"My brother is too kind. He was eminent when my eminence was only imminent." -Niles Crane
Question #26001 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Volunteer, Board Question #25910

Now just look for the sugar bowl and you are in.


Question #25946 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I was just reading an article about a man who has amnesia. Then I started thinking about how we believe that the knowledge we gain in this life is taken with us when we die. Now, this man has a very extreme case of amnesia because he only has a 7-second memory (according the article, it's the worst case ever documented). He remembers his wife the first time he sees her every day, and he remembers how to read music, but I think that's about it. Anyway, that set me wondering. Will people with amnesia be at a disadvantage after this life because their memories are not as functional? That seems unfair. I guess I'm just wondering if they can store knowledge away even though they can't recall it now. I suppose it could also relate to our bodies becoming perfect after the Resurrection. Do you think their memories (and knowledge) will come back even though they don't work now?

- grateful for the little knowledge I do seem to be able to retain once in a while

A: Dear grateful,
Amnesia is the lack of ability to remember things, as you pointed out. However, think about it: there are things that you know that are also buried away. We are probably able to recollect such things when a sense is triggered (smell is the strongest), when we're studying for a test, when we're learning something new, etc. The same goes for people with amnesia, except that they aren't able to recollect those things at all. Amnesia is just one of those health defects that will be taken away in the next life.

I believe that they will have those memories and be able to recollect them, especially from verses in the scriptures:

Alma 11: 43. The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.

If we're to have a recollection of all our guilt, couldn't we have a recollection of other things, too?

Alma 40: 23. The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.

-ABC 123

Question #25945 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

This question is for any Board Writer who has ever worn glasses. I recently tried contacts and I hated them. I've had glasses for three years and I've decided I shall never part with them and I love the fact that I can see and that they just work for me. So my question is this: How many of you, or perhaps acquaintances, have tried contacts and decided to stick with glasses? Why? Or what about contacts converted you to that side? Can you see better with glasses or contacts?

- Soprano, who loves being able to see

A: Dear Soprano,

Several years ago, before my mission, I decided I wanted contacts, and absolutely loved them. However, I decided it wasn't prudent to use contacts on my mission, so I stuck with glasses for those two years. After I returned home, I switched back to the exact same type of contacts, and couldn't stand them. After only a few hours my eyes start objecting to the contacts, and I can't see at night. So, until I can afford Lasik, it's glasses for me.

A: Dear Soprano,

Let me tell you a story. One day while on my mission I decided to wear my glasses instead of contacts, which I wore all the time. As me and my companion went tracting I kept commenting that each door looked as if it was curved and beveled out. That went on for about 3 hours before I realized what was happening. Due to the curve in the actual lens, my vision on the outside ridge of my glasses always seems curved. I can't stand it so I stick with contacts.

I figure as long as you keep them clean, contacts are the best route. I find them very comfortable and haven't had a problem with any rejection. Lasik is still an option, but I'm still getting used to idea of having a laser cut into my eye.

Good luck,
Question #25944 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I was informed that Dr. Bloxham, the chief health professions advisor, attended medical school. I mentioned it to a buddy and he said that was wrong, it was dental school. Which bit of information is correct? How long has he been working in the Pre professions office and how did he get there? (I am pretty sure his Ph.D. is in physiology)

- eschimosul slab

A: Dear eschimosul slab,
Dr. Don D. Bloxham received his bachelor's and master's degrees in zoology from Idaho State University and his Ph.D. in physiology from Louisiana State University. And he attended medical school.

And now, things you didn't ask to know about Dr. Bloxham but get to know anyway:

Here is a press release awarding him an Honorary Doctor of Science Degree by the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine in Kirksville, Miss. http://bioagnews.byu.edu/newsrelease.aspx?ID=64

Here is a letter Dr. Bloxham wrote to pre-med students: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~chem105a/FROSH.html

If you want to know more about his life, you can visit him:
Walk-in Office Hours: 10:00 to 11:30; M, W, Th, F; 10:00 to 10:45 T
Appointments: 2:00 to 4:15 M-F
380 WIDB (801) 422-3044

-ABC 123
Question #25941 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I know that the usage of the definite article before the country name Ukraine is becoming increasingly common. I've read the Wikipedia article that discusses the growing popularity of "the," but there's no discussion as to why so many people do it.
Any ideas on where the "the" came from?
- venom

A: Dear venom,

Attaching a definite article to "Ukraine" serves to designate it as a region within the greater landmass. This made a lot of sense when the Ukraine was merely one of the many regions within the Russian Empire. Of course, the Empire collapsed in 1917 and was eventually replaced with the Soviet Union, so that explanation may not hold much water. I know for a fact that that's the reason why many Ukrainians dislike the use of the definite article. It tends to downplay the fact that Ukraine is now an independent nation (and has been for over a decade).

I think the big reason English speakers attach the definite article, however, is because it's just a lot easier to say. The /ә/ sound in "the" blends very well into the /yu/ beginning of "Ukraine." Try saying the name without the definite article. It's a bit more awkward than with it attached.

- Optimistic.
A: Dear Venom,

The word "Ukraine" is related to the Russian word "край," meaning "edge." I was always told that we say "the Ukraine" in the same way that we say "the edge." (Bono's bandmate notwithstanding.) However, I've also been told that it's rude to use the definite article because it implies that Ukraine isn't a separate country, it's just the "edge" or "outskirts" of a larger area. (Of course, by that same standard, it ought to be rude to say "the Netherlands.")

Of course, this isn't a problem in Russian, because Russian doesn't have articles, definite or otherwise. However, there's another Ukraine-related grammatical isse. The preposition "в" (meaning "in," roughly) is used with most countries, and the preposition "на" ("on") is used with some areas that are smaller than countries, and also islands. Again, it's possible to use either "в" or "на" with "Ukraine," but some people consider it rude to use the latter.

- Katya
Question #25940 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,
Does anyone know a good hair stylist around here who could do my hair for my wedding? I don't want to spend more than $35 but I want to make sure it's nice.

-looking good

A: Dear good lookin',

I got my hair done at Bon Losee one time. I'll admit, I was a little skeptical because it's a school but I was actually really, really impressed. I think it was like... $7? $9? Whatever. It was cheap. I had her do a french twist and she did an amazing job. I'd go back.

- Lavish
A: Dear Looking Good:

I'll do it for you. Just email me at jollygreen77 at yahoo dot com. I don't think that gives me away at all. . .

A writer.
Question #25939 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

This past weekend I have heard several LDS people comdemning Dr Laura, almost as an anti-family liberal. When I was younger and lived in California I listened to her show and I have recently read several of her books (The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands is amazing), and she seems very family and marriage oriented. Why are LDS people against her?

- Bored Engineer

A: Dear Bored,

My mom used to always listen to Dr. Laura in the car while she waited for us to get out of school so I asked her your question.

She said:
Trouble is, I have no idea what to say, as I didn't know "LDS people are against her"! What she has to say seems right on with the standards of the church, at least in most ways. For example, she's very pro-no-sex-until-marriage, and pro-placing-a-child-conceived-out-of-wedlock-unless-getting-married. I know she's often spoken very highly of the members of the church, and the standards of the church, and she loves our program of sending 19 year olds out into the world to do service for others -- missionaries. :-) I suggest Bored Engineer ask the people she heard condemning Dr. Laura for clarification....

There you go.

- Lavish
Question #25936 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm not a BYU student, but I've been enjoying your page for quite some time now. (I accidentally came upon it a while back when I was doing a Google search in an attempt to locate a copy of "P-Day Ends at 6:00." Oh, and by the way, you guys never actually ANSWERED that question. Snappy one-liners, wacky as they may be, don't count as answers. Gnash my teeth...)

Anyway, I'm a first-time question...asker... guy... and I've long been impressed with you guys' abilities to come up with plausible answers to really dumb questions. So here goes nothing. My question concerns a Bugs Bunny cartoon called "Racketeer Rabbit." Perhaps you've seen it -- Bugs is on the road, decides to stop off at a spooky abandoned house for the night, it gets invaded by a pair of mobsters on the run from the cops, and the typical looney shenanigans occur. Partway through the cartoon, the head mobster, the Edward G. Robinson-esque Rocky, tells his buddy, the Peter Lorre-esque Hugo, to take Bugs "for a ride." So off they go in Rocky's car. In the next scene we see Bugs returning to the house to mess with Rocky some more, sans Hugo! What happens to him?! Are we supposed to assume that he got "bumped off" somehow? I've always wondered if Hugo's disappearance is supposed to be a reference to some old gangster movie. If so, which one? This question has bugged me for as long as I can remember. Please help!

- Green Bean

A: Dear Green Bean,
I think I remember the episode you're talking about. Looney Tunes was a Saturday-morning staple of television viewing when I was growing up.

Cartoon makers have a bit of a dilemma when they portray the typical slapstick violence you seen in shows like Looney Tunes. Cartoon characters beating each other up is funny for some reason, but you don't want to get too graphic, or it starts looking like the Itchy and Scratchy Show. In the case of "Racketeer Rabbit," the humor derives from the fact that a carefree character like Bugs Bunny could outwit hardened criminals. If it were a real live situation, the danger of Bugs getting shot and/or maimed would make the situation very un-funny. But this is a cartoon. So all violence or threats of violence must be indirect.

So what exactly happened to Hugo? We aren't really supposed to know. It's not important for the story. This is a very intentional decision on the part of the writers. Maybe Bugs talked him out of his life of crime and convinced him to join a monastery. Maybe Bugs popped him off. It simply is irrelevant. But that scene served the purpose of eliminating Hugo so that Bugs and Rocky could have their comical showdown in the old spooky house. The average Looney Tunes cartoon is about seven minutes long; that's not a lot of time to develop characters. The action has to move to keep the kids attention. Hugo's disappearance is funny because it's the opposite outcome of what Rocky expected, and that's all the writers wanted us to know. Having Bugs come back wiping the blood off his hands would have been morbid and rather un-funny. Leaving it open-ended made it comical.

While much of the cartoon is stylized after old mobster movies, it's impossible to say that the "take him for a ride" line comes from any single movie. Gangster movies are laced with colloquial, threatening orders delivered by kingpin mobsters to their thick-necked henchmen. Phrases like "long walk off a short pier" and "give him a pair of (cement) shoes" are standard mobster movie fare. The "Racketeer Rabbit" cartoon clearly copies some of the flavor of movies like Little Caesar and The Roaring Twenties, but to say that the line came from just one movie is impossible.

As a side note, "Racketeer Rabbit" isn't the only time Bugs Bunny had a run-in with organized crime. In the episode entitled "Holed Up" some gangsters named Rocky and Mugsy hide a sack of loot in Bugs Bunny's rabbit hole. Hilarity, of course, ensues.

- de novo -
Question #25935 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,
Suppose you pray in faith for someone's safety--How does that change things? If you pray, will it protect someone and if your forget to pray and something dangerous happens are they unprotected? Would Heavenly Father really not watch over someone because a prayer wasn't said? If he does watch over them anyway, then why do we need to pray for their protection? Should we not pray for people to be protected or healthy and only pray for His will to be done?

A: Dear dePaola,

You've hit on a classic theological puzzle: Does prayer change God or does it change us? Unfortunately, I don't have a definitive answer to this question. (If such an answer were easy and forthcoming, it wouldn't be a classic theological puzzle.)

There are scriptures which seem to support the idea that prayer changes God:
Wherefore, after they are driven to and fro, for thus saith the angel, many shall be afflicted in the flesh, and shall not be suffered to perish, because of the prayers of the faithful; they shall be scattered, and smitten, and hated; nevertheless, the Lord will be merciful unto them, that when they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, they shall be gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance. (2 Ne. 6:11)
Other scriptures support the idea that prayer changes us:
Neither would they observe the performances of the church, to continue in prayer and supplication to God daily, that they might not enter into temptation. (Alma 31:10)
Other scriptures suggest that we are blessed for our prayers, but don't promise that we will be blessed with exactly what we pray for:
BUT behold, I, Jacob, would speak unto you that are pure in heart. Look unto God with firmness of mind, and pray unto him with exceeding faith, and he will console you in your afflictions, and he will plead your cause, and send down justice upon those who seek your destruction. (Jacob 3:1)

Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing-unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these our brethren to repentance. (Alma 26:22)
Regardless, I think that we should pray for safety, even if we don't understand exactly what the results are supposed to be:
Yea, and when you do not cry unto the Lord, let your hearts be full, drawn out in prayer unto him continually for your welfare, and also for the welfare of those who are around you. (Alma 34:27)
Question #25934 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

How do I get black scuff marks off of white shoes?

- Wilma

A: Dear Madame Flintstone,

I've found a toothbrush to actually be quite effective in removing scuff marks.

A: Dear Wilma,

I personally like the Synovia products that Nordstrom carries. Try this . I love Nordstrom. Particularily the shoe department.

For a cheaper alternative, Payless used to sell scuff mark remover but I'm not sure if they do anymore. Probably.

For an even cheaper alternative to the previously mentioned alternative, cleaners like Comet work too. Hm. Maybe try 409? I like 409 too. Maybe not. Don't blame me if that doesn't work. Rubbing alcohol should work too.

- Lavish
Question #25933 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

My brother-in-law is 15 and excited about serving a full-time mission. He will be 19 in 2010. How much will it cost for him to serve a mission? Does the cost change every few years to adjust with inflation, etc?


A: Dear trippy,

The current cost to serve a mission for the Church is $400 per month and was last raised from $375 in September 2004. This cost is standard throughout the church no matter what mission you are called to serve in. Obviously there are missions that require more/less to operate each month and so the $400 is a balance for the entire church. Therefore, as the global economy changes, the amount required per month will also change. That makes it quite hard to guesstimate how the cost will change over a period of time as it has many national economies to consider. You also have to take into consideration the number of missionaries serving, new missions forming, and areas opening/closing.

Just for kicks though, I used this inflation calculator to estimate what $400 would be equal to in 5 years. At a 4 percent inflation rate, $400 would equal about $487 after the specified amount of time. It helps me to remember that the Church isn't looking to make a profit (and doesn't) through the Missionary program.

Question #25931 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I was a generally happy single gal, and then the right guy and a temple wedding came along. I know it was a good thing & the right guy, but now after many months I notice I am generally more sad a whole lot more often than I used to be. I promise I didn't have unrealistic fantasies about how marriage would be, so it's not that. Any opinions on why I might be more sad now?

- Fake Smile

A: Dear Fake Smile,

I would head to the Health Center to get checked out for depression. I'm experiencing it myself and the medicine has done amazing things in my life. It truly is a blessing! Remember, should depression be the case, it's not a weakness and no one will fault you for getting help. It's a chemical imbalance and you can't just make it go away by wishing it would. I would very strongly encourage you to get checked out. The doctors are wonderful and extremely helpful.

Other than that, you might just be adjusting to married life. Lots of changes happen during those first couple of years and maybe you just need some time to adjust. I experienced a similar bout with sadness after Mr. Nike and I got married and it just takes time.

I hope that helps!

A: Dear Fake Smile-

Many common types of birth control are based on releasing specific hormones that can, in some cases, affect one's mood. If you are using hormonal birth control, check on that.

Another possibility is that the decrease in attention you're receiving now from others. When you were engaged and newlywed, there was probably a lot of positive attention focused on you.

Those are my two best specific guesses; without any more information about your circumstances, it is difficult to make any other guesses. If neither of the above are right, find out what circumstances are making you unhappy. What are you doing when you feel unhappy? If you or your spouse is a BYU student, you can also get free counseling on campus; one of the counselors there can probably offer more professional insight than random people like 100 Hour Board writers.

-The Franchise
Question #25930 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear The Franchise,

Regarding Board Question #25813, can you please reference your claims.

- Not normally skeptical, but....

A: Dear not normally skeptical-

Um... which one?

More information on the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup can be found at http://www.usopencup.com/History/55786.html and the other pages at the same site.

http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/History/Postings/2003/11/FACupStatistics.htm shows that the FA cup was not played during either World War. (As I initially noted, though, the FA Cup began several decades before the US Open Cup.)

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/p/pwc/r/1930.html shows the US's success at the inaugural 1930 World Cup. (Notably, England was absent; they did not think highly enough of the tournament to participate.)

Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the North American Soccer League at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Soccer_League

Let me know if your skepticism was about some other part of the answer, though.

-The Franchise
Question #25927 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I was watching a show on TV, "Extreem Makovers", tonight, and they had some chairs on there that were made out of old TV Guides. I have seen other stuff like that, funiture made otu of curiouse things, recycled stufff..., and I was wondering if there was any website that had ideas, designs... I seached for a while, but, could nto do it. No wonder I did not qualify when I tried out for the board. Anyways, if someone could find somwhere desgns, pcutres, or anything like that.

Love, Me.

Pardon my speling. Reason Number # 2 the board did not akcept me.

A: Dear the me that is not on the Board,
You applied for the Board? Ok. Well, I thought I would be able to find something, but nothing. Hmm.

So, if it is ideas you want, I would recommend Modern Art museums. I've seen some pretty trippy things in there. Sometimes they'll have sneak peaks online, or hey, here's an idea: go to your local library and check out some books on modern art. I bet you will find something there that would help you.

Here are some modern art museums to get you going:

The Museum of Modern Art, New York: http://www.moma.org/
The Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco: http://www.sfmoma.org/
Tate Modern, London: http://www.tate.org.uk/
Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth, Texas: http://www.themodern.org/
Contemporary Art Museum, Raleigh: http://www.camnc.org/
Pompidou, France: http://www.centrepompidou.fr/Pompidou/Accueil.nsf/Document/HomePage?OpenDocument&L=2

Good luck with that!
-ABC 123
Question #25874 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Where did the catchphrase "Get it? [Got it.] Good!" come from? Did it originate from that funny 50s movie The Court Jester? Or was it around before The Court Jester used it?

- (My Name Here)

A: Dear My Name Here,
It seems that the phrase wasn't used before the Court Jester in 1956.

For the benefit of everybody else:

Melvin Frank and Norman Panama, USA (1956), 101 min. Danny Kaye, Basil Rathbone, Angela Lansbury, and more star in this medieval comedy about a court jester. Tongue twisters, sword fights, hypnotism, and romance propel this fantastically funny family friendly farcical feature film. ``Get it? Got it? Good!''

-ABC 123
Question #25871 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

When we were in marching band, the teacher had a piece of paper on his bulletin board. It had each day of the week (M-F) and a line of music for each day. For Monday, for example, it was blotchy because that's how you feel on a Monday. By Wednesday it was okay, and on Friday the music was falling off again. Can you help us find this please??

Pookie and Agatha, as directed by Oscar and Nascar

A: Dear Ppolie and Agatha,
This doesn't seem to be a well-published document from what I can tell. Have you tried asking your marching band teacher for a copy? Do you have any siblings who are still at the school that you could ask to get a copy for you? Better yet, put your drawing skills to work and create your own!
-ABC 123
Question #25854 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So, there's this movie by Hallmark based on the book "The Secret Garden." Not surprisingly, the movie is also called "The Secret Garden" (I think). Here's the question: there is a fairly prominent piano song playing in the background in this movie... what song is it? My money is on it being a Chopin nocturne.

- chronically curious

A: Dear chronically curious,
Hallmark's version of the Secret Garden was produced in 1987. According to IMDB, all the music is original by John Cameron. There doesn't seem to be any mention of other music, let alone a soundtrack. http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=2:83933 gives an overview of John's works.
Question #25849 posted on 06/24/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have looked and looked on the web for drawings and maps of the rhoads family land clams and I can't find any. Do you know where I can find them? I would also like to ask if the clam that Caleb Rhoads put in for but didn't get would be anywhere in history, I can't fine that either.

- Thanks Chase (Treasure Hunter)

A: Dear Chase,
You're talking about the Rhodes featured in http://rhodesfamily.org/lostmine.htm that nobody knows about, right? Sounds like an interesting story. That was published in the Deseret Morning News in 1996, and as far as I can tell, there isn't much else that has been published about it save a few articles at http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Outback/5018/newspaper.html and some references of books at http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Outback/5018/books.html.

As to maps, I don't think there are any, and if there were, they obviously wouldn't be published. It seems according to the articles that the area was in the Uintas and Kamas Valley.

As far as the records, http://www.archives.state.ut.us/referenc/land2.htm provides links to past land titles in Utah territory. The maps collection seems to be password-protected, and a search of Rhodes doesn't pull up any documents. If you really want to know, you could always contact the people at the site and see if they could give you any more information.

Sounds like the story might always remain a mystery to speculate about. Best wishes!
Question #25968 posted on 06/24/2006 midnight

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Doctrinal question. Here goes. All those who die before the age of accountability automatically go to the Celestial Kingdom. Our doctrine says nothing of even having to accept the gospel. It is a comforting doctrine, but it seems to go against everything in the gospel to say that someone will be exalted without ever being given the choice of accepting or rejecting the gospel. Although it is a good thing, where does agency play in this? I've always believed that we will all end up having to decide for ourselves where we stand, whether in this life or the next. I would think the timing of one's death shouldn't decide this for them. It seems to me that these children would be treated as anyone else who died without the law and the gospel, and would be taught it in the Spirit World. They are innocent because they did not have the law- not good or bad, but because they died early, they are automatically judged as good. Does this seem to anyone else to be inconsistent with a gospel of agency?

-Strong testimony- just unable to understand this.

A: Dear Strong testimony,

First of all, there is no answer to this that I can find in church canon, meaning the items published by the church and the scriptures. Sorry, but I can't find any explanation.

Often people will propose an idea or theory similar to what BAWB did when I discussed this question with him the other evening. Keep in mind this is complete opinion and theory. Have you heard of having one's calling and election made sure? On page 151 of The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Brother Joseph explains, "When the Lord has thoroughly proved [a person], and finds that the [person] is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the [person] will find his[/her] calling and election made sure."

BAWB postulated that perhaps those who die prior to the age of accountability, or at least some of them, do so because their calling and election was made sure to them in the pre-mortal realm. They had proven themselves in the first great battle with Satan where he and his followers were driven out of God's presence.

I found this to be an interesting idea (certainly not to be taken as doctrine) but the more I think about it I wonder if it truly takes into account the fact that not all deaths of those under the age of accountability are of natural causes. While I don't doubt that God may see all children who will die both of natural and unnatural causes and may place the spirits there that should die before the age of accountability, I am not sure I subscribe to the belief that such is how things occur. I just don't know.

There are other places to look though. Perhaps the best is Volume 3 of Answers to Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding Smith. While not doctrine, he was a great man who had a great understanding of the gospel. In Chapter 26, Is One More Fortunate Who Dies in Infancy, we read as follows:
Question:"How do we reconcile the doctrine that little children, who die before they arrive at the years of accountability, shall be saved in the celestial kingdom when the scriptures generally teach that the celestial kingdom is a goal to be achieved through effort in living the gospel principles? Several students have propounded the thought that to merit the celestial kingdom education and living the gospel principles should be required and not in absence of temptation to sin. One of the students expressed the view that we would have been more fortunate had we all died prior to the age of accountability and thus be assured of a place in the celestial kingdom.

"Does the revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith imply that children who die before the age of accountability, to be saved in the celestial kingdom must also, sometime, somewhere, learn and apply the gospel principles, and also subject themselves to the same consequences and temptation to sin, after the resurrection that we are confronted with while obtaining maturity?"

Answer: In a previous answer, the status of little children was clearly declared, as revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith and to Mormon as recorded by Moroni. (See Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 1, pp. 53-61.) It appears that what has been revealed in relation to the salvation of little children who are denied all the vicissitudes of mortal life, and who are without sin, has left in the minds of some that our Eternal Father has perpetrated an injustice and shown favoritism to those who were denied a mature mortal existence. This view is centered in the thought that to be fair with the rest of us who reach maturity, all such little children should be turned over to the temptations of Satan and pass through the fire and be proved just the same as we are who survive in this mortal life.


Is it not a little presumptive on our part to question the wisdom of our Eternal Father? Moreover, have we thought this matter through? If we fail to see clearly it is because all the factors are not before us. First, then, it behooves us in this mortal frame of mind to have explicit faith in the justice and also the mercy of the All-wise Father of us all. Our faith should be, as it is written, that he doeth all things well, and we should never question his mercy and his justice. We should accept him as being possessed with all wisdom, and have full confidence in the truth that "God is no respecter of persons."

There are too many things in this mortal life which are not clear unto our thinking as judged by mortal philosophy, but this is not the fault of the Creator. The things of eternity, the things that endure, are kept hidden in large measure from our blinking eyes. Nor could we understand them were they revealed because of the lack in our knowledge and experience. We might compare this with a figure which we can comprehend. Should the teacher place before a group of students in the first grade a problem in algebra no matter how clear it might be to him, his pupils could not comprehend it. So we may not have all the answers, our finite minds do not comprehend the infinite. We are called upon to accept many truths on faith, and yet through the aid of the Spirit, we know they are true.


This truth, however, we can understand. Entrance into the kingdom of God, the celestial kingdom, is not the goal which true Latter-day Saints are seeking. There will enter there many who are entitled to be only servants. That kingdom has different degrees in it, and to obtain the highest there are many blessings and commandments which have to be kept. The children who die in infancy or early childhood must comply with all of these, just the same as do those who gain their maturity in this mortal life. Children cannot be punished for what they have not done. Were they not punished in being deprived of the blessings which come to us in mortality? They are cut off without the privilege of having posterity to carry on in their name to the end of time. There are other blessings that we receive that they are denied, and are they not entitled to some favors to compensate for what they have lost?

The Savior, according to the decree before the earth was formed, has redeemed them from Satan's power. In relation to our situation, all who reach maturity, Satan has no power over except as we, exercising our own free will, grant him that power. No person is tempted beyond his power to resist, only as he yields to sin.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the time will come in the day of the reign of peace when the earth is renewed that Satan will be bound, the Saints "shall multiply and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation." (D. & C. 45:58. Compare Malachi 4:2.)
There is much to think about in that lesson from President Smith. Are they necessarily saved in the highest degree? If so, there are other things that they must do in order to be so. And, who are we to judge God's judgment? There is much I don't understand in the gospel but I have faith that even those things that don't make sense are being managed by a being greater than I. Does it surprise you that there will be aspects of this gospel that you don't understand fully at this point in your life or that you may never understand completely while in this mortal probation? Perhaps more applicable, would you feel comfortable in a church that advocates that the entirety of the final judgment of God which will decide your eternal existence can be completely and wholy comprehended by mere mortals? I wouldn't. I don't think mortals can reason on the level necessary to make such judgments.

To be truthful and honest, all I can offer in way of explanation is what I have written. It is all I could find and I positively acknowledge the possibility that there may be a more complete that I was unable to find. Granted, there are probably several other ideas presented in non-doctrinal sources (which is pretty much all I have presented anyway).

May I suggest you approach a religion teacher or your bishop for help in resolving this matter if what I have provided is insufficient? One is much more knowledgable than I and the other has stewardship over you.

-Pa Grape