition Eight for more than religious reasons (though I think that represented the majority of its support). I think that good cases can be made for supporting it for social conservative reasons. "Conservative," as I use it here, doesn't necessarily mean subscribing to all of the tenets of the Conservative movement (the loud, angry, currently foaming at the mouth Conservative movement), I mean actually trying to conserve or maintain the status quo of a social institution. In other words, people are concerned with maintaining the legal and social definition of marriage, until there is solid evidence that proposed changes are necessary, urgent and deserved. The question, in this context, isn't whether or not God approves of gay relationships or gay people. To a lot of people, it's not really even a question of fairness, since something being unfair means that things that are equals are being treated unequally. To the supporters of legalized gay marriage, it is absolutely evident that gay marriage is equal in every respect to a traditional marriage. To those support Prop Eight, that equality is not only not evident, but is highly questionable. In this instance, people, besides being religiously opposed to homosexuality, I think are legitimately concerned that the legalization of gay marriage won't adversely affect, not necessarily their own marriages, but the institution of marriage. The word "marriage," besides carrying social connotations, as discussed above, carries legislative weight. The legalization of interracial marriages was mentioned above and I think that example demonstrates a point about "fairness." The Supreme Court decision that ruled in favor of interracial marriages (which was, I think appropriately named, Loving vs. Virginia) explained that there was nothing supportive of anti-interracial marriage laws besides "racial discrimination," which is specifically addressed in the Fourteenth Amendment. The court decision said this
To the court, there was legal precedence that race was an "unsupportable basis" to deny people the right of being married. Proposition Eight is based on the supposition that gay marriage is in itself such a different sort of union, that refusing to define gay marriage the same as "marriage" is a supportable basis. Currently, the government has found reason to legally limit other types of relationships (marriage between minors, between immediate family members or polygamous unions). I'm NOT suggesting that the consequences of same-sex unions are equivalent to the consequences of incest or polygamy - honestly I don't think they are in the same ballpark. I'm just pointing out that there is a precedence of the law treating different unions of people differently. Whether or not that different treatment is justified is, in my mind the key issue. From my perspective, one of the biggest hurdles to the legalization of gay marriage is that there really isn't a lot of reputable, reliable research to back up claims on either side of the issue. I just happen to believe that, in this case, the burden of proof rests with the side that, demands of fairness aside, would be demanding a fundamental shift in a social institution. Like I mentioned up at the top, until there is strong evidence or good legal precedence, moderates will remain skeptical of approving gay marriage, a legislative move that would have a lot of repercussions. I don't believe for a moment that the government would force LDS temples to perform gay marriages. I don't believe (and am quite offended by the claim) that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to the legalization of bestiality. I don't believe that gay marriage would rip apart the fabric of our society. I particularly appreciate President Hinckley's comment that he gave on the Larry King show, "We're not anti-gay, we're pro-family." Shifting gears, can I just say that even when the best answer for someone is "you just have to have faith," this answer rarely sounds the least bit helpful to the person it's directed at (and often sounds condescending and off-putting as well)? You say that you "don't think it's healthy" for you to have "because the prophet asked us to" as your reason why you supported the proposition. I disagree a little bit with your wording. I wouldn't say it isn't "healthy." What I would say it is is tremendously inconvenient, difficult to justify to others and almost impossible to explain to anyone who doesn't share your faith and values. And when the Church ventures into areas it rarely goes before, like into politics, it is even more likely that people will begin saying that the Church has no business saying this or asking us to do that. And it will always be that saying you do something (anything really) "because my Church said so," does not win you any respect or credibility. But even with everything I wrote up top about just being socially conservative, the fact is that most LDS people, including me, are primarily supporting Proposition Eight because the Church asked us to. Again, I think there are good, non-religious reasons to support Prop Eight. But the Church doesn't always have a good, secularly acceptably answer for the things it does. That's just the way it is. Perhaps at some point in the future some event, a piece of legislation, or a general shift in attitude, will make it abundantly clear why the Church supported this divisive and heartbreaking proposition. But that might end up being just a vague hope. A set of scriptures that might be relevant to the inescapable "why would the Church do this" is Moses 5:5-7:
It will likely be "many days" before we have as good an answer as we think this question deserves. It might not be in this life. I think it greatly comforting that the Lord, who knows all our intentions and our concerns, will, in His own time, make things known to us. I take a lot of comfort too that the Lord will perfectly understand and judge those who say terrible things about the Church and its leaders who don't understand us and those within the Church who are being internally torn apart by this issue. Those who use this to irrationally hate or tear down gay people, well, fortunately, the Lord will deal with those people too. All that remains for us is to personally do the best we can to choose to follow what the Lord wants us to do. - Rating Pending (who didn't write anything about Prop Eight before, but is glad he got a chance to do so) ADear Conflicted, I found it interesting that you've mentioned that you don't think it's healthy to use "we follow the prophet" as an answer for the rest of your life. I don't think that's a healthy or very stable long-term answer, either, but I kind of feel like you're going at it from the wrong angle. As other writers have mentioned, I really find this to be a faith-based decision, one in which you will need to take the question of whether Prop 8 is right or not to the Lord, rather than rely on people's assertions. I can guarantee none of us has the whole picture, but we do have a living prophet who speaks God's word. And any time we feel doubtful about his counsel, or the reasons behind it, that's when to make it a matter of prayer, not debate. Prayer is always important in interpreting the law, I think, but it is imperative in this case, as the Church has issued an actual statement. As has been mentioned, that doesn't happen very often, so you can bet it's for good reason. I think we have a lot more decisions similar to this facing us as a Church in the future, and they will continue to really make us take a look at our beliefs and decide where we stand. -Miss Scarlett, stepping off her soapbox... ADear Hobbes,
Allow me to issue my own reality check: Disagreeing with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the Prophet of God is not, in fact, apostasy. Belligerence (in the sense of aggressive hostility) very possibly, but I haven't seen any belligerence in this discussion. Elder Clayton of the Seventy spoke to the press about Proposition 8. Here's an excerpt from the Salt Lake Tribune's interview with Elder Clayton:
That said, I support Proposition 8, and find it to be inspired counsel. But if someone disagrees with me and the Church in this issue, even in a spirited, impassioned, not-quite-belligerent manner, in no way will I play the "apostasy" card. Saying "the Brethren are absolutely wrong about gay marriage" is not apostasy. Saying "the Brethren are homophobic idiots and wrong about gay marriage" is apostasy. Love, Waldorf and Sauron Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, I have a fairly old German Bible that I got on my mission. I'd like to know how old, but it doesn't have a publication date listed anywhere. There is a title page: Die Bibel oder die ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten u. Neuen Testaments nach der deutschen Übersetzung D. Martin Luthers ------------- Neu durchgesehen nach dem vom Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchenausschutz genehmigten Text Taschen-Ausgabe Stuttgart Privileg. Württembergische Bibelanstalt ============ That's it. No other markings to indicate the book's age. It doesn't look like it's missing any pages, either. The text of the Bible itself is printed in Fraktur typeface. Any idea how I can figure out how old my Bible is? - Das Buch ist alt
ADear Das Buch, I went ahead and sent your question along to Amanda Clark, a very helpful librarian working in Special Collections here in our library. Her answer was very helpful and in-depth, so I'll just quote it here:
So, there you go. As Ms. Clark mentioned, if you would like more information, or can answer her questions about book size and page numbers, you can email her at amanda_clark@byu.edu. I thanked her for being so helpful and willing to research this, and this was her reply:
Later, we heard from Maggie, and here's what she had to say:
Whew! That was a lot of quoting! It just goes to show that we have some great librarians who are awesome at researching this stuff, and are more than happy to do so. Hope that helps! -Miss Scarlett, in the Conservatory Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, I am going to have to withdraw from a class this semester for a reason that was beyond my control-- I added the class within the add/drop deadline, but because it is a first block class, the teacher told me AFTER the add/drop dealine that I would automatically fail. Soooo my ultimate question is... how bad is it to have a "W" on your transcript? - :)
ADear -:), Board Question #9661 can help shed some light on the mysteries of E, I, and W grades (although it should be noted that unofficial withdrawals, or UWs, no longer exist). ~Hermia ADear smiley, There are better things in the world than a "W" on your transcript, but there are worse things too. Yes, it will affect your GPA some, but if you retake the class the "W" will essentially be overwritten. It will still show up on your transcript, but won't affect your GPA. The severity of a "W" really depends on what you're planning to do with your life. Most employers only look at your GPA and never look at a full transcript, so they'll never know. If you're going into graduate school, you might get a few questions about the withdrawal, but if you have a legitimate excuse, it shouldn't be a big deal. Let me put it this way: I graduated with an "E on my transcript. Not even a "W;" I bailed on the class too late for even that. Despite it, I still got multiple job offers upon graduation, and am currently comfortably (and quite happily) employed. It's not the end of the world. -Yellow Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, In Pickett's Charge, during the Battle of Gettysburg, where were the men in George Pickett's division from, specifically? (South) Likewise, on the Northern side, where were Winefiled S. Hancock's men from?
ADear Everyman, This website delineates the origin of each of the 11 brigades from the South. Pickett was only actually the leader of one of the three divisions in Pickett's Charge, but virtually all of Pickett's own men were from Virginia. However, there were 11 brigades involved with Pickett's Charge, each comprised of at least 5 infantry units. Obviously this is too many units to look up in 100 hours, but as a consolation prize: the 1st Virginia was largely from Richmond, but had historical significance so had members from all over Virginia. Although it was mainly made up of the gentlemen soldiers, it saw some of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War. They were there at the end at Appomattox with only 17 soldiers left. Hancock's II Corps, Army of the Potomac is a little more tricky to look up. Starting on pg. 113 of this online book you'll find the listing of every brigade in II Corps and which units it was made up of, according to division. Like the 1st Virgina, the 1st Minnesota is a pretty sweet unit. It was filled from all over Minnesota after President Lincoln's 1861 call for troops, which they zealously answered. Their unit flag fell five times at Gettysburg and each time it was hoisted once again. They charged Wilcox's Alabama Brigade even though they were outnumbered two to one, which saved the crumbling Union line from falling. Sorry I couldn't give you more specific locations, but that should be enough information to find what you need pretty easily. -Ineffable Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, I was at a friend's house the other day. She lives in Spokane, WA. On her wall she has a large, black and white print of a couple posing for a picture in Spokane's famous Davenport Hotel. They are sitting at a table, and, if I recall correctly, there was a fireplace in the background. What are the names of the two people in the photograph?
ADear Anonymous, Their names are Stephen and Cindy Burdette. Steve is from Lake Forest Park, Washington and Cindy is from Sequim. They met doing freelance model work at Gonzaga and now they are married and both pursuing law degrees at Gonzaga. I dare you to prove me wrong. Dr. Smeed Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, Has Obama actually raised taxes on most people? From what I can find on the internet, he's only raised taxes on tobacco, and actually lowered taxes with the ARRA... I understand that the debt he's created will require some fancy number-crunching sooner or later, but to me it just sounds like a lot of people are shouting about nothing. - Confused Californian
ADear Confused Californian, Not yet. -glib ADear Confused, Presidents don't actually have the power to raise taxes—all they can do is ask Congress to address issues, propose plans, and then sign or veto bills that come from Congress. Any tax raise or cut will originate in Congress. Love, Waldorf and Sauron Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board Writers, How many times have you been in love? - (My Name Here)
ADear your name, At least six times, possibly more. -Whistler ADear_______, Thrice I was "star-struck" in love: The Buttercream Gang guy because I was six and he has a heart of gold. Westley from The Princess Bride and Josh Groban because who wasn't. Once I was "am I in love?" in love: one of my good friends in high school liked me a great deal and I him. I didn't know if I felt enough for him to go against an inner choice not to pair off just yet since I was barely sixteen. I decided I didn't but it was rough. Twice I've said "I love you," but the first and the second expressed such different levels of intensity that I don't think they were the same thing. It wasn't that I was rash the first time; it took me a very long time to decide. It's just I didn't have to decide the second time. It didn't take much time at all in comparison, but holy cow was I sure. I had to decide about other things in the following months, but not whether I loved him. So once. I've been in love once. -Ineffable AMy name- It really depends on your definition of "in love," but I'd say three times. Only one really stuck, though. - Cuddlefish ADear, I've loved twice. I'm still foggy on the definition of "in love," though. It seems to change pretty drastically from person to person. -songs of inexperience ADear - Once. I had plenty of crushes through the years, but the only person I ever really dated, and therefore had a deep relationship with, is my wife. I think it takes dating for romantic love to develop. -Humble Master ADear Person's Name, I don't have a definition of love, but I have been comfortable enough to say "I love you" to three people. And, in my life, that is a big deal. -Mico ADear $name, Using the same criterion as Mico (number of people I've told "I love you"): zero. —Laser Jock ADear MNH, Using the definition of how many times I've written someone's initials on the underside of my bunkbed at my parents' house and drawn a heart around them... twice. One of them is Sauron. Still in love, Waldorf (and Sauron) ADear someone, Pined and heart-ached over for extended periods of time, and thought "You know, I might love her" at one point or another? 13 People above who I wondered if I might marry? 7 People above who expressed some non-trivial amount of interest in return? 4 People above I truly loved? 1, and I married her. -Yellow Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, When individuals have degenerative brain diseases (dementia, Alzheimer's, etc), are they still held accountable for their actions? Is there any specific LDS doctrine that addresses this issue? -Related to one of those
ADear Related, The clearest statement I could find about the accountability of those with some kind of mental handicap was this from Elder McConkie:
Even though individuals with mental illness might have at one point had "understanding," if they do not have possession of their full mental capacity, they would not be fully accountable for their actions. Another great talk about mental illness is this from Elder Alexander B. Morrison, emeritus member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. Elder Morrison also gave an address at BYU in 2004 called "Mental Illness and the Family." - Rating Pending (who was also related to one) Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, I realize that this question is based on technicalities and you may not have the nitty gritty answer I'm looking for...but when the General Authorities are speaking to LDS singles about marriage and declare that those who do not have the opportunity to marry in this life will still receive the full blessings of exaltation in the next, who gets included in this group of people? What does "not having the opportunity" mean exactly? It's easy to picture some of them: the people who never get asked on dates, who always get turned down for dates, and never have any boyfriends or girlfriends. It's easy to say that many of them never have the opportunity to get married. But what if you've been proposed to? What if you were once engaged? Or what if you got so far into a relationship that you seriously considered getting engaged? What if you're just a really picky dater? What if you're absolutely terrified of getting married and your fear paralyzes you to the point of failure? Do all these people get included in that group too? I know. It's nitty gritty details. But this is just one of many millions of things swirling around in my head as I'm thinking about breaking it off with one of those opportunities pretty soon... -Biggest leap of faith...ever.
ADear Biggest, I think it depends on individual circumstances and most of the questions you ask have no hard and fast answers. If you've been proposed to by a random stranger, that can't count as an opportunity. If you've been proposed to by the embodiment of your list of desired qualities for a spouse, that can hardly not count as an opportunity. Somewhere along the line between those two God's guidance and expectation presumably changes from "marry the werf" to "pass." However, the question of when this happens can only be answered by God (although family and church leaders may help in that process). I think there's a good reason general authorities never say things like "if you were asked on less than x dates, you didn't 'have the opportunity,'" eh? Some of your questions may be best answered with other questions. I've already implied that whether a proposal counts as an opportunity depends heavily on the person making it. Is the werf proposing a right person for you to marry? If you were once engaged, was your decision to break it off in accordance with God's will? Same question if you were in a serious relationship. For picky dating, define picky. If you just refuse to date anyone right-handed, then maybe you're cutting off opportunities. If "picky" is just requiring someone from the (potentially small) pool of people who are broadly similar to you and meet your worthiness expectations, then maybe not so much. Only on your last question can I be very helpful - I wouldn't expect fear to be a very good excuse. Fear is a temptation just like any other. "Do this; it's fun" and "don't do that - it's difficult" can equally be arguments of the devil. I'd rather not plan to rely on "I was tempted too strongly" as an argument to sustain me at judgment, and I'd recommend no one else do so. ~Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, For some reason, I always thought relationships ended badly. I thought that initiating the breakup required some sort of sour grapes. But now I'm finding myself in a very different situation. I'm thinking about ending a relationship that has been wonderful. He's never been anything but good to me. He is truly an amazing guy, and I know he deserves the most wonderful girl in the world. I have absolutely nothing bad to say about him. It's just...I'm starting to think that he can't bring me the fulness of joy that I had hoped for. He can make me happy, but not THAT happy. I see my friends getting engaged, and I see how happy they are. I don't see myself being that happy about marrying this guy. Granted, I don't see myself being sad either. Just not as happy as I could be. Have you guys ever been in a situation like this? It's horrendous for me to think of breaking it off with him, and I just go to pieces every time I do. And I definitely want to get married to SOMEONE...just not sure that he's the one. It's sad, and I'm not sure how to get my mind wrapped around the idea. How do I come to terms with this? Will I ever feel good about this decision? I'm also having a hard time getting up the nerve to talk to him about it. After all, he wants to marry me. How on earth do I break it to him? And what do I say? I know he doesn't deserve this kind of pain. He's such a great guy. -Wanted it to work out
ADear heartbreaker, Go watch 500 Days of Summer. Whatever you do, don't do it like that. -Cognoscente ADear Wanted, While I haven't gone through this, I have been very close to someone who has. First off, there's no rush. It's cruel to string a guy along when you're sure he's not for you, but there is everything kind and considerate about wanting to be as sure as possible before breaking off a relationship. You've got enough guilt without worrying about timing. Give yourself enough time to make this decision. Second, it's going to kill you that you'll never have a message-from-an-angel kind of surety, but have faith in God. He cares so much for you and this decision. And, have faith in yourself. You are capable of making this decision, and acting on it. God can only confirm a decision if you've made it first. Believe in yourself. Third, don't kid yourself. If you break up, it's going to hurt. You're going to cry because you're mourning the loss of something; don't confuse that pain with remorse. If you're in pain for months after you break it off- maybe, but not a few weeks. Also, you're going to hurt him. I know that you love this guy, otherwise it wouldn't have gone this far, but you can't make it hurt less. You have to brace yourself for his reaction. He's going to be in a lot of pain, so don't expect him to be at his best. He might get very angry- don't get defensive. It's going to be unexpected for him, at least on some level, so you have to be the one to take the higher road- don't retaliate. Keep that in mind and you will do fine with this. No one is good at breaking up. You can do it. Want some nutella toast? I'll bring my friend that I talked about in Board Question #53487. She'd love to talk to you; send me an email at ineffable@theboard.byu.edu. -Ineffable Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, OK, guys. I give up. I have been wracking my brain for the past 2 weeks, exhausted my family members, and been failed by Google. You're it. Somewhere, in some movie that I have no idea what the context is, a boy (?) says to his sister/friend/neighbor/brother, "Hey, Brainless" and I feel like it happens on multiple occasions. Ring a bell? If so, what bell? Er, movie. Possibly book. But I'm 95% probably sure that it's a movie, which, if that is the case, would be either not rated, G, or PG. - Azriel
ADear Azriel, The first thing that popped into my head was It's a Wonderful Life where young George Bailey is talking to Violet and Mary and says, "Say, brainless, don't you know where coconuts come from?" As far as I remember, that phrase only happens once, but it's my best guess. - The Black Sheep ADear Az, I'm with Sheep. Looking up "screenplay" and "brainless," only a handful of movies have the word in their script, among them Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, It's a Wonderful Life, and some Troy fan fiction. No results for "screenplay 'hey brainless'." Not conclusive, but I bet that's what you're looking for. XOXO, Waldorf and Sauron Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, Our old little basement apartment seems almost infested with spiders and the like ( Once we had a pile of clean laundry sitting in the front room for a couple of days. When I finally went and folded them, I found half a dozen spiders hiding among the clothes!). My husband and I have both spent time looking for the species online but haven't seemed to have had any luck figuring out what any of them are. Is there a place or a person here in Provo that we can bring a spider to (in a container!) who could identify it for us? Thanks for any help! - I try so hard
ADear Trier, If you want to bring it to someone in the biology department, their offices are on the fourth floor of the Widtsoe building. If you want to do some detective work of your own, it may be fun to go to the Bean Museum. I know they have lots of insects, perhaps they have an exhibit on Utah spiders that can help you match your catch. Dr. Smeed Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, Where does Bonneville in Bonneville Communications come from? Is it Benjamin Bonneville or Bonneville salt flats? This article is not conclusive source of the origin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... Anomalous, what current event activities do you prefer? Will you be chewing bubble-gum at said event? - (Still Looking)
ADear Still Looking, Bonneville is a common word in Utah. Your question is sort of like asking where "Brigham Book & Copy" in Provo got its name—is it from Brigham Young University or from Brigham Young himself? Utah is home to (and this is not a comprehensive list) the Bonneville Salt Flats, the previous Lake Bonneville, the Bonneville Speedway, the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, Bonneville High School, Bonneville Books, Bonneville Elementary School... the list goes on. And all of these names, directly or indirectly, go back to Benjamin Bonneville. If I were to name something "Bonneville" today, I'd simply be using a regional word. This, I suspect, is how Bonneville Communications got its name. Love, Waldorf and Sauron ADear Still Much like you, I can't find anything conclusive. However, as Waldorf and Sauron noted, all the Bonneville terms go back to Benjamin Bonneville, so it goes back to him one way or another. -Humble Master ADear , Since Lake Bonneville dried up to form the Great Salt Lake and the Bonneville Salt Flats (and most other Bonneville-named natural features of Utah), though it was named after Benjamin Bonneville, arguably the company is named for that. - Rating Pending (who made a kickin' model of Lake Bonneville in elementary school) Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, This is another "do you know what movie this is?" question. I remember watching this movie a long time ago. I remember there was a woman (possibly two?) who was nabbed by Indians (uh... Native Americans)and forced to live among them, but eventually she fell in love with her captor or some other Native American in the tribe. I think some of the white folks do go on a rescue mission for her, eventually... Yeah, vague. But it you have any guesses, I'd love to see them. -Blue Pen
ADear Blue, While some of the details are off, that sounds a little bit like Last of the Mohicans (which is a beautiful film to look at, some amazing cinematography). -Humble Master ADear good ol' bluey, If you have a lousy memory, you could be thinking of part of Dances With Wolves. There are several elements you described in that movie. -Cognoscente ADear Blue Pen, Besides the award-winning movies already mentioned, Lifetime made a straight-to-TV movie called Stolen Women, Captured Hearts. It looks about as good as you'd expect. - Rating Pending (who wouldn't expect much) Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, Excluding your own alias(es) (which are obviously clever and brilliant), what are your top 5 favorite writer aliases in the history of the Board (not writers, just their names) -Just curious
ADear curious, In no particular order: "The Defenestrator," because that's an awesome word. "Grabthar's Hammer" sounds funny, so it gets in. For no readily explicable reason I like the 'nym "A. A. Melyngoch." Maybe because it's unique without being random or nonsensical? But I guess I don't have to defend my choice. My use of special characters in my name was more or less because I thought "§åû®μ$" had a cool thing going, so he's in. Lastly, I'm not sure if I really like the 'nym "Johanna Von Bigenstrein, the Hairy Pirate Piece of Toast," but a name like that just seems like it should be mentioned, eh? ~Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe ADear Just In a particular order: 5. Just Another Cassio 4. The Cleaning Lady 3. Rufus the WonderPuppy 2. Lexi Khan 1. The Defenestrator -Humble Master ADear JC,
Waldorf n' Sauron ADear Just, Here goes: - Mighty Quinn - CATS (I mean, who DOESN'T like CATS? Both his name and responses...) - branflakes - The Right Reverend Rusky Roo - §åû®μ$ Yup. -Commander Keen ADear Commander Most Likely Unkeen, We never cared for CATS in any degree. He was a filthy pestilence that wallowed in putrid muck. -100 Typing Monkeys Back to top QDear 100 Hour Board, Does deoxyribonucleic acid taste sour? I don't trust websites that say it tastes salty or alcoholic, because that's just from extracting it. What about hyaluronic acid? - JTK
ADear JTK, Here's a quote from science writer Timothy Ferris about a discussion he had with a scientist about DNA:
So there you go. The only thing about hyaluronic acid I could find was about what you can purchase in supplement form. The taste would probably vary depending on which supplement you buy, but was described as having a slightly salt taste. - Rating Pending (who learned that hyaluronic acid supplements commonly are extracted from rooster combs. Yummy.) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||