"I would rather entertain and hope that people learned something than educate people and hope they were entertained. " - Walt Disney
Question #90175 posted on 08/01/2017 8:56 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I remember the episode of The Office when the workers from Dunder Mifflin Stamford were coming to work in the Scranton office and Andy Bernard (Ed Helms) said that his secret for getting "in" with people was to quickly read them and then mirror their personality. He then is in the line of the Stamford employees shaking hands and meeting Michael Scott, and of course after about three seconds of processing in his face, he assumes a "hidely ho, okely dokely" manner and Michael expresses a like for Andy.

Do you get this type of vibe from the air-kiss-blowing, old-tweet-deleting, almost-exact-same-language-using, hypercomplimenting, new press secretary Anthony Scaramucci?



Dear Jim In Disguise,

I haven't seen much footage of The 'Mooch in action, so it's hard for me to say. I also haven't seen that episode of The Office (I haven't seen most episodes of The Office). 

However, I have been very disappointed in the internet for not making the seemingly obvious comparison between new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci...


(Source is a Vanity Fair article but it contained too much raw, unfiltered Mooch (in other words, lots of swears) to be able to link directly to it here.)

...and the robotic assassin from the final season of Samurai Jack, Scaramouche:

Screen Shot 2017-07-27 at 6.25.33 PM.png


The injustice of it all was just too much for me to stand, so I took it upon myself to correct this egregious oversight:

combined 1 with words.png

That's all for now.

-Frère Rubik

P.S. The names Scaramouche and Scaramucci come from an old stock character from Italian commedia dell'arte, called Scaramouche (or Scaramuccia). 

Question #90161 posted on 08/03/2017 7:20 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Zedability has retired? How did it happen? Have the plans for world domination moved on to another organization?

If it is true, thanks for all the fun, thoughtful, silly, researched, profound, and helpful answers. Thanks for sharing a part of your life with us all!

-Minions, eating treacle pie in tribute.


Dear Minions,

As the Board Writer closest to our dearly beloved Zed, I feel it is my duty to answer your questions as best I can. First off, yes, Zed has retired from the Board. This decision was the result of many events and experiences converging in her life at once. Oh yes, she claimed it was just that she got "busy" with "life" and "school" and "being a mom" but I'll tell you the tragic truth. A clandestine group to remain unnamed found her plans for world domination out and kidnapped myself and our dearest Baby Z and held us for RANSOM!

All things considered, they treated us well. We were fed decent meals and they had a really nice crib for Baby Z, and as far as being a hostage goes, I could imagine worse things to be put through, but I digress...

So anyway, Zed got together with Ardilla Feroz and Django Fett to plan a daring rescue! Ardilla did reconnaissance to discover the location of the secret base where we were being held. Upon Ardilla's return from [REDACTED], Django began working on hacking into the base's security system to open a way for them to reach Baby Z and me. Finally the three of them arrived at the base. Thanks to the great skill of Django Fett, they were able to get all the way to the apartment (I really can't call it a cell after all) where Baby Z and I were held. There was a brief happy reunion with lots of giggling from Baby Z, and then we started to make our way to the roof where we were going to steal a helicopter to escape and return to the Board Lair.

When we arrived at the roof however, the leader of the group that had kidnapped Baby Z and myself was waiting for us!

"How did you know we were here?!" Zed cried out.

"Mr. Feroz left a small pile of empty shells on the ridge over there, hazelnut I believe," the man replied. "It was easy enough to piece together that you'd try to rescue your family. Honestly though, I just got lucky assuming you would come for the helicopter for your escape."

"Told you we should've used the sewers," Ardilla commented.

"I am not carrying my baby through a sewer to escape a secret base in the middle of [REDACTED]!" Zed retorted, "and this would've worked if you hadn't insisted on bringing snacks on a recon mission!"

Then Django stepped in before things could escalate further, "As entertaining as this is, we still need to get out of here guys." And with that, we all started to run for the helicopter. 

We were so close when an agent of our kidnappers' organization stepped out from the shadows, grabbed Baby Z out of my arms, and tripped me causing me to tumble across the roof and almost fall off the edge. She carried Baby Z to the edge of the roof and held her out over open air.

"Zedability. If you want to save your daughter, you will give in to our demands. Give us your word, and I will return your child to your husband and you can all leave in peace. If you don't, I drop her."

Zed looked at me and the woman from the helicopter, trying to figure out a solution. Then she looked to Ardilla and Django, both of whom returned her gaze with worried looks. Finally she looked at Baby Z who smiled at her laughed and bit the woman's arm. The woman yelped and lurched back from the edge of the roof, allowing me to jump up, snatch Baby Z from her, and trip her myself (sweet revenge!). I ran to join the others in the helicopter and we escaped the base and returned to the Board Lair.

"Another daring rescue successfully completed!" Ardilla announced to cheers as we walked into the common area of the lair.

"It wouldn't be Tuesday without one," Spectre responded, getting a laugh from everyone but Zed who just slumped in an overstuffed armchair and sighed.

"What's up Zed?" Auto Surf asked her, "Are you okay?"

Zed looked at her and all the assembled writers, "I'm getting entirely too old for this," she said. "I love you guys, but I think it's time I retired. I'll keep in touch through Occam here."

Everyone erupted in questions, tears, and pleas for her to stay, but alas, she was adamant. Despite the cries of disagreement, she took Baby Z and walked up the stairs to enter into the Hall of Alumni to join the ranks of Past Writers like Katya, Tally M. and Rating Pending, only to return once every year for Alumni Week.

And there you have it. The Absolutely 100% True Story™ of how and why Zedability retired from the 100 Hour Board. It is truly the end of an era in the history of the Board.


~Dr. Occam

Question #90160 posted on 07/28/2017 12:52 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

If the moon were made of cheese, how much milk would it take to produce that quantity of cheese?

-Mr. Morton


Dear Mr. Morton,

Oh boy, am I excited for this. I've kept myself and the other writers waiting on this answer for the past 97 hours, so let's get right to it!

First of all, there are a couple of different ways to interpret your question. When you say "that quantity", do you mean the mass of the moon or the volume of the moon? Well, I'm going to answer both of those questions. Also, what kind of cheese? When someone says that the moon is made of cheese, most people think of Swiss cheese, because of the holes, but there are so many different types of Swiss cheeses, so I'm going to pick Emmentaler, which is the cheese that most "Swiss cheese" is modeled after.

The mass of the moon (according to Google) is 7.34767309 x 1022 kg. According to Fundamentals of Cheese Science, you can get somewhere between 9 kg and 12 kg of Emmentaler cheese for every 100 kg of milk. If we pick the midpoint of those numbers, that's 10.5 kg of cheese for every 100 kg of milk. If we divide the mass of the moon by that ratio, we get 6.99778390 x 1023 kg of milk. The density of milk is approximately 1.03 kg/L, and there are 3.78541 liters in a gallon, so that is equivalent to 1.7947765 x 1023 gallons. In standard notation, just for emphasis, that's 179,477,650,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of milk.

The volume of the moon will take less cheese, but the calculations will be slightly more complicated, so bear with me. The volume of the moon is 2.197 x 1022 L. The density of Swiss cheese happens to be pretty close to the same as that of milk, 1.03 kg/L, so we can convert our 10.5 kg cheese/100 kg milk factor to 10.5 L cheese/100 L milk. So it takes 2.092381 x 1023 L (5.5274883 x 1022 gallons) of milk to make a ball of Swiss cheese the size of the moon, right? Well, no. See, the whole point of Swiss cheese is that it has holes, and I haven't factored in the porosity of the cheese. Some scientists measured the volume of the holes (technically called eyes) in Emmentaler cheese using CT scans and found that the relative eye volume cheese with the strongest eye formation was about 3.47%. So, since Swiss cheese is only about 96.53% cheese, we'll factor that into our calculated volume and get 2.019775 x 1023 L (5.3356845 x 1022 gallons) of milk. 

Finally, let's put this into perspective. The Holstein is the highest-producing dairy cattle in the world. Every year, the average Holstein cow produces 2674 gallons of milk per year, and most of the more than 9 million dairy cows in the United States are Holsteins. It would take all the cows in the USA more than 2 trillion years to make enough milk to make a ball of Swiss cheese the size of the moon, and over 7 trillion years (more than half the age of the universe so far) to make enough milk to make a ball of Swiss cheese with the same mass as the moon.

-The Entomophagist

posted on 07/29/2017 9:44 p.m.
Dear people,

One trillion is a thousand billions. The universe is about .013 trillion years old. 7 trillion years, then, is not half the age of the universe but about 538 times the age of the universe.



What's the history/origin of the last name Hardstark?

... Repeat Offender


Dear yusef,

I agree with Ento. His original response was great.

But I also agree with you because holy cow this name is hard to track down and the hunt is fascinating.

I found some related-but-not-exact things online that suggested it could be Swedish/Old Norse in origin, but this Ancestry record seemed to suggest it might be Polish. 

Screen Shot 2017-07-18 at 10.47.05 AM.png (source)

But when you search "Haroztag" nothing comes up except this entry from Ancestry, so I checked with Sherpa Dave, our resident Polsih specialist. He said Haroztag is not Polish, but it could be Jewish. He said it's also likely that the actual spelling might be "Harcsztark," since the pronunciation sounds similar and there's a history of immigrants changing names when they came to the States (though not for the reasons you might think). 

A Google book confirmed the Jewish origin of Harcsztark and listed Harzstark as another spelling. There's a lot of records for that spelling, but mostly on Ancestry where you can't see them unless you have account. I don't have an account, but luckily the library does so I went to see what I could find. There was a good number of Harzstark's born in Poland, but also a small clan that I found in what is currently L'viv, Ukraine. At the time (around 1891), though, this was Austro-Hungary, and it was also part of the Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth at one point. Based on that, and more consulting with Sherpa Dave about the Slavic language family, I feel pretty confident that it's of Slavic origin. 

So, tl;dr it's an Americanized Slavic name. 

Take care,

-Auto Surf (and Sherpa Dave)

posted on 08/11/2017 8:25 p.m.
Well, Georgia Hardstark (host of My Favorite Murder podcast) IS Jewish so I believe Auto Surf did great research on this one.

Question #90095 posted on 01/06/2018 9:59 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What proportion of US legislators were NOT lawyers or doctors before they were elected? Is there any significant difference in prior-job proportions between the two parties?

-Otto Didact


Dear Otto,

This question has the dubious honor of being the longest I've ever held a question overhours. I am so sorry, but reading 535 different Wikipedia articles about every single member of Congress is (not so surprisingly) incredibly time consuming.

A note on my methods: a lot of congressmen went straight into politics after college, so in a lot of cases I had to look at what they studied rather than their previous employment. But if someone has a law degree, I still counted them as being a lawyer for the sake of this question.

So, out of the 100 members of the Senate, 51 of them have never studied/worked as doctors or lawyers. Out of the 49 who were doctors or lawyers, 44 of them were lawyers, and only 5 of them were doctors (and that's counting an ophthalmologist and an optometrist). Also, in case you were wondering, John Barrasso from Wyoming was a doctor, but also a "rodeo physician," because Wyoming.

Out of the 435 members of the House of Representatives, 61.8% of them have never been doctors or lawyers. Just like in the Senate, lawyers were much more common than doctors, coming in with 147 of them having earned law degrees, and only 19 of them having been doctors. Also, I counted a couple dentists, two veterinarians, and a couple nurses as "doctors," so that number is definitely high. 

If you wanted a composite number instead of separate statistics for each chamber of Congress, out of the total 535 members of both chambers, 59.8% of them have never studied/worked as lawyers or doctors.

There seems to be no strong correlation between party affiliation and previous employment in either chamber of Congress. And while it's true that a bunch of lawyers are in the mix, I don't know where you got the idea that there are so many doctors in Congress. After lawyer, I think the next most common profession was businessman. 

Also, fun fact, it's a little disturbing to me how many members of Congress have been arrested/convicted of various crimes.

Anyway, sorry again for how overdue this answer is. I hope it's somehow enlightening to you, because something has got to make the hours I spent combing Wikipedia worth it.


posted on 01/07/2018 5:35 p.m.
It’s worth pointing out that ophthalmologists are as much doctors as an OB-GYN, cardiologist, or ENT. They have an MD or DO, and specialize in the diseases of the eye. It’s kinda patronizing to say they’re “included” with the doctors, because they are doctors. They have the same credentials.

Optometrists specialize in vision correction. If they detected an abnormality beyond, like, dry eye, they’d scoot you off to a medical doctor (opthamologist) in two seconds to seek treatment.
Question #90080 posted on 07/15/2017 2:50 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So I was playing with toy cars with my son Twist yesterday and a question occurred to me. When I take a toy car in my hand and zoom it as fast as I can through my arm's range of motion, how fast is it actually going? Does it travel that very short distance as fast as a real car would or much slower?

-Inverse Insomniac


Dear Inverse,

Quite serendipitously, I was visiting my parents in Rubikland when this question came in, so I had access to toy cars with which to conduct my research. While looking for my old Hot Wheels, I also found these old toys, which I thought I'd share with y'all:


First, we have Hoth Luke Skywalker and Endor Han Solo, along with my A-Wing calculator. That's right: an A-Wing calculator. Can you conceive anything more nerdy awesome? I didn't think so.


Here we have a couple of Bulbasaurs. I was going to take the plush one with me when I went back to Provo, but then I realized that it is Cadet Rubik's and my plush was a Squirtle. I couldn't find the Squirtle. I was sad.


Mère Rubik calls this set "Cool Tools." I have no idea if that's what the actual brand of toys was called or if she just thought they were really cool. I suppose we'll never know.

Lastly, we have one of my most favorite toys...


...the Thing. I do not know what this thing is. It is made of solid steel and is fairly heavy. I remember that I picked it up one day and thought it was cool, but that's all I know about it. When I had it out for this answer Père Rubik saw it and said "Oh, hey, it's that thing." I asked him what it was. He said that he didn't know, but he had randomly received it from someone long ago. So we still have no idea what the Thing is. If a reader could tell me, with convincing proof, what exactly the Thing is, they would have solved a lifelong mystery for me and I would certainly owe them ice cream.

Alrighty. On to the cars:


These cars were ultimately deemed unusable for the experiment, but I have fond memories of them and wanted to share them with y'all. The dark green racer (second from left) is from 1987! The lime-green racer next to it (in the middle) is from 1982! These cars are 30 years old! It's incredible. 

Here are the cars I used for my test:


From left to right, here are the models of the cars:

Car #1: Ferrari F50

Car #2: Ferrari 156

Car #3: Dodge Viper GTS

Car #4: Renault Formula One Racer (I couldn't find any more specifics on exactly what kind of Renault F1 it is)

Car #5: BMW Z3

Now, how do we tell how fast they're going?

First, we measure my arm, from fingertip to shoulder. It's about 30 inches long. Next, I measure how high off the ground my arm is when I'm sitting on the ground, ready to race. That's about 25 inches. Using the Pythagorean Theorem, I find that the horizontal distance from my shoulder to the car in my hand is about 16.5 inches.

This last measurement is very important. For the test, I'll be moving the cars back and forth in a quarter circle, from when my arm is straight out to my side to where it's pointing straight in front of me. The distance it will travel is the radius of that circle (16.5 inches), multiplied by Pi, and divided by two. That distance ended up being right around 26 inches.

Now, for the actual test: I need to find out how long it takes me to drive the car through the quarter circle. This would be very hard to time if I were just doing it once, so I decided I would drive the cars back and forth as fast as I could for 30 seconds so as to get a nice sample size from which I could calculate the time for a single run. Here's how each car did:

Car #1: 74 "laps"

Car #2: 80 "laps"

Car #3: 84 "laps"

Car #4: 88 "laps"

Car #5: 89 "laps"

For the most part, I thought it was a pretty good method, but I did identify a couple of issues. For one, as you can see, the number of "laps" each car ran in the 30 seconds increased every time. I was actually worried that the opposite would happen; I figured that my arm would get tired and that I wouldn't be able to move it as fast, so in between each run (besides the last two) I took a break to work out calculations and eat hummus with pita chips. Apparently, that worry was unfounded. The only other issue was that a couple of times during the testing I had to start the runs over because I was so excited making the cars go vroom Vroom VROOM that I lost count of how many laps they'd gone.

To even things out, I averaged the number of "laps" between the five cars, and found that it was 83. Now, if a car can travel that distance 83 times in 30 seconds, then it can traverse it one time in 30/83 = 0.361 seconds. If we divide our distance of 26 inches by this time, we find that the car is traveling 72.068 inches per second. Making the conversion to miles per hour, we find that, on average, the car is traveling (drumroll, please)...




4.09 miles per hour.

Yeah, I know. It's a little underwhelming. I thought it would be faster! If your arms are longer and you're able to get the same number of "laps" (or more), it'll be a little bit faster, but not by much. 

But, we're not quite done. We've been looking at how fast a two-inch car can travel 26 inches; what if we scaled up the car and the distance up to real-world values, but kept the time the same? Or, in other words: if there were a little tiny man sitting in the cars we were driving back and forth, how fast would he think he was moving?

To find out, we multiply the distance of 26 inches by the factor that each car is scaled down by. It's different for each car; let's look at the BMW, which is at 1:57 scale. We multiply 26 inches by 57; that's 1484.78 inches. As before, we divide that by the BMW's time, which was 0.337 seconds. That's 4404.837 inches per second, or, in other words...




250.275 miles per hour!

The good folks at Quora tell me that a single engine plane like a Cessna flies at a speed somewhere around 130 miles per hour. Therefore, since your toy car is moving at nearly twice that speed (from it's perspective), it is completely logical and rational for you to pick it up off the ground and make it fly. We want to be scientifically rigorous, after all.


Thanks for the question! Have fun with your kids!

-Frère Rubik

P.S. For kicks, here's my scratch paper for this question, which contains all of the individual car times/speeds. If you're having trouble reading it and want to know the specific numbers, feel free to shoot me an email.

paper fixed.jpg

Question #90069 posted on 07/13/2017 6:13 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I found Lehi in the book of Judges! How many names in The Book of Mormon are unique only to The Book of Mormon?

-My Name Here


Dear you,

Abstract: 76.0-78.4% (160.5 ± 2.5 out of 208) of unique Book of Mormon toponyms and anthroponyms are not found in the Bible, not counting references to places and people also referenced in the Bible. Including individual instances of repeated names changes the ratio to 71.9-74.6% (205 ± 5 out of 280 ± 1). Uncertainty stems from ambiguity in differentiating individuals with identical names in similar time periods and doubt as to whether variations on names found in the Bible are Biblical or unique to the Book of Mormon.

Method: The researcher skimmed the entire text of the Book of Mormon in one afternoon, looking for capitalized words and determining, based on previous familiarity with the text, whether each toponym and anthroponym described a unique place or individual from those previously found. Each name was searched for in the Gospel Library app to determine whether it could be found in the Bible or not. Names for people and places referenced in the Bible (i.e. Moses, Abraham, Egypt, Babylon, Jesus Christ, etc.) as well as names of people not found in the Bible but supposedly contemporary to Old Testament prophets (Zenos, Zenock, and Ezias) were not included. Additionally, Gazelem was not included in the analysis, as it seems to refer to Joseph Smith and not any person in the Book of Mormon.

Results and Discussion:

45 unique names describing 71-73 people and places in the Book of Mormon are also found in the Bible. The complete list can be found in Appendix A of this document. The uncertainty stems from the names Lehi and Aaron, both of which could describe three or four different people, because the people named were alive around the same time. Some believe that Lehi, son of Zoram, named in Alma 16:5, is the same as the captain of the Nephite armies during the Amalickiah/Ammoron war. Additionally, the possibility exists that the Aaron mentioned in Moroni 9:17 is the king of the Lamanites mentioned in Mormon 2:9.

158 different names describe 202 different people and places in the Book of Mormon that are not also found in the Bible. The complete list can be found in Appendix B. The most common names in this group are Nephi and Laban, each of which belong to four people and one city/land. Over the course of the Book of Mormon, the frequency of Biblical names decreased. That is, the further into the Book of Mormon one goes, the more likely a name is to not be found in the Bible. This is to be expected, as the Nephite language evolved and grew further from the Hebrew spoken by the Jews over the centuries. 

Five names belonging to six people and places (Appendix C) were questionable as to whether they were Biblical or not. Those names were Isabel, Jershon, Josh, Sam, and Sidom. The name Isabel is not found in the Bible, but the origin of the Romance-language group of names (Isabella, Isabelle, etc.) is the same Hebrew word translated to English as Elizabeth. Jershon, the land where the Nephites let the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi (and later the Zoramites) live, is very similar to the name of Moses' son, Gershom. The name Gershom appears to mean a sojourner there, which is fitting for a place of temporary respite for refugees until they are able to move on. Josh and Sam both appear to be shorter versions of the Biblical names Joshua and Samuel. Finally, Sidom is very similar to the name of the river Sidon. There is evidence that the -om and -on endings in Nephite/Jaredite names are somewhat interchangeable. The strongest case for this is Shiblon/Shiblom from the book of Ether. When Moroni puts forth the genealogy of Ether, his name is recorded as Shiblon in Ether 1:11-12. However, in Ether 11, his name is repeatedly written as Shiblom. For this reason, it's impossible to know if the name of the land of Sidom was the same as the name of the city of Sidon, or if the Nephites distinguished those names.

Conclusion: Only about one out of every four names in the Book of Mormon is also found in the Bible. As expected, names found later in the Book of Mormon are less likely to be found in the Bible as well.

-The Entomophagist

Appendix A: Names found in both the Book of Mormon and the Bible

  • Aaron (three or four people and a city/land)
  • Aminadab (one person)
  • Ammah (one person)
  • Ammon (two people)
  • Amos (two people)
  • Antipas (hill)
  • Benjamin (one person)
  • David (city/land)
  • Enos (one person)
  • Ephraim (hill)
  • Esrom (one person)
  • Gad (city/land)
  • Gideon (one person and a city/land)
  • Gilead (one person)
  • Gilgal (one person, a valley, and a city/land)
  • Helam (one person and a city/land)
  • Helem (one person)
  • Heth (two people and a city/land)
  • Isaiah (one person)
  • Ishmael (two people and a city/land)
  • Jacob (three people and a city/land)
  • Jared (two people)
  • Jeremiah (one person)
  • Jerusalem (city/land)
  • Jonas (two people)
  • Jordan (city/land)
  • Joseph (one person)
  • Joshua (city/land)
  • Judea (city/land)
  • Kish (one person)
  • Laban (one person)
  • Lehi (three or four people and two city/lands)
  • Lemuel (one person)
  • Levi (one person)
  • Midian (city/land)
  • Nimrah (one person)
  • Nimrod (one person)
  • Noah (two people and a city/land)
  • Ramah (hill)
  • Samuel (one person)
  • Seth (one person)
  • Shem (one person and a city/land)
  • Sidon (river)
  • Timothy (one person)
  • Zedekiah (one person)
Appendix B: Names unique to the Book of Mormon
  • Abinadi (one person)
  • Abinadom (one person)
  • Abish (one person)
  • Ablom (place)
  • Agosh (plains)
  • Aha (one person)
  • Ahah (one person)
  • Akish (one person and a wilderness)
  • Alma (two people)
  • Amaleki (two people)
  • Amalickiah (one person)
  • Amaron (one person)
  • Amgid (one person)
  • Aminadi (one person)
  • Amlici (one person)
  • Ammaron (one person)
  • Ammonihah (city/land)
  • Ammoron (one person)
  • Amnigaddah (one person)
  • Amnihu (hill)
  • Amnor (one person)
  • Amoron (one person)
  • Amulek (one person)
  • Amulon (one person and a city/land)
  • Angola (city/land)
  • Ani-Anti (one person)
  • Anti-Nephi-Lehi (one person)
  • Antiomno (one person)
  • Antonium (one person and a city/land)
  • Antipus (one person)
  • Antum (city/land)
  • Archeantus (one person)
  • Cezoram (one person)
  • Chemish (one person)
  • Cohor (three people)
  • Com (two people)
  • Comnor (hill)
  • Corianton (one person)
  • Coriantor (one person)
  • Coriantum (two people)
  • Coriantumr (three people)
  • Corihor (two people and a city/land)
  • Corom (one person)
  • Cumeni (city/land)
  • Cumenihah (one person)
  • Cumorah (city/land and hill)
  • Emer (one person)
  • Emron (one person)
  • Ethem (one person)
  • Gadiandi (city/land)
  • Gadianton (one person)
  • Gadiomnah (city/land)
  • Gid (one person and a city/land)
  • Giddianhi (one person)
  • Giddonah (two people)
  • Gidgiddonah (one person)
  • Gidgiddoni (one person)
  • Gilgah (one person)
  • Gimgimno (city/land)
  • Hagoth (one person)
  • Hearthom (one person)
  • Helaman (three people)
  • Helorum (one person)
  • Hem (one person)
  • Hermounts (wilderness)
  • Himni (one person)
  • Jacobugath (city/land)
  • Jacom (one person)
  • Jarom (one person)
  • Jashon (city/land)
  • Jeneum (one person)
  • Kib (one person)
  • Kim (one person)
  • Kimnor (one person)
  • Kishkumen (one person and a city/land)
  • Korihor (one person)
  • Kumen (one person)
  • Kumenonhi (one person)
  • Lachoneus (two people)
  • Lamah (one person)
  • Laman (four people and a city/land)
  • Lamoni (one person)
  • Lehonti (one person)
  • Lib (two people)
  • Limhah (one person)
  • Limher (one person)
  • Limhi (one person)
  • Luram (one person)
  • Mahah (one person)
  • Manti (one person and a city/land)
  • Mathoni (one person)
  • Mathonihah (one person)
  • Melek (city/land)
  • Middoni (city/land)
  • Minon (city/land)
  • Mocum (city/land)
  • Moriancumer (place)
  • Morianton (two people and a city/land)
  • Moriantum (city/land)
  • Mormon (two people and the waters)
  • Moron (one person and a city/land)
  • Moroni (two people and a city/land)
  • Moronihah (two people and a city/land)
  • Mosiah (two people)
  • Mulek (one person and two city/lands)
  • Muloki (one person)
  • Nehor (one person and a city/land)
  • Nephi (at least four people and a city/land)
  • Nephihah (one person and a city/land)
  • Ogath (place)
  • Omer (one person)
  • Omner (one person and a city/land)
  • Omni (one person)
  • Onidah (hill and place)
  • Orihah (one person)
  • Paanchi (one person)
  • Pachus (one person)
  • Pacumeni (one person)
  • Pagag (one person)
  • Pahoran (two people)
  • Riplah (hill)
  • Riplakish (one person)
  • Ripliancum (waters)
  • Sariah (one person)
  • Seantum (one person)
  • Sebus (waters)
  • Seezoram (one person)
  • Shared (one person)
  • Shelem (mountain)
  • Shemlon (city/land)
  • Shemnon (one person)
  • Sherem (one person)
  • Sherrizah (tower)
  • Shez (two people)
  • Shiblom (one person)
  • Shiblom/Shiblon (one person)
  • Shiblon (one person)
  • Shilom (city/land)
  • Shim (hill)
  • Shimnilom (city/land)
  • Shiz (one person)
  • Shule (one person)
  • Shurr (valley)
  • Siron (city/land)
  • Teancum (one person and a city/land)
  • Teomner (one person)
  • Tubaloth (one person)
  • Zarahemla (one person and a city/land)
  • Zeezrom (one person and a city/land)
  • Zemnarihah (one person)
  • Zenephi (one person)
  • Zeniff (one person)
  • Zerahemnah (one person)
  • Zeram (one person)
  • Zerin (mountain)
  • Zoram (three people)
Appendix C: Names very similar to Biblical names but with different spelling
  • Isabel (one person)
  • Jershon (city/land)
  • Josh (one person and a city/land)
  • Sam (one person)
  • Sidom (city/land)
Question #89931 posted on 06/18/2017 11:50 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

One thing I noticed while attending BYU was how the number of times a girl gets asked out on dates correlates exponentially with physical attractiveness. One friend of mine has a very cute face and an hourglass figure. Men flock to her. Her whole time at BYU, she averaged three dates a week and had a least a dozen men actively pursuing her at a given time. I also had a moderately attractive female friend who averaged one date per month. Not a ton of action, but she did end up dating one of them seriously and last month they got married. Finally, I know another young lady who isn't that good-looking at all. She attended BYU for five years and never got asked out once. Of course, there are plenty of outliers to this phenomenon: being outgoing and flirtatious drastically increases a woman's chances of getting asked out too.

I recently described this phenomenon to a friend and fellow BYU alumna, and she said boys were too shallow. I told her that, to a great extent, physical beauty is a choice. Women can make themselves more appealing by getting in good shape, because being overweight or obese is a huge turn-off for men. She thought for a second, and told me "honestly...I think that's mostly just true for Mormon boys. I've dated non-members before and they never cared about a few extra pounds." I've since discussed this same topic with other female YSAs and they agree: LDS men have an undo fixation with physical fitness when it comes to dating in marriage.

Have any of you noticed this phenomenon? What do you think causes it?



Dear person,

When I was an undergrad, I went on one date a semester, although sometimes I went on two or three, maybe four. I am/was "overweight", but for a few years during an undergrad I had an eating disorder that made me thin. I dated much less when I was thin, a change which (so people told me) made me conventionally very attractive. Perhaps I would have dated more if I wasn't totally sick in the head. Who knows. As it turns out, I can't get into a "normal" weight range without doing things that require me to be mentally and physically very, very ill. This is likely due to the fact that I was quite obese until I left home, at which point I lost a lot of weight just by virtue of not having my family's habits anymore.

So, basically, next time you tell someone that "to a great extent, physical beauty is a choice" and that "women can make themselves more appealing by getting in good shape, because being overweight or obese is a huge turn-off for men," I hope you realize that you are talking about many things you don't understand.


PS - If you are a troll, and I think there is a good chance that you are, I regret spending all that emotional energy and vulnerability on feeding you. However, hopefully my answer is meaningful to other people out there who doesn't say insensitive things just to get a rise out of people.

Question #89906 posted on 06/16/2017 12:02 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I read this article today. (For readers who don't want to click on the link, it argues that members of the Church cannot be LGBTQ allies without supporting or condoning serious sexual sin.) What do you guys think about it?

I'm interested in your reactions generally, so feel free to talk about whatever you want to. But I'm asking in part because I feel like I'm sort of at a crossroads. I personally support the legalization of same-sex marriage; I even find myself hoping that the Church will someday embrace it the way it has embraced the extension of the priesthood to all races, although I know that's a fairly remote possibility. But at the same time part of me feels like this article has a good point, that I cannot hold such an opinion without directly contradicting God's will as revealed by Church leadership.

Is there a way around that?



Dear you,

Disclaimer: Not reading the article, though I think I've at least seen it before, if not actually read it.

How do you want to define "ally"? I mean, if we want to look at it from the standpoint of people who are really socially conservative, then they might say that the Church is "allied" with the LGBTQA movement because of things like this or this (and they might consider being an "ally" to be problematic.)  By contrast, others' definitions of "allyship" are going to vary drastically, and that's not something unique to this topic.  

For example: there are certain 'sects' of feminism who, because of my stance on abortion, would not consider me an ally to the cause of feminism (see also: things that frustrate Anne, Certainly). Similarly, an openness to consider certain restrictions on unlimited gun rights (e.g. concealed carry permitting requirements, background check requirements, etc.) can easily get one kicked out of the camp of "2nd Amendment defenders" by the definition of certain organizations or their members. A willingness to consider 'clean coal' as a viable part of the gradual transition to sustainable energy will to some mean that a person is not an ally of the environment.

So: Pray. Listen to actual counsel from the leaders of the Church, and limit as needed credence paid to the non-doctrinal and sometimes straight up wrong opinions of random people on the internet (and in real life). Consider how loving God and your neighbor should lead you to act towards a certain situation. Recall that a primary purpose of the Church is to help you become a person who can recognize and implement God's will in your life. Then do that stuff. Don't get too stressed about what people are going to label you, because people can get really unhelpful when it comes to determining who gets to use that label. While some labels may be self-defining, many aren't.

Good luck,

~Anne, Certainly

Question #89892 posted on 07/13/2017 10:50 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

When I ask people about what qualifies for someone to be mature, I receive answers that make me believe that maturity is a very subjective quality. What do you guys consider to be requirements for someone to be considered mature? Are there any aspects that you as a board could reach to a consensus on? Please share!

- Hello, my name is…


Dear Francisco,

You asked for a consensus, so I did a survey. 

I should note before we get into this that this was not a great survey. Which I can say because effective surveying is a big part of my major and I've taken some classes on how to create them. And then I threw all that out the window and made this. Anyway, it is what it is. 

Screen Shot 2017-06-20 at 5.45.59 PM.png

Some comments:

-The two bottom responses go along with general life experience listed above; I just didn't phrase things well in the prompt. That puts the top factors as (1) Failure, (2) Age, and (3) Life experience. 

I like how failure seemed to be the most agreed upon determining factor. I don't think it by itself constitutes someone to be mature, but if lessons are learned and taken in stride it certainly can. 

-One respondent added the category of social groups. This falls in line with that one quote that Dan Clark likes to say: "[W]e become the average of the five people we associate with the most." I think this is both true and not. It is more likely that we'll be/act more mature if our main social group is more mature, but I think the phrase puts too little weight on the inner processes and strength of the human psyche. It also seems to minimize the strength of independent thought. 

-Some options that received no votes were place in the family and relationship status. 

More results:

-Out of 10 responses, 3 writers felt they were mature, 1 above average for their age, and the rest were in the "Somewhat-Kinda-Ish" spectrum, including one "I consider myself as striving to be mature, but ultimately still lacking." 

-What made them mature: foresight, accountability and responsibility, taking in account multiple perspectives, independent thought, awareness. 

-Who/what is immature: certain political or academic leaders, impulsiveness, lack of understanding or appropriateness, lack of perspective, disrespectful, need for constant external stimulation. 

-I particularly liked these responses in answer to "What do you personally define as mature?"

  • Someone who will determine what needs to be done and take the steps needed to do it.
  • Wisdom from life experience, true empathy for many people, capability for independent thought
  • Personally I define it as being able to put yourself in the perspective of others and act with others in mind, not just yourself. Also being able to handle (more meaning effectively understand/cope with) your emotions and not let them control you.
  • The ability to control emotions appropriately, see the other side of an issue, and take a long-term view when considering a situation. And acting accordingly.

More comments:

The patterns I see from the responses are mainly self-acceptance and self-awareness, which then extends to acceptance and awareness of others. Self-acceptance is not to say complacency in oneself, but more an understanding what you're working with; not denying what or where you are in your current stage of life. Self-awareness is taking a more objective look at your personality, strengths, weaknesses, beliefs, motivations, etc., especially (but not always) in relation to the world around you. 

The ability to do these effectively seems to be directly influenced by self-control, and perhaps that's what we learn most in failure. I think when we fail, we can't have security in much else and we are able to control little else than ourselves; we're forced to figure out what that means and what we can do about it. 

In that sense, maturity seems to be having "the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference" (source). 

On the Board (and in life), yayfulness has been a really good example to me for maturity. He's always shown proper respect and sobriety for matters that needed it, but also enjoys quality humor. He's skeptical of others' claims and even sometimes of himself, and he understands that emotions don't need to rule or define us but can be used as tools. Of course, there are many other writers who have similar traits, but I've been noticing it a lot lately with yay and felt like he deserved a shoutout. 

I hope this helps answer your query. 

Take care,

-Auto Surf

posted on 07/14/2017 1:43 p.m.
I deleted my answer without Anathema noticing, so for completion's sake: I tend to associate maturity/immaturity with self-confidence, ergo a person with low self-confidence will likely be more desperate for the approval of those around them, and thus will act more immature. I didn't post it because further thought made me think that there were other factors at work and I didn't have the time to look into them.

Peace y'all,

-Frère Rubik
Question #89888 posted on 06/17/2017 12:02 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm trying to figure out when the statue of Brigham Young just in front of the Smoot building was built. Can you help me out?



Dear layseph,

Are you ready for an adventure? Okay then c'mon vamanos. 

I first turned to the trusty internet. This Daily Universe article from 1999 explains:

"This statue was built by Mahonri Young, Brigham’s last grandchild to be born before he died in 1877. He is cast in bronze and stands seven and a half feet tall and weighs 1,300 pounds as he keeps his watch on a four foot square block that weighs 7,000 pounds. (Holy cow)

The Brigham Young statue was originally designed for “This is the Place Monument.” It had Brigham Young and both of his counselors standing in front with Young’s arm resting on the shoulder of one of his counselors. His hand was changed for the statue standing on the south side of the Abraham O. Smoot Administration Building."

(parenthetical phrases added)

So it's good. But it does not say when it was built. I had to keep going.

Deeper in the internet, the artist's Wikipedia page says he was commissioned for "This is the Place Monument" in 1939, so we can safely say it was done between then and 1957 when Mahonri Young died. The Wikipedia page for "This is the Place" says it was dedicated in 1947, so we've taken the window from 18 years to 8, but that's still a pretty big window. Unacceptable.

At this point I figured I should check out what I could find on campus. Maybe it had a plaque that you missed? 

Nope. The plaque just had the birth and death dates of Brigham and Mahonri Young, which I already knew from the internet. Drats. 

But I was already on campus so I figured I might as well use the resources that were there. Maybe the Smoot building would hold the key. I only knew that OneStop exists there, and I didn't have a lot of hope for them knowing the statue's history, but maybe they would know someone who knows. 

"Alright, I've got a good question for you," I told Spencer, the desk attendant. As I explained the predicament, he soon came to agree that it was indeed a good question. He knew the Smoot building was built in 1961 so he thought it might have been done then, but I pointed out that the sculptor died in 1957, so the timeline didn't fit. (You may see the flaw in logic here, but we'll get to that in a moment.) Spencer looked around on his computer, but when the internet failed him, too, he made a call to his supervisor. 

"Hey [supervisor]," he said. "I've got the most wonderful question for you." (I appreciated that.) The supervisor didn't know either, but he recommended the Wilk Info Desk. I had less faith in them (no offense Wilk Info Desk. It's just an obscure question. It's not you, it's me.) But I was willing to do what it took to get your answer, so off I went. 

No sooner had I stepped past the very statue did Spencer, the realest of MVPs, came running out to tell me he had found the answer. Not only that, but he had been right all along. I followed him back inside where he showed me this 2014 Daily Universe article,

"Brigham Young’s grandson, Mahonri Young, sculpted this statue as a monument in Salt Lake City. The statue was recreated and added to BYU’s campus on Homecoming Week in 1961."

Freaking 1961. Of course. Because why would they put a statue in front of a building that wasn't built yet? Right? Right. So, 1961. Thanks again, Spencer. 

Also, happy late birthday, friend 

bagg the head.jpg 
(The face is my creation but I must admit I stole the bag from Frere Rubik.)

Take care,

-Auto Surf 

Question #89835 posted on 01/14/2018 12:09 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Is Auto Surf's prodigious coolness a product of nature or nurture? My own thought is that mere biology is wholly insufficient to explain such beatific wisdom distilling upon the masses, and that writing for the Board itself has made Auto Surf so bodacious. However, I seek the opinions of the omniscient. Enlighten me, O demigods of discourse! Alliterate to alleviate my consuming curiosity!

-One-Winged Angle


Dear L'angle,

Yo, I'm sorry this has taken so long. But fear not, this will be one of my last answers so it won't happen again. And in an effort to get this to you quicker, I'll leave most of my draft that I started forever ago. Here goes!

OKAY BUT WAIT I KNOW YOU. You make me blush and have me think I'm cool but you cheat because I know you so it's different. I would say if you think I'm cool you should say it [to my face], but you've learned by now that I'm not very good at responding to texts or actually making plans to do things, so I guess this is fair. 

Anyway, this works because I've been meaning to say things that didn't really fit in other questions, and now I don't have to ask my own question to say it. 

There were some questions a while ago that asked about what we liked/appreciated about other writers and I regret not writing stuff then. Subsequently, I had this grandiose plan to write about every single writer that has ever written on the Board, but 1) that's hard to track down given certain workings of the early Board, and 2) as this question is already overdue by a couple hundred hours, I apparently don't have time/ability to do all that. But there are a few that stand out, and then I'll speak of the Board generally. 

-A huge thanks to Rocky B, who introduced me to the Board many years ago, and has been great role model ever since.

-Ms. O'Malley really got me hooked with Board Question #75766. I had read it off and on after being introduced, but I remember reading her answer and just thinking something like, "That's it. This Board is a good thing and one day I want to write something this awesome and absurd." It's also been fun to follow her international and educational adventures on Facebook. 

-In another life, I would want to be Brutus and have his sign-off. It was funny, but also an effective way to remind people that we're all just people trying our best. I really appreciate stuff like that. 

-Azriel lets me follow her on social media and her son makes me smile all the time. Thank you thank you, and thank you to all the other alumni that let me see all the cool things they do post-Board life. You are consistently the best parts of my social media feeds. 

-The Black Sheep has helped me so much in learning about empathy and self-care. I have mad respect for her. 

-As part of their religious tradition, Sikhs will carry a small sword (kirpan) to protect the defenseless. I'm still learning more about this practice, but when I learned about it initially I struck that some writers use/used their mighty pen as a sort of literary sword to stand in defense of those being slighted or misunderstood. Zed and Luciana especially come to mind for that. And maybe that's a weird thing to say, but they're honestly some of the best people I know and they're amazing at providing perspective when I need it. 

-Thanks Heidi Book, Sheebs, and Anne Certainly for letting me sneak into a friendship with you even though I'm often young and dumb and you are all such huge role models for me. Thanks for seeing me as I can be and not just as my rambly self. 

-April Ludgate was one of the writers that I never got to know but I wish I had. She was fantastic, and if you browse through the Editor's Choice page I'm sure you'll agree. Maybe one day I will be as funny and articulate as her. 

-In high school there was this girl, Kelsea, who always took really cool photos anywhere she went. I was really impressed/jealous, and then one day I realized that if I wanted fun and cool pictures of things, I better do other things that sit in my room all day. I also needed to be able to see what was beautiful in the ordinary so that I would know what was even worthy of a photo. Some of the great story tellers on the Board — Ardilla, Humble Master, Dragon Lady, yayfulness (just to name a few) — helped me realize the same thing about life in general, and then about how to write it down. Thank you for being masters of your trade. 

-Vienna is the best. She's kind and caring and hilarious. It was one of her answers to an emotional dilemma that made me realize answers could get Editor's Choice even if they weren't experiments, so I tried to put the same effort into my answers that she did. She also knows how to live right

-Anathema saved me this summer and I know she's going to make a great ACME-ist/economist/supreme ruler one day. 

-Thanks to The Lone Musketeer for putting up with my oddities, being wonderful, and sharing good podcasts. I appreciate you a lot. 

-Frere Rubik, my first friend and not my enemy except when it comes to matters of food. Thanks for having my back all this time, and being generally awesome at all-thing-Board and otherwise. 

-Katya was always stellar in my eyes, and as I've gotten to know her lately, she continues to be. 

-Van Goff is someone who I likely wouldn't have met without the Board, but I'm so glad I did. I don't even know how to articulate all the reasons, but if you ever need to feel cared for, he's your guy. 

-Tipperary, I'm glad I lasted over 17,500 hours so that we could sort of write at the same time. Let's keep hanging out and practicing Spanish and being generally an awesome, zany team. 

-Sherpa Dave is way cooler than I originally gave him credit for, though just as funny as you might think. He also kind of saved me this past semester and I still don't know how to say how much I appreciated that. 

-yayfulness set one of the best examples for me on taking a new perspective. It wasn't until he retired that I realized how many of his answers I held dear, or that I used to understand the world. 

There are so many other writers that I don't have time to mention, and I've felt so honored and blessed to work with them in some way or another. I know that sounds cheesy, but it's true. Recently I went through a really lonely time (which included a break up and dealing with some tough roommates), and was wondering how I had made friends in the past; I realized that when I joined the Board, I just immediately grafted all the writers into my friend group. They made my college experience—and my life—so much better. In these past two+ years, I went through some of lowest and most confusing times of life (including a drug-induced manic phase months ago that I'm still working to not be embarrassed by), and I don't know if I would have made it through without the connections, friendships, and outlet the Board gave me. 

Looking back, I probably shouldn't have shared so much in so many of my answers. I definitely should have been more consistent at writing. I wish I would have gotten to know more of the new writers. There's a lot I could or should have done differently, but I'm okay with it at this point. I know I did some good, and that's enough. I feel blessed to have been a part of this weird and wonderful corner of internet. 

Finally, I wish this answer, being my last, was better, but thanks for letting me take some time to thank some of the best people I know. It's been real, everybody. 

Take care,

-Auto Surf

Question #89821 posted on 07/11/2017 12:38 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I know that the Church gives little guidance on what jobs to have, but which jobs do y'all think are the most in line with the gospel? I've thought that some might be FBI (their core values, justice, service), medical professions (healing, helping people), diplomacy (seeking peaceful solutions, bridging differences), psychology (healing minds, service), etc. What are some more and any thoughts on my list?



Dear Achoo,

Following is a list of majors offered at BYU (slightly edited for clarity--for example, I lumped all teaching majors under "education," and all foreign languages under "foreign languages"), and how they're in line with the gospel. Majors often translate to jobs, and I firmly believe that every job can be perfectly in line with the gospel, as long as it's not something like running an organized crime syndicate or being an assassin.

Also, remember that literally an job can be used to serve others, and service is very much in line with the gospel, so I think it's less about the job itself and more about what we choose to do with it that makes them in line with the gospel.

Plus any and all intelligence is of God, so anybody who does something that helps them gain intelligence brings them closer to God, something that seems very in line with gospel principles. 

Plus if people are doing things that make them happy, that's part of the Gospel plan, too--we are that we might have joy, after all.

But, without further ado, my list:

  • Accounting: Helping people/businesses keep their finances honest and above-board. 
  • Acting: Providing wholesome entertainment, which, according to "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," we should be seeking.
  • Actuarial science: Making sense of something that seems chaotic--bringing order and sense to a tumultuous world.
  • American studies: If we believe 1 Nephi 13, God cares deeply about the finding, founding, and fate of America, so shouldn't we?
  • Ancient Near Eastern Studies (Greek New Testament and Hebrew Bible): Okay, this one is literally about studying the Bible and understanding it better.
  • Animation: Satan cares a lot about the media we consume, and uses it to help distract and deviate people from the gospel path. Therefore, having more people who want to create media that can be wholesome and uplifting is so important.
  • Anthropology: Learning more about all of God's children, developing greater empathy and love for them.
  • Art: Creating beauty. And if there's one thing I get from looking at the world, it's that God values beauty.
  • Art history and curatorial studies: Preserving beauty. What good are the works of beauty that others make if nobody has access to them?
  • Asian studies: Okay, we just established that God cares a lot about America. But we also know He's no respecter of persons and loves all his children equally. Thus, if we want to become like God it follows that we need to love everyone equally. And how can you love someone if you don't understand their culture?
  • Athletic training: Helping people reach their full potential. Helping people take care of their bodies. And, y'know, our bodies are what separate us from Satan, and according to the Word of Wisdom God cares about us taking care of them.
  • Biochemistry: Understanding better how living organisms work, giving us greater appreciation for God's work and preparing us to create worlds of our own one day.
  • Biodiversity and conservation: Helping to preserve the world that God made.
  • Bioinformatics: This one has huge implications for research that can help lead to important medicines, as well as allowing us to understand more about the human race.
  • Biology: Learning about God's creations and understanding better how they work, preparing us to one day be gods.
  • Biophysics: Directly applying laws that govern creation to the living world helps us see the hand of God.
  • Chemical engineering: From what I understand about chemical engineering, it has very real, very pertinent, applications for helping the entire human race (medicine and oil are two things that I can think of that chemical engineering has a direct hand in, and both of those help us a lot).
  • Chemistry: Giving people the knowledge necessary to create incredibly useful things like new medicines or drugs.
  • Civil engineering: Creating public spaces that make people's lives easier, creating an environment in which people can feel the Spirit.
  • Classical studies: Helping us understand our own culture, which is the context in which we live the gospel.
  • Communication disorders: Helping people be heard, helping people change their lives.
  • Communications: We live in a social world. Without the ability to communicate effectively (on a personal level, but also on a more widespread, corporate level), society would fall apart.
  • Comparative literature: Understanding the world and human nature better through the use of literature.
  • Computer engineering: Creating computers that can benefit the entire world.
  • Computer science: Using technology to help others, creating things that allow pretty much every other field to function, helping the Church advance its technological goals.
  • Construction and facilities management: Organizing important projects that need to be done for the good of society.
  • Dance: Creating beauty, providing a creative and therapeutic outlet.
  • Design: Creating beauty, helping us make the most of what we have.
  • Dietetics: Taking care of our bodies.
  • Economics: Helping people allocate resources. Very few other jobs would be of any good to us as a society if we didn't have economics because we wouldn't be able to efficiently access them.
  • Education: Helping mold the younger generation, providing role models/cheerleaders for people who may be struggling, disseminating intelligence (which is the glory of God [D&C 93:36]).
  • Electrical engineering: Using technology to help others, creating things that have immediate benefits for others.
  • English: Communicating more effectively with others.
  • Environmental science: Taking care of God's creations.
  • European studies: Understanding God's children and their cultures better.
  • Exercise and wellness: Taking care of our God-given bodies, helping us reach our full physical potential.
  • Exercise science: Again, helping people take care of their bodies, as well as understanding how they work, thus allowing us to get closer to God.
  • Family history: This one seems obvious, given the emphasis the Church places on family history.
  • Family life: Families are central to God's plan. Isn't this one obvious, too?
  • Finance: Learning management skills that prepare us to become like God, learning to budget and be self-reliant in order to be in a better position to help others.
  • Food science: Using food in creative new ways so that more people have access to proper nutrition.
  • Foreign languages: Developing a greater ability to communicate with and understand God's children, learning how to cross cultural barriers, preparing for a mission.
  • French studies: Understanding more of God's children through better understanding their culture.
  • Genetics, Genomics & Biotechnology: Helping others with medical problems in a myriad of ways.
  • Geography: Gaining a greater appreciation for the earth and its peoples, learning how to connect better with others because you understand their culture better.
  • Geology: Understanding how the earth works, which better prepares us to be gods one day.
  • German studies: Getting to know God's children and their cultures better.
  • Graphic design: Creating beauty, using it to promote good things.
  • History: Understanding where we come from so we know better how to move forward and improve in our quest to become gods. And as we learn from Helaman 5, remembering is one of the most important things we can do in the gospel.
  • Illustration: Expressing creative feelings (and creating is one of the defining hallmarks of God).
  • Industrial design: Creating useful products that improve people's standard of living.
  • Information systems: Disseminating information to help other people and make their jobs easier.
  • Information technology: Assisting people who need help, improving the way things are done.
  • Interdisciplinary humanities: Becoming well-rounded in a variety of subjects, thus preparing oneself to become more like God. Understanding people better so that you're more able to help them.
  • International relations: Helping smooth relationships between countries, doing things that will help lead to peace and prosperity across the globe.
  • Italian studies: Understanding a different culture better so we can better understand ourselves and other children of God.
  • Landscape management: Helping public spaces look beautiful, utilizing resources well (thus teaching resourcefulness and gratitude for what we have).
  • Latin American studies: Understanding more of God's children and their cultures, which is in and of itself a worthy pursuit.
  • Law (grad program): Pursuing justice, upholding public values, helping people achieve their legal goals.
  • Linguistics: Understanding languages to better understand scriptures, and also to better understand other children of God.
  • Management: Developing leadership skills (essential for gods-in-training), learning how to help and motivate others.
  • Manufacturing engineering technology: Creating products that others need, learning cooperation across a variety of disciplines (which helps people learn to cooperate in real life, something that we desperately need in order to have peace and harmony in the world).
  • Mathematics: Giving us the building blocks of creation, developing clarity of thinking and establishing truth, learning the language of the building blocks of the universe.
  • Mechanical engineering: Creating products to fill important needs. Helping people develop the skill of seeing a need and filling it. Developing a sense of independently developed work.
  • Media arts studies: Developing analytical skills, working to create beauty.
  • Medical laboratory science: Researching to help improve and develop new medicines for the benefit of mankind.
  • Microbiology: Learning about God's creations and how they work, gaining a greater appreciation for the world around us.
  • Molecular biology: Understanding the building blocks of creation to help prepare us to be gods.
  • Music: Creating beauty, learning to understand and appreciate the genius of others, being able to greater appreciate our God-given senses.
  • Music dance theater: Bringing happiness to others, developing talents, providing wholesome entertainment.
  • Neuroscience: Advancing our understanding of the human brain--this leads to greater understanding of ourselves, helping us understand better who we are and how we work, greater understanding of others, and also the ability to help heal brains.
  • Nursing: Taking care of sick people, helping heal others.
  • Nutritional science: Helping us take care of our bodies.
  • Philosophy: Increasing our humility, curiosity, and awe, as well as allowing us to learn more about ways to approach God/ethics/life. This allows us to cling to the good in our Church, while celebrating truth and goodness wherever else we find it.
  • Photography: Helping people document important moments in their lives, capturing beautiful moments in God's creations, developing a sense of creativity and an appreciation for beauty in all its forms.
  • Physics: Searching for truth (God is all about truth), helping us understand the laws governing all of creation.
  • Physiology and developmental biology: Understanding how our bodies function, giving us greater appreciation for God's work and also allowing us to develop better remedies and cures for specific maladies.
  • Political science: Understanding the government better so we can be better citizens.
  • Portuguese studies: Understanding God's children and their cultures better.
  • Psychology: Healing people's brains, helping them find peace.
  • Public health: Helping take care of the public, healing.
  • Recreation management: Providing wholesome recreational activities, helping bring people together and bond over recreational activities.
  • Sociology: Understanding what makes people and cultures tick so that we can be more empathetic and loving of others and where they come from.
  • Spanish studies: Understanding God's children and their cultures better.
  • Statistics: Interpreting seemingly chaotic numbers to help make sense of the world in a new way.
  • Theatre arts studies: Learning to appreciate the talents of others and find and appreciate beauty wherever it may be.
  • Wildlife and wildlands conservation: Um, hello, preserving God's creations.
Whew, that was a long list. Even if you didn't read it all, the point is, anything you do with the intent to serve others and draw closer to God can help serve others and draw you closer to God. The Puritans believed that everybody had a "Christian calling," or a specific vocation they were meant to fill, and that no matter what it was, they could use it to glorify God. Be they preachers or streetsweepers, midwives or cobblers, they all did their specific job with the intent to glorify God. The Puritans often get a bad rap, with people only associating them with religious fanaticism and the Salem witch trials, but this is a part of their religion that I find truly beautiful and supremely applicable. Whatever job someone chooses can be their "Christian calling" if they approach it with the right mindset and intent.
If you want more LDS theology backing this up, and not just Puritan ideals, D&C 93:53 exhorts us "to obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion." Not just a knowledge of the scriptures, but of absolutely everything we can, so we can use it "for the salvation of Zion." From that I infer that we can help advance the cause of Zion in a myriad of ways, even if those ways may not seem immediately apparent.
It sounds like you have a good heart, and want to pick a job that truly is in line with the gospel. The thing is, they all are, and the Church isn't going to specify any career path as being "more righteous" than another, because righteousness and gospel principles have much more to do with individuals than they do with entire jobs. Just be a good person, and things will work out.
In closing, I leave you with this quote from Martin Luther King, Jr: "No work is insignificant. All labor that uplifts humanity and has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with the painstaking excellence."
Question #89813 posted on 06/02/2017 11:38 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

My roommate said that he has calf muscles of a stallion, but I didn't think that horses had calf muscles. When I tried to research it, I got very confused at the not only whether horses have muscles between their "knee joint" and their hoof, but also what is defined as a "calf muscle" (and then I wondered if "calf muscle" has any reference to baby cows). Please help!

-Anatomically Addled


Dear person,

The skeletal and muscular systems of horses are pretty different from us, although they are analogues. They have (pretty much) all the same bones, but they are shaped differently. 

The lower leg of humans are made from the tibia and fibula, and the calf muscles are gastrocnemius, soleus, and plantaris. 

Here is what the back leg off a horse looks like (these bones are pictured as if the horse is facing to the left):

 hindleg of horse with box.JPG

The box surrounds the horse's "gaskin", which is analogous to the human calf (both are formed by the tibia and fibula). The teeny tiny bones below that are the tarsals, which is analogous to the human ankle (the "knee joint" you are probably thinking about, which is called the "hock"). Below that are the metatarsals, which are analogous to the human foot bones. Below that are the phalanges, which are analogous to human toes. 

From what I can tell from this handy dandy Wikipedia article and from puttering around the internet, there are no muscles below the tarsals - only tendons. It seems that the muscle bodies are in the gaskin and the tendons extend below and attach to the bones, which is how horses can move their lower legs - all of the force is coming from above the hock.


Question #89799 posted on 05/31/2017 11:57 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Not sure how well you'll be able to help with this, but it is worth a try. I have a tomato cultivar I am planting in my garden this summer that is native to Italy (Costoluto Genovese) how best should I adapt my care of this plant for Utah's desert. More water? More shade? Different soil nutrients? It is alive so far, but seems rather limp and I'm worried that it is not thriving. Any advice you, or resources you have, could offer on caring for a plant that is in a very different environment than its native habitat would be appreciated!

-My Sort-Of Green Thumb


Dear Green Thumb (Sort-Of),

That sounds so awesome! When I was a kid, my family would grow tomatoes during the summer and they were wonderful. This was in Southern Utah, so I understand your problem in some ways. Our plants definitely struggled to grow in the desert environment. Keep in mind, though, that I'm not exactly a gardening expert and that you should possibly couple this advice with your own research.

Utah's climate is very different from Italy. Most gardening resources suggest considering a tomato variety more accustomed to the heat, but in this case, your best bet is to adapt the environment around the tomatoes rather than re-plant. The suggested temperature to raise Costoluto Genovese tomatoes in is around 60F, which is about 20 degrees lower than the current temperature in Utah. This could be part of the reason your tomato plant is limp. More shade could be a good idea if you can find a spot with lots of shade in the afternoon.

For tomatoes in especially hot weather, it's a good idea to make sure they get lots of sun in the morning but shade through the afternoon. If you do not have a place in your garden with natural shade, artificially construct it. If you create a shaded structure that's open to the east, your tomatoes will get sun in the morning and shade in the afternoon. Construct a frame around the tomatoes, then drape a shade cloth (found at gardening centers) over the frame. Many resources suggest a "50 percent" shade cloth, which will reduce heat by that percentage.

Some resources also suggest adding a mulch layer (2-3 inches) around your tomatoes to keep the soil damp. You can buy bagged mulch or create your own. Stick your finger into the soil around the tomatoes to assess wetness. If the soil is dry, your tomato isn't getting enough water. Keeping the soil moist constantly can prevent limpness, so be sure to water your plants daily or even twice daily depending on how hot it is outside. Also, avoid over-fertilizing your tomatoes on especially hot days (over 85F for most tomatoes, but maybe 75-80F for Costoluto Genovese tomatoes), because this can overstress the plant.

Good luck! I hope your tomatoes turn out okay. Let us know if you have more questions.

-Van Goff

Question #89767 posted on 05/28/2017 2:20 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What does flirting mean to you? I've always been pretty flirtatious and flirting is really casual to me. I won't flirt with someone if there's absolutely no interest, but that interest might just be in having another conversation after which the interest is gone. I sometimes worry that people are taking my flirting in the wrong way but there's no way short of asking to find out if someone thinks I want to date them. I think honesty in dating is really important so how do you be honest with such a vague definition of what flirting looks like and what flirting means?

-Shameful flirt


Dear Flirt,

What does flirting mean to me? Well I'm really bad at it in practice, but in theory, flirting is showing that you're interested in someone more intensely than you would with any random person. Let me explain with some pictures I made.

In this first image, we have a graph of intensity versus time. This is an example of how someone's interactions with people they aren't interested in might look. Therefore, the red line shows the maximum normal intensity of interest that should be interpreted as normal friendliness.


Now, suppose that this person is interested in someone. When they're around that person, we see the two tall peaks with green arrows next to them. That's flirting. You can tell because they treat that person differently than whatever other random people.


But what if there was a person whose Intensity/Time graph looked more like this?

too much flirting.png

If each of the peaks that exceeds the red line is a different person and some of the people whose peaks exceed the red line also sometimes don't, then the baseline isn't really there. It's more like this.

new baseline.png

But what if the person was actually trying to flirt with that one person with the tallest peak? Well, there's really no way for that person to tell that they're flirting, because they're not significantly more interesting than any other person. This is one potential downside to being overly casually flirtatious.


On the other hand, we usually don't see every interaction that another person has with perfect objectivity, so the opposite problem can happen as well. If the person related to the third peak in the graph above didn't see any of the other tall peaks, they might assume that they were being flirted with, when that isn't necessarily the case.

As far as knowing if someone thinks you want to date them, is that really the important question? I mean, it seems to me like it doesn't matter if they think you want to date them unless they also want to date you, and that's relatively easy to find out. If you're a guy, you ask a girl out a few times, and if says yes and reciprocates your flirting, then it's a pretty good bet that she's interested. If you're a girl, you give him plenty of opportunities to ask you out (or you ask him out yourself, that's totally fine too), and if he does then it's a pretty good bet that he's interested.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with casually flirting with people that you're interested in, as long as that flirting stops as soon as the interest is gone. And please, for the love of all that is good, if you're a girl and it takes a few dates for that interest to go away but he still asks you on another date, just tell him no. Don't just ignore him. That's just rude.

-The Entomophagist

Question #89749 posted on 05/23/2017 1:22 a.m.

Dear Frère Rubik,

Which people should go through which doors when entering/exiting the library in order to maximize efficiency?

– Larry Wayne


Dear Larry Wayne,

Well, who'da thunk it? Someone actually read my bio page!

For this question, we'll look at the ground floor of the library. Specifically, we'll look at the southwestern-most doors, since they're the ones I use the most to go from the library to the ESC when I'm going to class and therefore are the doors at which I experience most of my frustrations:


Now, when large groups of people walk down this hallway, they tend to move to the right hand side, creating two lanes of traffic, like so:


Why do we do this? It could be because we tend to drive on the right side of the road and so subconsciously we do the same thing when we're on foot. I found some articles about why different countries drive on the right side or the left, and this discussion about why people walk on the side of the sidewalk they do. It's interesting, but far from conclusive.

But anyway: in this situation, walking on the right side of the hall, which door should you exit out of? Would either of them be equally efficient? Let's take a look.

If the people exiting/entering the building choose the door that is on their right, the traffic flows like this:

good way.png

As you can see, this makes both the people in the blue lane and the people in the red lane happy, since they're all able to enter/exit the building in a smooth, continuous path without any interruptions. Sure, they show their happiness in different ways, but at the end of the day, what does it matter? Just because the blue people have their eyes and mouth wide open does not mean that we should give in to the temptation to label the red people as merely "content." Surely we can agree that, just as there are billions of people on this earth, there are also billions of ways to express our happiness.

Now, what would it look like if they tried the other door?

bad way.png

Now, we find that things have changed. The red people people are still happy; entering through the left door has done nothing to interrupt their walking path or their sense of inner contentment. The blue people, though, find themselves at a loss as to what they should do. While the steady stream of red people cuts them off from the door on the left, there are too many red people coming in the door on the right for the blues to exit there, either. They resign themselves to wait, hoping this interruption will turn out to be a minor one.


It isn't meant to be. The red people continue streaming in through the left door, blissfully unaware of the problem they're creating for the blues. And how could they be? They're busy people leading busy lives, and they've been caught up in the temporary euphoria of uninterrupted traffic flow. They see themselves; in some instances, they may also see their fellow reds and bask in the joy of communal movement towards a common goal. It is highly unlikely that they see the blues.

The blues' confusion has turned into frustration. Will there be no end to the line of reds streaming through the right door? Some may make an attempt to break through the line to the left door, but the reds unwittingly have created an impenetrable barrier with their joyful movement. The blues' frustration turns into desperation, and in some cases, anger. They didn't do anything to deserve this! In fact, they get angry at the fact that they're angry. This miserable mood isn't their fault at all! Why should they have to get frustrated and upset because of the ignorant mistakes of others? Confound it all, it's not fair, do you hear me? It's not fair!

And yet the reds continue to flow.


Eventually, the blues' anger reaches its boiling point. Future historians looking on the actions of this day will be filled with a sense of tragic pity. They, so far removed in time, can clearly see how this cause led to that effect and how the whole thing might have been avoided. If some people had perhaps been more thoughtful, and others had committed themselves beforehand to never do what would ultimately be done, then perhaps this day could have slipped unobtrusively in line with its fellows, completely normal and unremarkable. Sadly, this is not the case.

Pushed to the breaking point by their frustration and desperation to reach class on time, the blues will eventually move en masse, scattering like so many ball bearings from a discharged shotgun shell. Their random motion cuts off the red line, surprising them out of their felicitous reprieve. For a few agonizing moments, no one enters or exits the library at all. Slowly, the blues regain their sense of composure and make their way towards the doors. If some insightful red acts quickly enough, she will boldly direct her line toward the door on their right, allowing the blues a dignified exit through the other door and restoring a sense of order and balance to that small section of campus. Or, perhaps, too stunned to learn from past mistakes, she will remain in front of the door to her left. The blues, with no other option, will go through the other door, and the fortunes of red and blue will have been effectively reversed. Those blues at the front of the line will remember the tragedy and seek to warn those that come after them, but invariably the blues at the end of the line will not have paid attention and will fall into the same locomotive bliss as their red counterparts from before. The reds will wait outside, tensions building until the horrible cycle of events repeats itself once more, causing all those involved to lament the futility of time and history.


But there is a way to break this chain of sorrow. You can be the difference. You can be the change you want to see in the world. You can help everyone experience the joy of uninterrupted movement through open doors.

You can choose the right.

-Frère Rubik

Question #89723 posted on 05/28/2017 2:26 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I don't want to scare you, but I'd like to talk about horcruxes. I've got a few questions. First, how many can you really make, I've heard it's 7, well I guess 6, but is there anything really stopping me from going higher? Second, how exactly would my soul be divided? I mean, does it divide in half the first time I make one?
Because if it keeps dividing in half, and leaving the remaining half soul in a horcrux, then by the time I split my soul into its seventh part, I would only have 1/64th of a soul left in my body, while my first horcrux would have an entire half soul, that doesn't seem fair, does it?

-Tom Riddle


Dear Riddle,

As Sheebs demonstrated in her table, the fraction of your soul you get to keep gets exponentially smaller with every division. As she pointed out, with M being the number of horcruxes (or divisions) you make, you get to keep 1/2M of a soul. (Again refer to Sheebs' table to see this relationship.) Now the limit of this expression as M approaches infinity is 0. However, the funny thing about limits is that you don't have to actually arrive, and in the case of 1/2M, you don't. So if we just go off of the criteria that you need some soul in you to survive (no matter how infinitesimally small that soul is), and assume that the soul isn't composed of physical matter (per Ento's point below me) then you can technically continue making horcruxes ad infinitum.

But we don't live in a world with infinitely many people in it, so your next limiting factor is the number of people. Currently it's 7.3 billion. (Plugging that into our handy-dandy equation gives us that you would have approximately 4.4971x10-2197518969 of a soul left, but hey, that's still some soul!)

The next thing to consider is how much time it will take to kill all those people. I mean, technically your horcruxes grant you immortality, but my guess is that when you go on your killing spree, the survivors will be highly incentivized to stop you, so living forever isn't necessarily a given. So, because I can, I'm now going to go into approximately how long it would take for you to kill everyone in the world while making a horcrux with every killing.

Right off the bat, we can see this will take a bit longer than just Avada-Kedavra-ing everyone. "But wait," some reader says "didn't Voldemort manage to turn Harry into a horcrux without some extra spell?" Eh, Harry wasn't truly a Horcrux. Buried in the depths of this article is a quote by J.K. Rowling backing me up. Essentially, Harry wasn't cursed/evil like the other horcruxes because Voldemort didn't go through the proper process, though he was close to being a horcrux.

The books never specify the exact requisite spell for making a horcrux, but I think it's safe to say it's complicated. Let's assume this spell costs you 3.5 minutes of time (cause you get horrifically efficient at it). Actually killing people will go pretty quickly. Using the highly accurate and scientific method of muttering "avada kedavra" under my breath repeatedly (12 times to be exact) while in the library, and waving my finger like it's a wand, I came up with an average killing time of .671 seconds. You might get faster with experience, but my guess is that you won't be focusing on constantly speaking as fast as you possibly can, so I'm just going to say this value is constant over time. Another thing to add onto your murder time is resistance, and taking the time laugh in a high-pitched, evil manner (you know, adding that special personal touch). Note that I'm assuming you're taking the craftsman's approach here, and killing people individually. You probably don't need to laugh every time you murder (we don't want to go overboard here), so I'm going to suppose that you laugh for 1 out of every 5 killings, where each laugh has an average duration of 3 seconds. With an even distribution, let's factor in 5 seconds per person for resistance.

Without yet adding in travel/sleep/reveling in your evilness time, we have a rough total of 50,063 years for time needed to make a horcrux per every currently living person.

But if it's going to take you 50 thousand years to kill us all, how long before you actually get around to the general Board readership (i.e. the US)? Well, let's start looking at in your between murdering times, like traveling to your next victims.

Dividing the world into Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Oceania, and Antarctica, we conveniently have the population densities for each region here (which will be useful later on*). Let's say you commence your horcrux spree in Europe, successively moving on to Africa, South America, North America, Asia, Oceania, and finally Anarctica. Thanks to the ability to apparate, you can travel much faster than the average muggle, helping to cut back significantly in this department. However, apparating has its limits, so no big intercontinental apparition is allowed. Luckily for you, the shortest distance between Europe and Africa is only about 14 km, so is still within the range of apparating. Unfortunately for you, some other continents aren't so close, so you'll have to resort to brooms. 

I'm sure you'll have the best broom looting the now-empty shops can turn up, so you'll probably be able to fly at about 241 km an hour. As Africa and South America are 2575 km apart, that trip will take you 10.7 hours. North and South America are only separated by the isthmus of Panama, so again that will be within apparating bounds. If you leave from Alaska to Russia, there's only a distance of ~88 km (55 mi) and so you'll probably be able to apparate (though I'm not sure if a less adept wizard could). Asia and Oceania are separated by 7560 km, so that will cost 31.4 hours. Finally, the journey to Antarctica (to kill off those scientists) is 6,685 km, or 27.7 hours. 

For simplicity's sake, let's say you can kill everyone within a 10 meter radius before having to apparate to your next location, and that each apparition eats up 5 seconds. The following are your continent kill-times (using landmasses from here):

Europe: 5111.87 years (you have 1.265X10-2236954 of a soul left).

Africa: 8386.88 years (Alas, I was going to keep a running soul total, but Wolfram Alpha isn't working, and my graphing calculator ran out of batteries quite some time ago, so you all are just going to have to imagine the ever diminishing numbers to the side. Or, you know, plug the numbers into the formula yourself, but who would ever go to that trouble? That'd be crazy...)

South America: 2925.72 years (even less soul than before).

North America: 4009.19 years (imagine a super small number; the amount of soul you still have left is probably smaller).

Asia: 30492.36 years (repeat the imagining process, but now go even littler).

Oceania: 278.41 years (I mean, at this point probably even Dementors can't sense your poor, fragmented soul).

Antarctica: 20.97 years (hah, you can just refer to the above paragraphs to know how much soul there is left in your now very old and wizened body!).

This comes to a total of about 51,142 years, with 16,424 years before you arrive to North America. So, all you readers, just pass down this answer through the generations. Your 821st great grandchildren may be in trouble. 

Alternatively, opposed to killing the world population, I guess you could leave enough survivors in any one place who can continue having kids that could then be turned into horcruxes (again with enough survivors to produce a new generation). I think this might finally be getting into realm of that which is too morbid even for me, though.

~Anathema, who probably derived far too much morbid glee out of writing this answer

*Guess it didn't turn out to be important, but maybe you can do other cool things with that information

Question #89644 posted on 05/10/2017 11:45 a.m.

[Editor’s note: This question has been edited to remove references to specific political or doctrinal topics, in order to prevent writers from going on tangents about individual issues and to help readers focus on the core question being asked. Such topics may be addressed by submitting individual questions with a narrower focus. This question has also been broken up into multiple paragraphs.]

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I've been a fan of the board for many years. You guys have been amazing for so long. I've really been amazed at the wittiness, quality, research, and admiration I've seen from your responses. By and large your performance has been phenomenal. I've seen it go through different phases. I've read thousands of questions. I just graduated from BYU and have read thousands of responses since I was in High School.

I apologize ahead of time if this offends the writers. The board has never gone this far as it has this year. The first trend that's alarmed me is that everyone is going wayyyyyyy liberal. Old writers from 10 years ago would be shocked at some of your opinions. By and large we Mormons are very conservative people. I'm not saying that you should all be ultraconservative, I'm just remarking that it seems that every writer here is left of center. I just think it's unfortunate that there's little diversity of opinion when you don't have any staunch conservatives anymore. I just want to know if there is at least 1 staunch conservative on the board. Is there??? I'm not implying that liberal Mormons make bad Mormons. But I am alarmed that so many board writers don't even have testimonies.

I know that there is a disclaimer that says that this site doesn't necessarily reflect the views of BYU. But I'm starting to feel that the board is becoming a den of apostates. I feel like if a board writer couldn't attend BYU because of their behavior and beliefs, then they probably shouldn't be a writer on the board at all. Are your answers assisting students on their path to eternal life? Many board readers are fed up with the subversive views that are creeping on to the board. I think it would be somewhat appropriate if the board writers were actually BYU students who were living the honor code. Why are ex-mormons still writing on the board? Why can't this be a faith based, faith promoting forum? Why would anyone still write here if they no longer believed in Christ's teachings? I'm legitimately wondering. WHY??? There are new-order Mormon forums and plenty of apostate leaning blogs in the Blogernacle for exmormons. I have loved this board for so long. And I am BITTER that it's changed so much.

The LDS church is GOD'S true church! I know that. You probably think that I'm some naive small town Utard that's super uninformed/non-intellectual. Guess what, I've grappled with almost every faith issue you all are, or have been dealing with. I'm not ignorant. All I'm asking is, can we have a board where the writers care about their covenants? Can we have a board where faith in God and His Son are valued? Can we have a board where we can all accept that Joseph Smith really did see God and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God? Can we have a board where all of us are at least trying to get to the Celestial Kingdom?

Are there any of you board members who are just thinking some of the same things as me but are too afraid to admit where this board is heading? God loves all of you way more than I do. That's for sure. But I want you to know that I love and care about the board and that I'm heartbroken that collectively, it's going astray. So if you're some board member struggling with your testimony,can you promise to read the Book of Mormon every day for the next month? Can you promise to pray to God every night even if you may no longer believe that he's there? Can you try to make it to church this Sunday? So all I truly want to know is - can I pretty please have the board I love back?

Sword of Truth!

-My Name Here


Dear you,

Your question interested me, so I made a survey and had the current writers take it. It was anonymous, so I feel pretty sure that they answered honestly.

It should be noted that I have absolutely no experience in survey design or methodology. Also, I apologize in advance for the fact that the graphics are a bit blurry; I can't seem to fix that.

I'm pretty sure we have about 21 current writers, and the survey received 17 responses. This was a pretty good rate, since we have quite a few writers who are technically current, but haven't answered anything in months.

First, I asked some basic questions about Church activity and commandment-keeping:

In general, do you consider yourself active, somewhat active, somewhat less active, or less active?


What percentage of the time do you attend church?


When you attend church, which meetings do you attend (select all that apply)?


Which of the following best describes you?


Are you trying to get to the Celestial Kingdom?


These results pretty much speak for themselves. Current Board writers are overwhelmingly active, attending their meetings, and trying to get to the Celestial Kingdom. They are all keeping the Honor Code and/or living Church standards.

Next, I asked a few questions about the role that the Church played in their life:

With 0 being "do not value at all" and 10 being "value greatly," how would you describe role that faith in God and His Son plays in your life?


With 0 being "do not value at all" and 10 being "value greatly," how would you describe role that covenants play in your life?


Board writers overwhelmingly find that faith in God and Jesus Christ, and keeping covenants with them, plays an extremely valuable role in their life.

Then I asked some testimony questions:

Do you believe the Church is true?


Please respond with your beliefs about the following statements about Joseph Smith: Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ during the First Vision, Joseph Smith was a prophet, and Joseph Smith restored the original Church of Christ to the earth.


(I'd like to note here that the writer who answered "strongly disagree" also identified as active and answered "yes" to the "Do you believe the Church is true?" question. This leads me to suspect that they intended to respond with "strongly agree," and misread the answer options.)

Please respond with your beliefs about the following statements about the Book of Mormon: the Book of Mormon is doctrinally true, the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate record of an ancient people, and Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God.


(As with the Joseph Smith question, I'm pretty sure that the writer who responded with "strongly disagree" meant to respond "strongly agree".)

Assuming that my interpretations of the outlying answers are correct, Board writers overwhelmingly have firm testimonies of the basic tenets of the Restoration, with room for reasonable and normal questions or reservations that many active members have.

Next, I asked a few questions about where the writers fall politically, and how they believe politics intersects with the Church:

What is your political affiliation?


Please provide your opinions on the following statements about the intersection of the Church and politics: Church doctrine corresponds more closely to conservative politics, It is possible to be politically liberal and an active Mormon, I feel conflict between my political views and the doctrine of the Church, and I feel conflict between my political views and the culture of the Church.


These results show that the Board does skew liberal politically; about 2/3 of the Board writers identified as left of center. Part of me wonders if I should have provided an option to simply select "centrist," but I feel like if too many people selected that, there wouldn't be as much clarity.

The second graph shows that, in general, writers don't feel like there's much conflict between being a liberal Mormon and believing in the doctrines of the Church. It also shows that writers do feel that there is some conflict between Mormon culture and liberal political beliefs. The second graph also indicates that we have a writer who is pretty committed to a politically conservative approach to the Gospel.

Finally, I asked a few questions to gauge whether writers feel that liberal or conservative opinions are favored or discriminated against on the Board:

Please rate your opinion on the following statements about 100 Hour Board culture: there is little diversity of political opinion on the Board, there is little diversity of doctrinal opinion on the Board, the Board is more liberal than the average BYU population, liberal opinions are discouraged on the Board, and conservative opinions are discouraged on the Board.

board culture.png

Please rate how comfortable you feel expressing your opinions on the Board, with 0 being "extremely uncomfortable" and 10 being "extremely comfortable".


These results show that although the Board writers are aware of the fact that the Board writers are more liberal as a whole than the BYU population, they have pretty ambivalent feelings about whether this results in homogeneous opinions on political or doctrinal topics.

I found it interesting to compare the results of these two questions in regard to how welcome conservative and liberal opinions are on the Board. The first question would seem to indicate that writers feel that conservative opinions are slightly less welcome than liberal opinions. (Interestingly, one of the "somewhat agree" responses to that statement was by a writer who identified as "left" in the political affiliations question.) However, the second question indicates that Board writers felt ever so slightly more comfortable expressing conservative opinions, although the results are so evenly tied as to suggest that on average, writers feel equally comfortable.

I actually think these results make sense. Since the Board is currently two-thirds politically liberal, there is definitely going to be a peer pressure effect in terms of conservative vs. liberal opinions. I think the writers are pretty good at respecting each other, and it's kept to a minimum, but being the minority voice in a group is always going to feel a bit intimidating. On the other hand, since the Board is unofficially hosted by BYU, there's a sense that conservative opinions aren't going to upset the administration or reflect badly upon BYU, because BYU is overwhelmingly conservative. However, liberal opinions always run the risk of seeming too "out there" for a website that ends in .byu.edu.


The current Board writers are overwhelmingly active, testimony-holding, good members of the Church. The Board also is more liberal than the BYU population. This results in some inevitable skewing towards the left, but overall, the Board is happy to allow writers to express both conservative and liberal opinions, and the writers feel reasonably comfortable expressing themselves regardless of political affiliation. Writers acknowledge that liberal opinions are often at odds with church culture, but do not feel that they are incompatible with Church doctrine.

Personally, I would echo the Editors' suggestion to read for a little while and see if your perception was skewed by alumni week. If, after further reading of only the current writers' answers, you still feel that the Board is apostate, you might need to reëxamine whether you truly believe that one can be liberal and a good Mormon.

Thanks for the opportunity to do this survey, it was fun.


Question #89616 posted on 05/02/2017 11:34 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Will you get me Tucanos' mango fish recipe?

-I didn't realize it was so good


Dear inorite, 

Well, you're not really in luck, Tucanos has not published their recipes at all. I asked my uncle who works with Tucanos out of interest and he doesn't have the recipe. Even if he had the recipe, I probably wouldn't have posted it on a public site on the internet, because that kind of stuff gets you fired. I searched around on the internet and was surprised to find a veritable void in the copycat recipe scene as far as Tucanos goes. I was surprised that I couldn't even find one attempt at a recipe. So with full knowledge that I wouldn't get it right, I set out with minimal time, minimal money, and minimal knowledge of how to deep fry fish. So I proudly present:

Sherpa Dave's Kinda Not Really Tucanos Mango Fish Recipe Adventure


First off, I grabbed a mango at the store, then promptly remembered I hate cutting up mangoes. Let's not dwell on how I dispatched the mango, but let's just say I peeled it first.


This is my (first) attempt at the glaze:

3/4 cup vinegar

Heat over medium heat

Add 3/4 cup brown sugar, realize this isn't quite the type of glaze you were going for, add 1/4 cup more brown sugar in a last ditch effort to balance out the vinegar, 1/2 teaspoon minced ginger root, and the flesh of one mango. Heat to a boil over medium-high heat and allow to reduce for about, 10 minutes.

After that, allow to cool slightly, add 1 1/2 teaspoons lemon juice and then put it in a blender and puree until smooth.


Periodically pander to every whim of the excitable puppy who demands your attention every second.


This is a .5 lb cod fillet that I used for the fish. For the batter I ended up using a batter which has eggs in it, which I now realize is not the same as Tucanos, but it's what happened so. If I were to redo it, I would try a batter without eggs, and use cornstarch, cause it turned out we were out. Here's the batter that I ended up using in my recipe.


Mix 1 cup flour, 1 teaspoon baking powder, 1/4 cup cornmeal

Make a well in middle, add 1 cup of cold water mixed with one egg yolk. Mix until barely combined.

Fold in 2 egg whites that have been beaten to stiff peaks. Use this batter immediately.

Fry the fish in an oil with a high smoke point, like peanut oil. Make sure you maintain a temperature between 350 and 375 Fahrenheit, you can do this easily with a candy thermometer. Fry the fish until golden brown.


This is attempt numero uno. Not bad, really. My parents and siblings ate all of this up without having to be prompted, but I wanted to try another glaze. The first glaze was very reminiscent of orange chicken, which I enjoyed, but I didn't feel like it was really true to Tucanos form, so I moved on to glaze attempt number two! This time I used frozen mango.

1 cup water

3/4 cup brown sugar

1/2 teaspoon grated ginger

1 cup frozen mango

I boiled these in a pan for about 10 minutes, then added lemon juice and pureed as last time. However, this time I pureed the glaze for a much shorter time, so it was a bit chunkier (which I believe is how it is at Tucanos? I can't quite remember).


This is attempt number two. The second glaze was a lot sweeter, but didn't have quite as deep of a taste. I'm honestly not sure which one I preferred, but I'd probably have to go with the second one, just because it was closer to the Tucanos recipe.


Here's some of the finished product. Basically, the batter for the fish was too egg-y for the tucanos fish, but still worked out fine. I think the second glaze was kind of close to the Tucanos glaze, at least in consistency and general sweetness. I made an edible and delicious meal! I did not however get super close to the Tucanos recipe.


(Not included: Puppy constantly causing trouble and distracting me continuously.)

Keep it real,
Sherpa Dave

Question #89611 posted on 05/01/2017 11:44 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board alumni,

As Alumni Week 2017 comes to a close, any last words for the masses?

-the masses


Dear massive,

Message that old friend you've been randomly thinking about lately.

Really. Just do it right now.


Question #89545 posted on 04/29/2017 3:42 p.m.

Dear Man With A Mustache and 100 Hour Board,

Recently I was interested to read MwaM's comment on the comment board about pornography. As I understand it, he was arguing that a continuing pornography addiction should not prevent a couple from getting married. I admit I honestly have always thought that, barring personal revelation, it was not a good idea to marry someone with an ongoing pornography addiction.

I suppose I see it as similar to a drug addiction. I am very sympathetic to those with a drug or prescription medication addiction, and I realize that in some or many cases the addicted person may not really have a lot of control over being addicted right now. I know it's really difficult to kick a drug habit. But I wouldn't marry someone who still had a drug addiction and was using drugs.

So, MwaM, why is pornography different? Ubiquity? Not a serious sin? And to MwaM and other writers: is there a line you would set when dating in terms of pornography addiction? At what point would it probably be a deal breaker for you? Why?

-trying to be a good person


Dear trying,

I don't deny that there are aspects of human behavior that should be major red flags. No matter how much you love someone, for example, abusive behavior is a major red flag. Drug addiction is a major red flag. So are pornography use, degree of honesty, degree of commitment to the Church, willingness to make sacrifices, eating behaviors, gender identity, sexual orientation, political views, money spending behaviors, gender role perceptions, career ambitions, native language barriers, degree of desire for children, and parenting style. I'm not saying they are all equal; in fact, they are not. Some are preferences whereas others are morally wrong. But, frankly, anything can be a deal breaker. Marrying a person is an inherently risky behavior because you're tying yourself to another person's qualities and their imperfections without reservation. You don't get to only experience the positive attributes of a person, and every single person has a set of weaknesses.

So, why is pornography different? Well, it isn't. It's just one of a list of things that a person has to decide to accept about me or not. It's totally cool with me if you decide that you can't handle dealing with porn addiction in your marriage. You are completely free to make that choice and I do not think that it makes you a terrible person or anything like that. Porn addiction is painful for everyone involved. It's hard for my wife for a variety of reasons that I'm sure you can imagine. It's hard for me to try so hard and relapse again, to feel like I could be a much better husband and father but to continually find myself in more or less the same place despite my efforts. It will be hard on my children when they find out (as, I fear, they inevitably will). It will be hard on me when I know they know and when it colors their perception of me. I fully recognize that recovery is my responsibility and I do what I can to work through it. But, frankly, I don't at this moment believe that I will ever be totally rid of it in this life.

So, I guess I could turn the question back around. Why is pornography different? Why should I be denied a chance at a happy life with a family that I build because I struggle with one aspect of the gospel while I simultaneously succeed at so many others? Where so many other imperfections can be just things to improve upon, does it seem right that there should be some rule that all people with an active pornography addiction should be unable to further relationships toward marriage? It seems better to me that each person gets to choose to accept the imperfections of another person based on their ability to cope with whatever they've got. My wife didn't pick me because I was working toward recovery when we met. She knew that about me, certainly, but her choice to marry me was made in spite and not because of my struggles. She took a risk, feeling that whatever strengths she perceived in me were more important than the struggles I have.

Was she right? I'm honestly not sure. I'm positive there have been times in our marriage when she has contemplated her decision and regretted it. She does not have an easy lot. As much as she knew about my problems, she couldn't have predicted the strength of her emotions surrounding my pornography addiction and how it makes her feel. We've had some long nights with lots of pain and heartbreak on both sides. I suppose we'll only know if it's worth it later on, at the end of our life, when we can look back on it all and see what became of what we did. For now though, we are both doing our best to raise a happy family in the gospel and to teach good principles to our children.

I've always said that the line to set has to do with a man and his desires. If you've got someone you love who struggles with something serious like substance or behavioral addiction, everything can be great as long as he is still willing to keep trying. The moment that spark of desire to get better goes out, you've got a problem on your hands. But as long as the desire to improve is there, I believe any storm can be weathered. What it comes down to, then, is whether or not you can handle it. I do not believe that every woman should be able to commit to any man with a pornography addiction. It's harder for some than for others and some people would struggle with it in such a way that it would prevent them from being happy in such a marriage. I don't judge that. But you should know that there are people out there who are willing to take a chance on people like me who might be unwilling to take a chance on people you're totally comfortable with. Making blanket rules like, "Men with pornography must be 'clean' for one month before going to the temple" or "All women should ignore pornography addiction and always give men they love a chance," ignores the more important task of making sound judgments about a person based on your knowledge of them. It ignores the reality that some men who use pornography regularly are better and more spiritual people than some men who have never used pornography. Because while addiction fuels a lot of imperfect behaviors, it does not define who that person is at their core.

All this to say that I don't really think pornography is "different" in the way you're thinking of it. I'm not making some special exception. It's just one in a list of many things to watch out for that a potential spouse can either choose to handle or reject.


The Man with a Mustache

Question #89511 posted on 04/27/2017 10:06 p.m.

Dear The Board,

We all have pet peeves and people we hate, so could you please come up with your own nine levels of Hell (à la Dante's Inferno) and tell me who you're sticking in each one?

Nellie Bly


Dear Nessie,

1. People who spit on the ground. As punishment they shall be parched for all eternity, unable to gather enough saliva to lick a stamp, much less spit on anything.

2. Musicians who use siren noises in their songs. Fiery imps will prod them as they're forced to dance the Hokey Pokey ad infinitum.

3. People who touch the glass on a door to hold it open instead of using the handle. Verily, they will spend eternity wiping away an everlasting smudge.

4. Lobbyists. They shall treasure up their money, but it shall become slippery, like unto an eel. (Seriously, they're going to open their safety deposit boxes and electric eels will come pouring out.)

5. Litterers. Hell is a highway, stretching out infinitely far, lined with the cigarette butts of a billion angels.

6. Holocaust-deniers. Actually, they shall be mansplained to for all eternity.

7. Drunk drivers. DUIers (not to be confused with DIYers) shall be chained to a rock and have their livers eaten out over and over again.

8. Rapists. Rapists will be thrown into a bottomless pit of white-hot coals. (But they were asking for it when they showed up in Hell dressed like that.)

9. People who leave shopping carts in the parking lot. Well, I can't think of a punishment horrible enough for people like that. Use your imaginations.

-Genuine Article 

Question #89509 posted on 04/27/2017 4:20 p.m.

Dear The Board,

If you could place two teleporters anywhere in the world, where would you put them and why? You can use them to instantaneously transport people and goods, but once they're in place they can't be moved.

As a follow-up question, do you think it would/should be within the rights of whichever country you place them in to regulate them TSA-style?

-Nellie Bly


Dear NB,

I'd put one at the bottom of the ocean (inspiration from XKCD) and the other somewhere just above its surface, then hook up some sort of hydroelectric generator. Using the figures from the comic plus the equations provided here: 720 watts times 400,000 liters per second times 24 hours times 365 days divided by 1,000 for unit conversion comes out to just over 2.5 billion kilowatt-hours of energy produced per year. Which sounded awesome until I looked at the total US energy usage per year: ~13,000 kWh/year times ~320 million people equals a total US energy consumption rate of over 4 trillion kWh per year.

A wardrobe-sized portal isn't going to cut it. Let's make it bigger.

The Panama Canal can fit ships with a width of 161 feet. Since some of the other answers assume the portal would be large enough to fit shipping, I'm going to make that same assumption and adjust the math accordingly. We'll say the portal is a 161-foot square, which translates approximately to a 50-meter square, or 2,500 square meters. Based on math found at Explain XKCD, the original equation appears to assume a wardrobe volume of two square meters. If I'm doing my math right, the increase in size would increase water throughput from 400,000 liters per second to 500,000,000 liters per second. If I run the equation from the first paragraph a second time, that gives us an output of just over 3 trillion kilowatt-hours, enough to provide about three-quarters of the annual US energy consumption, or over 10% of the world's total energy consumption.

Sure, pesky little things like physics and reality might get in the way, but when has that ever stopped me?


Question #89491 posted on 04/26/2017 4:35 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Is it time for the Jedi to end?

-No, no, (*inhales*), no.


Dear No

My 4yo is very concerned about which Jedi is going to end. He's asked me a good two dozen times since I showed him the trailer.

-Humble Master