Dear thinking,

Confession: I have never had a lot of success searching the wilds of the internet for quotes. Such is the case today. I couldn't find anything really relevant to this quote. Maybe other writers will have more success.

That being said, the quote, seems kind of nonsensical to me. Every tactic that has almost "destroyed" the Church fits neatly into several of these categories. The change in leadership following Joseph Smith's martyrdom caused many groups to splinter off - that was certainly a spiritually trying time for people. But it also had far-reaching effects on the social organization of the Church and how tightly the Church hierarchy banded together. The fact that all males couldn't hold the priesthood until 1978 caused a great deal of criticism and trouble for the Church - there was definitely social pressure to change this policy. It was a spiritual trial. It intellectually didn't make sense. And exploring or teaching evolution didn't "try" to destroy the Church, or any church. If science is ever "trying" to prove something in relationship to religious belief, then one of the two groups is going too far outside of its purview. Finally, I believe that once the Church reached a certain size, there was never any single issue or threat that could have led to its complete destruction. Like God, I think that Satan is interested in focusing on individuals, but as many individuals as possible. So none of these issues, however faith-shaking and spirituality destroying, really has the possibility of destroying the Church as an entity, but could cause a lot of problems for Church members individually.

- Rating Pending (who was surprised to not see "pornography" on the list. Because that is certainly something that destroys Church members' lives.)

Dear Canine Ninja,

Here is a comprehensive list of Colorado marathons. If you look for ones with good locations and dates, you can investigate on the individual marathon websites if they allow minors to run; many do. 

–Concealocanth

Dear Goldberry,

My exposure to Tolkien outside The Lord of the Rings trilogy itself and the Silmarillion is fairly superficial, to be honest. It was more obscure to me personally, but I don't have any kind of educated reason for believing it's objectively less well known. But I probably ought to get serious about reading such things eventually and I guess I have the perfect excuse right now, so perhaps I'll take your question as a bit of a call to repentance...

-Anonymous from 67277

Dear Rocket Power,

There is a handy-dandy question in the archives that answers your questions.  And as far as treasures of websites go, The Board is more precious than rubies: and all byu.edu subdomains thou canst desire are not to be compared to it.

-Art Vandelay

Dear surfer,

"I think I'll ask it about my relationship/housing/the mist by the MARB."

-Mico

Dear JB (James Bond/Jason Bourne/Jack Bauer),

What a coincidence! I had the same experience! When I saw the guy on the right side of the screen I just assumed he was about to grab her or put a sack over her head or something. But then he does nothing, and is not even referred to. I'm convinced it's a camera man/crew member. On a small-screen format (the way 24 was broadcast back in 2001), he would not have been noticed on the TV and I'm guessing they didn't have any other footage and needed to use the stuff we saw.

- Rating Pending (who thinks that it would be strange acting like you are alone in a room when you are actually surrounded by dozens of crew members with lights and camera)

Dear "I'm Gonna Need A Hacksaw,"

By the mouth of two witnesses and a link to a wiki shall every word be established on the Board. Scroll down to the bottom of this Wiki 24 page about Day 1: 7:00am-8:00am to the "Background information and notes" section to see, "At about 00:13:20 on the DVD a camerateam can be seen running into the picture on the right side."

-Art Vandelay

Dear too many mind,

I want to start with a few platitudes for you to read and think about before I give you a more personal answer. You gain the trust of others by earning it. You establish trust in others by giving them chance. Over-analysis is attempting to create your own answers to questions that could be found if you ask the other person about it. Put yourself in someone else's shoes before you pass judgement. Honest and open communication is the solution to most relationship problems.

There really is a lot of truth to those over-used sayings, and I really think you'd do well to apply them to your situation. The issue here isn't really Facebook, it is trust and communication. It is hard to trust someone you don't understand or know, so really the issue here is communication. If you find he doesn't respond well to asking questions like "do you still have feelings for your ex-girlfriend?" or your roundabout talking around the issue without really talking about it, then change the way you bring up the topic. You can say something like, "If you don't want to tell me about your ex-girlfriends that is fine, but maybe you could tell me why you are hesitant to talk about that with me." Talk more about how he feels about the situation and less about the situation itself. That is how you can understand him and that is how you can grow to trust him. And you can communicate to him something along the lines of "I am trying to trust you more and to be more confident in myself. Being able to talk about this stuff will help me understand you and help me stop myself from over-thinking everything." Tell him more about why you are asking about his ex-girlfriends then actually talking about his ex-girlfriends. For the both of you to trust each other you have to be honest with each other. He needs to know that you over-think things you don't understand. If he knows that and doesn't want to help you with avoiding that, then I question whether this relationship is worth your energy.

I've said things like this in the past, but you need to give him the same breaks you give yourself. I am sure you have had crushes in the past that didn't pan out that you learned to move on from and overcome. You know this is a possible and likely outcome of most crushes. You have done it, so why shouldn't he be able to do the same? It seems entirely possible and likely that he has moved on and truly likes you.

Becoming more confident in yourself is a process only you can really understand. You know what it takes for you to be proud of yourself. You know what level of work you need to give to feel responsible. You know what will make you happy. Set yourself up to be in situations where you can feel proud, responsible, and happy.

You are not alone in your struggle with analysis paralysis and though it is a stereotypical female personality trait, it is not a gender specific behavior. For a superlative male example, read Hamlet. He and I are kindred spirits as this is an issue I personally deal with (and it would seem you and I are kindred spirits as well, as I see a lot of myself in your description of what your going through). This past year I have had some big "ah-HA!" moments about this behavior and have learned a lot about myself. Specifically I realized that being myself with girls means letting them know about this tendency. And with that, if a girl doesn't help me out with that or offer some kind of assistance then that is a pretty good sign we aren't a good fit.

I said it above and I'll say it again: honest and open communication is the solution to most relationship problems. I wish you luck and hope things work out the way you'd like to have them work out.

-Art Vandelay

Dear deer,

Yeah, I get the feeling you're not alone in this. I think it's a fairly common problem to feel like we're incompetent or what have you around people we want to be around. My advice would be to stop trying so hard to be clever- just let yourself focus on being you. Let yourself get used to being around them as yourself. Don't spend as much focus on what you're going to say as on the whole conversation or your conversation partner, and just let the conversation happen without worrying about constructing it.

Good luck! 

~Anne, Certainly

Dear in the headlights,

Practice your wit on not-cute guys. You'll learn what is funny and how to say it best. If all else fails, you'll really impress the not-cute guys in no time.

-Mico

Dear Felipe,

I just want to observe that you have misstated the principle of supply and demand. A government can prevent a supplier from supplying when there is a demand (see, for example, nuclear weapons). You are correct in saying that there will be someone who wants to supply, but this isn't the same thing as a supplier actually existing.

The U.S. isn't doing a good enough job to prevent suppliers from supplying. Either it needs to devote considerably more resources to the War on Drugs, or it needs to refocus its efforts (that, of course, is a euphemism for "call it off").

No Dice

Dear Pte Felipe Calderon,

What is the solution to the war on drugs? Probably the Second Coming.

-Sky Bones

Dear Felipe Calderon,

I think the war on drugs is as solved as it's likely to get in the short term. I think most governmental policy options (e.g. policing, international efforts, drug education in schools) have been taken about as far as they can reasonably go and have sharply decreasing marginal returns at this point. Making the Mexican border less ridiculously porous might be worth a shot (we could build the wall or whatever - if it keeps bombs out of Israel maybe it'll keep drugs out of the U.S.), but at the same time there's always another way to smuggle.

In the long term, the choice to use or not use drugs is a moral decision. Citizens who have received effective moral education will make good decisions and those who haven't won't. As a member of the Church, I believe it offers the best moral education on the market. (I talked a bit more about this here.) Other churches, religious groups, and secular organizations also help morally educate society to the degree that they successfully promulgate true principles. More moral education is the solution. I argue this is a problem where government's already done about what it can do and more preaching (or expostulating on your chosen ethical system or whatever you want to call it) is the solution. 

~Professor Kirke

Dear Skeptical,

It's legit. I won.

No Dice

Dear Washington,

Why might a Supreme Court justice prefer other systems to the Constitution?

Ginsburg, the Supreme Court justice in question, is pretty left-wing. Right now, almost every other reasonably functional democratic system of government is producing farther-left results than ours. She wants more left-wing governments in the world, so she wants systems of government that favor that result. 

My opinion, short version:

I don't want a left-wing government and I think the Constitution rocks. At the same time, countries forming governments need moral citizens more than they need a specific set of words on a page, and said moral citizens are best produced by preaching, not by any government action. 

My opinion, long version:

I do think the Constitution is superior to the English system. The Founding Fathers basically took everything that worked about the English system (bicameral legislature, trial by jury and the general Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, etc.), got rid of the King and other odditites, and created more checks, balances, and distribution of power. I think having a relatively brief Constitution as an authoritative reference document is also valuable. 

However, while it's brilliant, it isn't magic. The Founding Fathers, when they created the American form of government, made assumptions about the citizens and voters of said government. They assumed that said citizens would be imperfect but more-or-less good, reasonably informed people committed to liberty, honesty, property rights, and something generally along the lines of Judeo-Christian morality and the English legal tradition. They designed a government that would tend to work well as long as those assumptions were fulfilled. The American people and culture more or less fulfill those assumptions so everything more or less works. 

On the other hand, consider a long-oppressed group whose traditions involve bribery, tribalism, the law of the jungle, etc. Giving them the words of the Constitution (or of any other system of government) isn't going to solve those problems. The long-term effectiveness of any government is determined more by its citizens than by words on a page or lack thereof. The moral state of the citizens themselves is often largely determined by past governments, so one can't just say people get what they deserve, but accepting that citizens produce their governments helps us see the way forward. 

The real way forward is to develop a culture of honesty, liberty, respect for others and their property, etc. so that when citizens inevitably do get the chance to vote or have a revolution or whatever, things will turn out well. How do I think we should encourage this kind of moral culture? By preaching it. Moral/cultural problems call for moral/cultural solutions, and Christ has them. As good moral principles spread and become more widely lived, especially true Christian doctrine (of which the Church has a fullness but certainly not a monopoly), the world's inhabitants will become better people, and the governments they form will inevitably get better. On the other hand, no amount of legal draftsmanship can save a world in moral decline from having ineffective governments. 

I guess that went a bit further afield than your question (though at least I spared you the bibliography), but those are my distilled opinions on the general issue. 

~Professor Kirke

Dear George,

You can read a review of Justice Ginsburg's remarks here, but be warned that The New American is a publication of the John Birch Society, which is really, really far right. So take what they have to say with a grain of salt.

I was surprised to hear that a Supreme Court Justice had made these remarks, though considerably less surprised when it turned out to be Justice Ginsburg. In any event, I'm not inclined to find anything sinister in there. Ginsburg is noting that other countries have come up with constitutions in the last 200 years, and she thinks they work pretty well. The review I linked actually recommends South Africa as a model for Egypt, which in some respects makes sense, because, you know, they're both in Africa.¹ Democracy at its heart is a grassroots movement; it comes from the desires of the people (I'll take issue with Kirke, above, who seems to suggest in a roundabout way that nations like Egypt are governed by the "law of the jungle," whatever that means²). I'm also just as much in favor of missionary work as the next guy, but I don't think the solution to governments without property rights is necessarily to convert all the people to Christianity and then figure out a constitution from there on out. See, for example, Singapore and South Korea. People don't have to believe like us to be moral.

England's system of government has much to recommend it. You asked for examples: the first that comes to mind is England's rule on the loser in a civil suit paying all of the winner's legal costs.

No Dice

¹ I am not ignorant to the vast differences between Egypt and South Africa culturally, economically, or otherwise. My point is that it's valuable when nations in a certain region learn from one another.
² Plus, if you take out the "jungle" part, he's basically describing Chicago.

Dear temple seeing,

If you are not sure what one of the temple interview questions means, then you should ask the person giving them. I'm positive that this exact question has been debated up and down LDS-related websites and internet forums. But three people, you, the Lord and the the person who is actually issuing you the temple recommend, are the ones who should tell you what those questions mean and how they should be answered.

On that note, during the Church's campaigning for Proposition 8 in California, I had a temple recommend interview. I answered all the questions, and then when my stake presidency counselor asked if there was anything else, I asked for clarification on this same topic. I even phrased it in terms of the Prop 8 debate - asking if not agreeing with or not supporting the proposal was considered being in that category. He seemed, honestly, a bit unsure (my guess is that there is not a hard and fast rule about which groups are currently in the "opposed" category). But what he was clear about was that there is a difference between a group whose morals don't align with the Church's doctrine and positions and groups who actively seek to destroy the Church or cause harm to its leaders. His feeling was that if you still believe in and supported the Church, even if you had specific questions or concerns, then you could still honestly answer "no" to this question.

- Rating Pending (who has nothing else to add)

Dear Loves,

We have answered this before. Don't sweat about the question–you're probably fine.

–Concealocanth

Dear AR,

Triclosan's method of action is to inhibit one particular bacterial enzyme, enoyl reductase, which is employed during fatty acid synthesis. When the compound was first discovered, they actually didn't even know how it worked to inhibit bacterial growth - just that it worked. But we now know that triclosan is actually just behaving like an antibiotic - it has one particular target. This is in contrast to a disinfectant, which just destroys a bunch of different things about the bacteria. Triclosan resistant mutants are already plentiful in the environment and can repopulate an area cleaned with triclosan within an hour (in other words, it doesn't do much to control the actual numbers of bacteria). To me this means two things: 1) triclosan doesn't make things inherently better at cleaning or removing bugs than other cleaning agents. So your antibacterial dish soap isn't worse than regular dishsoap, but it sure isn't really all that much better. 2) Given how prevelant triclosan-resistent bugs are in the environment right now, it is probably becoming less and less effective at inhibiting bacteria (not that is was ever super effective anyway) the more that triclosan finds its way into more and more products (anti-bacterial shampoo? Why does this exist?).

I don't think we're necessarily generating a "superbug" (just more and more strains that are triclosan resisitant) but people should not put as much trust in it as they do.

- Rating Pending (who thinks it's interesting how often the medical community uses drugs/chemicals/compounds without actually knowing how they work. To him that seems only a few steps removed from calling something "magic.")

Dear thanks,

Without going into much detail, I will say that I have had a full-blown crisis of faith. I basically realized that I didn't really believe a lot of the core doctrines of the Church, and that I hadn't ever received the "manifestation of truth" that is promised in Moroni 10. It's been an awkward situation for me, because I really do love so much about the Church and its teachings. I'm still debating internally what I want to do, but I'm glad that I have been patient and that I haven't made any rash decisions which I may later regret. 

--Pilgrim

P.S. Email me if you want to chat more. Also, I have a group of friends who have passed similar crises, and we meet every once in a while as a sort-of "support group." If you're interested, I might be able to invite you some time. 

Dear Thanks,

I would say that I've had a full-blown crisis of faith.  The main experience I've had is having clinical depression, which seemed to block any access to God I had and made me feel completely alone.  I've also experienced some psychological hallucinations which made me question certain spiritual experiences I'd had previously.  There's a lot more to say, but this has already gotten pretty personal.  I would be comfortable continuing the conversation in private, though.  Feel free to email me.

Love from

Queen Alice

Dear you're welcome,

A story, eh? Well, you asked for it.

Short Version:

I used to be pretty religious, but I was never very spiritual. After general life experiences, including attending some missionary lessons, and all sorts of studying on my own, I realized religion, or maybe just this religion, might not be for me.

Long Version:

Once upon a time there was a girl named Mico. While she was certainly a many-faceted person, let's focus today on her spiritual side. As a child, she didn't think much one way or the other about "religion." Her family was religious, and she liked going to church well enough. As she grew up, she continued going to church, doing all the regular LDS things. In high school she went to seminary which was, let me tell you, a struggle, because not only are teenagers notoriously bad at doing anything productive at 6 a.m., but Mico was one of the worst among them. Waking up was hard. She even wrote to the 100 Hour Board about it once, but that is a story for another time. 

As high school started, Mico realized that a lot of people had problems. Maybe it was the influence of her friends, maybe it had been latent all along, maybe it was the struggles she experienced trying to keep her mother out of the throes of depression; whatever it was, Mico was sad. Something changed in her general disposition, and she was angsty and secretive. Around her sixteenth birthday, she wondered if drawing closer to the Church wouldn't help her unhappy disposition. She threw herself into scripture study, into her Personal Progress projects; she practiced hymns on the piano and sang in the ward choir; she tried to make herself belong.

And it worked! For almost two years she felt like a part of something, and she decided at the last minute to attend BYU. It wasn't her only option, but she just decided that going there would definitely help her feel like she belonged somewhere, like she was making the right choices. But here is where the story takes a sudden twist. When she arrived at BYU, it wasn't what she thought it would be like. She was lonely and scared. Her closest friend in the world was on a mission in a Far-Away Land. For a while she stayed in her dorm, barely eating, barely sleeping, just trying to get good grades and wait for each day to end. Probably this was all a result of stress and a change of scenery, but whatever it was, it caused Mico to become seriously introspective. 

She began studying a lot of different things in the Church. She paid closer attention to lessons in church, phrasings, and so on. She prayed more than ever, her words much more heartfelt and earnest than they had been in the past. She wanted to know; she asked, having heard the story many times before that if you ask and try, you'll find the answer. Maybe she did find the answer, maybe the secret is that "the" answer isn't really a one-size fits all kind of single answer. 

So, as she questioned more two other important things happened: First, she became friends with a non-member at BYU (who she eventually dated, and much later married). In the beginning of their relationship, she tried to have many deep discussions with him; after all, Mico had never been close friends with anyone who had literally zero religious education growing up. It was fascinating! The guy decided to start seeing the missionaries, hoping it would convert his thinking or at least show her that he was willing to try. The whole ordeal, meeting with the missionaries weekly, made Mico think more. And it was then, while looking at the Church as an investigator might, she realized she didn't truly believe it, and didn't believe there was a single truth.

The other important thing that happened, about a year later, was that Mico met some other BYU students who were questioning just like she was. Seeing other people in her own situation helped her feel like she was not a failure; her lack of spirituality was not a deficiency, it was only a difference. 

That is the story up until now. In case you didn't get it, the Mico in the story was me! Over the past few days I've been thinking a lot about your question. I feel like my relationship with religion and spirituality has gone through a lot of ups and downs, and (realistically) will probably continue to do so. If you ever feel like talking about experiences with religion or the Church, I'm happy to talk about them. Especially if such a talk included ice cream (I'll tell you anything for a scoop of rocky road!). 

-Mico, obviously

Dear Thanks,

Here's something from a wonderful woman whose husband left the Church. She spent a lot of time soul-searching, questioning the truth of the Church. Here's the summary of her story:

"I have spent a great deal of time recently separating the core values of the LDS religion and its extensive culture - which is admittedly a mixed bag. I refuse to allow someone else's opinions, biases or prejudices to dictate how I feel, or to make decisions for me. I refuse to feel a victim of outside forces. The only forces that truly matter are the internal ones - and my own relationship with God. I can reject much of what is problematic with the LDS culture, while retaining what is really good about the message of its core doctrine."

It's perfectly okay to not fully understand some things in the Church. What really matters is if you believe the Church is the truest organizational reflection of the gospel, and your relationship with God. 

The key here, of course, is to be judicious in separating doctrine from culture– be careful to not lump real (but inconvenient) doctrine into the category of culture.

–Concealocanth

Dear Thanks,

You know, sometimes I feel like I have some pretty big questions about the Church, its history, and its doctrine. Sometimes I even wonder if my questions are too big or my opinions too unorthodox for me to call myself a “good” Mormon. But I guess that even though I have questions and uncertainties, there are enough core doctrines that remain ironclad and unbreakable in my heart that I really want to be a Mormon. I want to stay in the Church. I feel a little uncomfortable bearing my testimony to strangers online, so I'll keep this short, but I will say that I love Jesus Christ and I really think that being a member of the Church and trying to be a disciple of Jesus is making me a better person. That's very important to me. Furthermore, no matter who God is or what the answers to all my questions are, I will never stop believing that our spirits are eternal, and that we can be with loved ones again after death. I still have a lot of questions about other things, but even though many of my questions remain unanswered, I feel that I know enough to be certain that I want to stay religious, and that I want to remain a faithful member of the Church. I'm willing to be patient.

Please email me if you'd ever like to chat more.

All the best,

- Eirene

Dear friend,

After a safe 1000 hours of consideration, here are some of my favorites off the top of my head:

• "We interrupt this program to deliver this message: I love you."
• Freakazoid scaring the children by suggesting that Sinbad could get another TV show (fun fact: he actually has another TV show right now). That's scarier than everything in the world turning to wood, man. But I guess those safeguards didn't work.
• The spit take in the Fan Boy episode. Also, "curse your tiny paper hat!"
• Handman getting punched by The Lobe. This one seriously cracks me up whenever I think about it.
• The man who has the watch that turns beavers into gold. Freakazoid's response to him in the parking lot is one of my favorite parts of the show.
• Norm Abram's puppy eyes when The Lobe presents the giant block of wood to him.
• Cosgrove saying the words "dooty water."
• Craig Ferguson voicing the words "crud vapors."

Those are some pretty good highlights. They may not be as hilarious to someone who hasn't seen the entire series, but seriously guys: Freakazoid was a great show. Definitely worth watching if you need something mindless-yet-witty to watch—like Animaniacs.

--Gimgimno

Dear Optimistic.,

That would be the moment in "Candle Jack" (presented in scream-o-vision, a bi-product of Holland's vast tulip industry) when Candle Jack says "I'm going to need more rope."

-Genuine Article

Dear Benedict Arnold,

Here's the deal Fish, we understand why it was you left the Jazz back in '07. You left us to move your family to a place that could better care for you sick daughter. We expected you to go to New York, the city which supposedly had the best specialists or something like that to treat your daughter, but instead you went to Los Angeles and joined the evil empire that is the LA Lakers. Slap me around and call me Susan if that isn't betrayal most foul. We understand you perfectly.

And take it easy on Matt Harpring. We shouldn't judge a man who has to sit next to and work with Bolerjack.

-Art Vandelay

Dear Keith,

If cougarboard.com is anything to trust, then he is not LDS, but Catholic.

-Azriel

Dear Becky,

I found it. 

It is called "Only Love is Spoken Here," and you can read the play here (scroll down to the part that says, "Greeter: Hi! My name is Vladimir. Welcome to 'Only love is spoken here' - a musical program presented by our class." The play is on pages 8 and 9.). Apparently its only appearance on the internet is in some Russian paper about teaching methods. Sorry I couldn't find the actual musical (I guess the last time it was performed was before YouTube?), but at least now you can remember all the lyrics!

-Mico