Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better. ~Albert Camus
Question #45052 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

In addendum to Board Question #44765

The main reason why Joseph's bones were moved from Egypt was because Joseph prophesied of the exodus in Genesis 50:24-25 and requested that when Israel leaves Egypt, that they take his bones as well.

- Nanti-SARRMM

Question #44989 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Is it acceptable to fast for more than one thing in the same fast? For example, fasting for finals and family members in the same fast?

- Amnesiac

A: Dear Amnesiac,

Sure. After all, God doesn't limit you to 52 fast-topics a year, or even 365. As long as you're sincerely fasting and seeking both blessings, there's no reason you should be limited to one.

Of course, if you're fasting for your grandma and your dog and your goldfish and the kids in china and their cats and dogs and your brother on a mission and better understanding of the scriptures and a better job....

Well, you get the point. There should be some element of focus to your fast. But you don't need to be limited to just one.

-Yellow

P.S. Darn you Amnesiac, intentionally leaving off your closing tags... I shake my fist at you.
Question #44988 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So I was reading the wonderful booklet The Holy Temple by Boyd K. Packer. When talking about temple recommend interviews it says something like a bishop may ask the person "Would there be a reason you may feel uncomfortable or perhaps even dishonest to the Lord if you were to sign your own temple recommend?" Now... the use of the word uncomfortable in fact makes me uncomfortable. If someone has repented of a sin but still hasn't forgiven themselves fully, should they still wait to enter the temple? Or if a convert to the church committed a sexual sin before baptism but they repented of it before baptism and has since fully kept the covenant but still can't forgive themselves for making such a mistake, should they still go to the temple even though they feel that way? Also... if someone is in that situation then they never have to repent of it with the bishop since it was before baptism, correct? It is my understanding that if you can answer the questions truthfully in the baptism interview (which doesn't talk about sexual sins that are with the opposite sex) and get the clear for being baptized then you aren't obligated to consult your bishop about things that you did pre-baptism. I just want some clarification. I hope all that makes sense. Thank you for your time.

- Loves the Atonement

A: Dear Loves ~

Answering yes to that question does not automatically disqualify you from having a temple recommend.

Forgiving yourself is probably one of the hardest things to do. It often takes a lot longer than forgiving someone else. Also, it's really hard to really believe that God has also forgiven you. So yes, it's quite possible you might feel uncomfortable signing your temple recommend.

When it comes to that point of the interview, tell your bishop that you feel uncomfortable. He will then ask you why. The two of you can then discuss what you haven't forgiven yourself for, or even simply that you did something that you've repented of but haven't forgiven yourself for. If he feels it is something that you haven't fully repented of yet, then yes, he may withhold your temple recommend until you do. If, however, he feels that you have sufficiently repented and it is simply a matter of forgiving yourself, he will still sign your recommend, then probably give you some sound advice as to how to proceed and finally be able to forgive yourself.

~ Dragon Lady
A: Dear Loves the Atonement,

Also... if someone is in that situation then they never have to repent of it with the bishop since it was before baptism, correct?

Somewhat correct. The person (we'll call him "Bob" for purposes of clarity) does not have to repent with the Bishop since he has not sinned against any covenants he made, but he does still have to repent as repentance is a prerequisite for baptism. If it's a simple matter of pre-baptism extra-marital sexual relations and Bob didn't know any better, than there is no need to feel guilty; as long as he has abandoned his sinful practices, there is no need for further repentance. However, if Bob had done something more grievous such as being complicit in rape or murder, Bob would have had to meet with his Bishop (and maybe Stake President) before being baptized.

Baptism isn't a "Get out of sin free" card. It is a covenant that permits remission of our sins if we have repented of them. That remission is not a one-time event; baptism is just as useful to us ten years after we are baptized as it is the day we make the covenant.

The important point is that we cannot receive forgiveness of our sins without repenting of them, but at the same time, we are only held accountable for the knowledge we currently have. As we receive additional truth, we are expected to change our ways and live in accordance with the increased knowledge we have received, but it is not necessary to make an itemized repentance list of every previous time we may have sinned. God is merciful, and will forgive us if we are truly striving to follow him.

-Yellow
Question #44987 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I eat a lot of hommus. I'm too lazy to make it myself, and there are no good restaurants or ethnic grocery stores around Provo to buy it from, so I usually end up buying whatever's at the normal grocery stores and adding appropriate seasoning myself. Well, I really like my hommus zingy and acidic, so I add lemon juice. The problem is, by the time the hommus is acidic enough for me, I've added so much lemon juice that the lemon taste overwhelms the other flavors and ruins the whole thing. I don't think I have impossible expectations of acidity; most of my favorite Lebanese places at home have just the right zing level. My question is, how can I make my hommus zingy without adding tons of lemon juice? Are there other (safe) household acids I could add? Would any other seasonings (like salt) help out without ruining the flavor?

- Darth Fedora

A: Dear Lazy Vader,

Hummus is indeed a lovely treat, although as an amateur hummus eater, I was unaware of the need for zing. But never fear, I think I have an answer for you. After perusing many hummus recipes, I found that the most common zingy ingredients are lemon (or sometimes lime) juice, garlic, pepper, and paprika. A recipe on this page, however, recommends adding citric acid ("readily available with the baking goods at most supermarkets"). That should hopefully give the zing without the distinctive lemon flavor. Good luck!

-=Optimus Prime=-
Question #44986 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I became good friends with this boy my freshman year. After school ended he went along on a road trip some of his friends were taking to the west coast which is where I live. So we got to spend a great weekend together. I was wondering if i should go visit him on the east coast now? He is not good at showing any sort of emotion so I can't tell if he would be excited for me to come or not. He leaves on his mission the beginning of august so I would love to see him before he leaves. Sometimes I think it's a crazy plan and other times I think I shouldn't pass up this opportunity.

- anonymous

A: Dear anonymous,

We at the 100 Hour Board, being newly out of crystal balls, also have no idea if this boy is interested in you. We therefore suggest that you ask him if he wants you to visit him, and act accordingly.

- Katya
Question #44985 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So, why is it that my irreligious acquaintances look at me as if I'm a total wimp if (when they ask) I say I'm a virgin, but act impressed if I simply say that I choose to live a celibate lifestyle?

I'm guessing it's because, where I live, the first one implies that I could engage in sexual activity but I'm too scared or naive and therefore never have and the second implies that I could (and may have in the past) but, exercising great self-mastery, I choose not to. Why isn't there a word in the English language that means I could, I'm not scared, and I haven't because, from a position of strength, I choose not to? Can we invent one?

~Needs a language with more accurate nuances.

A: Dear word needer,

I don't agree that "celibate" necessarily implies past sexual experience, but it does tend to imply a permanent state (rather than one that will change upon marriage). For your purposes, I suggest "abstinent."

- Katya
Question #44983 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear friends of the 100 Hour Board

We have never met in this life, but I consider ll of you my friends for the wisdom you share each day ona variety of topics and the respect you have given he various questions I hae asked using different identities to sign my posts.

I have a question on something ery near and dear to my heart. I was born a twin in 1973. My brother, who was 4 minutes older than I am, deid 2 months and 6 days later from SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). For years I passed it off as being no big deal to myself because I didn't get a chance to know him in this life and the fact that according to D&C 137:10, he is automatically saved in the Celestial Kingdom. The pst few years I have found myself feeling as if a part of me is missing, namely a very special bond that they say exists between twins. I have found myself often wondering what he would be like and what he would do in similar circumstances I have found myself in.

My question is this: It is my understanding that he doesn't need to be baptized, since he died before the age of accountability, and of course i cannot be sealed for him since he obviously never had the chance to marry. I know that one day he can be sealed to my parents (probably after my dad dies since he is very inactive and is not interested in the Priesthood or the Temple), but my question is will he still need to be endowed? Brigham Young taught that we need to receive our endowments to attain exaltation and though he died before he was accountable, how will he be able to receive those ordinances? Does he not need them because he died so young, or will he receive them as a ressurected being in the Millenium? If they can be done by proxy, I can think of no greater act of love I can do for him - greater even than visiting his grave whenever i am in California and cleaning his headstone.

- The one who stayed behind

A: Dear The one ~

This is awfully sweet of you. In Moroni 8 we learn that children who die before the age of 8 have no need of baptism. You are correct there. Temple ordinances can't be performed without baptism. Children who die under the age of 8 are saved in the Celestial Kingdom. Since your twin will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom and doesn't need baptism, it stands to reason that he won't need the endowment either.

According to the Office of the First Presidency, children who die before the age of 8 need no temple ordinances done for them. (Assuming, of course, that they are born in the covenant, which your brother was not. Your brother will still need to be sealed to his parents, which you already know.) We do not know how or when your brother will receive his endowment, but as he is guaranteed the Celestial Kingdom and since receiving the endowment is a prerequisite for such glory, you can rest assured that God will take care of it in His own way.

For now, keep cleaning the headstone, and perhaps do some of the work for your ancestors in your brother's behalf. You can be sure that he is up there with them right now and would want them to have the same blessings that he is guaranteed.

~ Dragon Lady
Question #44980 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I laughed when I first read Board Question #44887, but then I noticed that the second part of the equation was evaded completely. Does that imply Katya organized a chase against a reader with torches and pitch forks before? Does that mean she may strike again? Are innocent readers in danger of being targeted? What is the story here?

- Anti-SARRMM

A: Dear Anti-SARRMM,

Sorry for the confusion; my silence on the matter was intended to be read as a denial of participation in any such activities, not a confession.

- Katya
A: Dear Katya ~

Yeah right. Don't you remember that one time that yo--[forcefully muffled into silence]

~ Dragon Lady
Question #44979 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Why is that the NBA changes the regular 2-2-1-1-1 home/road format to 2-3-2 for the Finals? It seems odd that, after 5 games into the Finals, the team without "home court advantage" actually has had the advantage.

-Defeated

A: Dear Defeated

There's a pretty solid discussion of the matter that can be found here. A couple highlights:

A report in USA Today stated that part of the problem with the old
format arose due to CBS's scheduling of games in the 1984 championship
series between Boston and Los Angeles [USA Today, June 25, 1984]. In
that series there were three and two days off between some of the
first four games because CBS did not want to televise the games during
prime time in May. The series then ended with three games in five days
with a cross-country trip between each game. According to USA Today,
the NBA commissioner, David Stern, favored the 2-3-2 format because
the reduced travel would give players more rest and encourage media
attendance.


And...

It is odd, but there are several reasons for the change. The official
NBA version is it cuts down travel time for players and media
representatives as East meets West. The unofficial version is
M-O-N-E-Y. The NBA prefers a longer series to build up interest and
increase television ratings. The 2-3-2 format theoretically makes it
tougher for a team to win the first two games at home, then win two of
the next three on the road to close out a series in five games. The
league doesn't want five games - it wants six or seven.

-Humble Master
Question #44978 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

The recent decision by the Vatican to restrict access to their ancestral records so as to prevent LDS people from baptizing for the dead in the Temple brings to mind a question. Before I ask, I wish to add a similar "decison" made in 1995 when some people of Jewish ancestry got all up in arms about Holocaust victims havng their work done.

My question is this: since the Jews and Catholics don't believe it is a valid ordinance, what is the problem? Aren't they, in effect, denying others of the opportunity to progress in the spirit world? Also, what business is it of people like Helen Radkey if the Church really DID baptize people by proxy that diede in the Holocaust? Does the fact that we stopped the practice and removed the names somehow invalidate the ordinance? My only reason for questioning the Church's decision is tha if we make special accomodations for one group, what's to say that we won't have to do it in the future for others? It comes down really to whether or not we really have the authority to perform those ordinances. If we don't, as most of the world believes, then let us alone because it won't matter anyhow. If we really DO have the authority, then it does matter but those who are having their work done are free to choose and it is between them and the Lord to decide if they want it or not, NOT some person on earth who disagrees and thinks we don't have the authority from GOD to do so. Sorry for being long-winded there - again my question is simply this:

1. Why does it matter to the world what we as a Church do for the salvation of he dead?


- Me, Myself, and I

A: Dear Me, Myself, and I,

I think these people feel offended because, in their view, it looks like we're implying that members of their faith aren't "good enough" to get into heaven without our help. Now, of course this isn't what we are implying at all; we believe that many of the people for whom we perform ordinance work were wonderful, righteous people. However, we still believe that ordinances are necessary for everyone no matter how righteous they are, and thus are eager to help these people should they accept the gospel in the spirit world. Now, to someone who doesn't believe in these ordinances, the practice of vicarious ordinances may seem very strange, and they may be unwilling to have the names of members of their faith connected with it in any way. Especially if they believe that their salvation is secure anyway.

Remember, the Church places great importance on respect for others' beliefs (think the eleventh Article of Faith). We don't want to offend people and enter into any sort of theological debate with them. Hence the decision to suspend vicarious baptisms for certain people for the time being. Now, this decision in no way negates the importance of ordinances, whether living or vicarious. We believe that the bulk of vicarious temple work will be performed during the Millennium, so I imagine we'll just wait until then to do work for these people. Don't worry. As President Hinckley would say, "Things will work out."

~Hermia
A: Dear you,

Jews have been persecuted and harrassed by Christians in the name of religion for millennia, especially during the Holocaust, when some Jewish children were taken from their families and baptized Catholic. Because of this, I think it's fairly understandable that Jews would be sensitive about having members of their faith baptized for the dead.

I'm at more of a loss to understand the motivations of the Catholic Church. Yes, they are presumably acting so as to restrict baptisms for the dead, but they're going even farther by cutting off all access to those records. Ironically, such actions will probably serve to hurt Catholics who wish to engage in genealogical research, since our church has the largest genealogical library in the world, and we make such information freely available. As Hermia said, we certainly believe that God will provide a way for His work to go forth, regardless of the political stances adopted by various institutions, but it's sad to see this current development.

- Katya
A: Dear Me ~

Also, for the record, many of the parishes have been denying us access for years. Other parishes have begged us to come digitize their records. (They're old and rotting, and the Church is willing to preserve them on microfilm forever for free.) Also, the Pope has not forbidden parishes from giving the Genealogical Society of Utah access to the records, but rather they have asked that the parishes not do so. There's a difference. The parishes still have the autonomy to do what they want, but they have been requested to not give access to us. Thus, most of them won't give access anymore. Also, because the Church respects the wishes of other churches, it's quite possible that even if the parish would allow it, we won't even ask for permission.

Let it also be noted that we have already microfilmed a great number of the parish records. It's not like we're suddenly without all of the parish records that have ever existed.

~ Dragon Lady
Question #44977 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

For what purpose is the reflective vertical squiggly line that runs down the middle of license plates? I've seen it on the newer Utah and Florida plates.

- 100HRBD

A: Dear Us,

You may think you are original
In having such a question
But your lack of archive searching skills
Has caused me indigestion

For the comfort of my stomach
With its strong digestive juices
Please peruse the archives quickly first
Just do it! No excuses!

Board Question #33003
Board Question #33285

-=Optimus Prime=-
Question #44976 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

to go through the repentance process, do you have to talk to your Bishop, or is one of the members of the Bishopric OK?

- Anonymous

A: Dear Anonymous,

If it's serious enough that you're thinking of talking to an ecclesiastical leader (see Board Question #30343 for more about making that decision), it has to be the bishop or branch president. His counselors don't have the authority to help you through the repentance process. Remember that he does love you, and will do everything in his power to help you through this.

—Laser Jock
Question #44956 posted on 05/10/2008 3:01 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

A couple weeks ago there was a BYUSA table in the WILK giving out free muffins if you filled out a survey. I filled one out and got a raspberry muffin. It was one of the most phenomenal muffins I've ever had. Can you tell me where these muffins come from and how I can get more?
Thanks.

- Muffin-Lover

A: Dear Muffin Lover,

I moseyed over to the BYUSA office and was directed over to where the Campus Activities people were located. They actually knew exactly what I was talking about. Praises be! They said that they got the muffins from Campus Takeout Catering Services. If you look under "Baked Goods/Breads" then you'll see your coveted muffins. They are the Raspberry Almond muffins and they can be bought by the dozen for $5.49.

Happy muffin eating!
~Krishna