Happiness often sneaks in through a door you didn't know you left open. -John Barrymore
Question #47559 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear Letter writer from Board Question #47466,

Another option for Latin and South American countries is something called "pouch", basically the church transports its own documents, including letters, so it doesn't have to rely on unreliable postal services of other countries. So you could also use Dear Elder to send a letter as well, just by selecting on the left hand menu "Pouch". It's free too. And this will work not only for the Peruvian MTC but for while he is in the field as well. Just indent properly so it can easily be read.

- Nanti-SARRMM

Question #47501 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What is the origin of Dalmatians in connection with firefighters?

- SVFD Friend

A: Dear SVFD Friend,

Most of the sources I found suggest that Dalmatians play nicely with horses, protecting them from rats and stray dogs, which allowed early fire departments to get to the scene quickly.

--Gray Ghost
Question #47493 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

There's this guy that I'm really interested in, with one problem. He's a senior, and I'm a freshman. Is there any chance of this working and not being creepy?

Have a great day!

~the undeclared

A: Dear undeclared,

Sure there's a chance. Why would it have to be creepy? There's approximately a five-year difference in age between you two, but really...what's the big deal? I've never dated someone that much younger than I was (in fact, somehow they've all been older than I); however, I've known couples where the girl was about that much younger than the guy. In fact, my own parents were in a similar situation, and they've now been happily married for almost 25 years.

If you both like each other and end up dating, there's really no problem with that. And if your friends give you a hard time, try not to listen. Whose opinion matters, anyway?

—Laser Jock
A: Dear the undeclared ~

Wait, are you in high school or college? If you're in high school, I'm going to give you about a 2% chance of this working out in the long run and a 60% chance of you two dating in high school, if you play your cards right.

If you're in college... I say you have a decent chance. I mean, freshmen girls get married all the time. And often they don't finish college because their husband graduates and moves on.

So, yes. I think you have a chance. And no, I don't think it's all that creepy. I think creepy starts happening when the guy is, like, 10 years older than you. But, even then it can be acceptable in certain situations. (Though, not while you're still in your teens! Wait for that until you're at least in your mid-twenties.)

~ Dragon Lady
Question #47489 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

When is foam blue this year???!!!!

- Can't Wait for Blue!

A: Dear Impatient:

Wednesday, Oct. 8

4 p.m.: True Blue Football (Helaman Field)

Question #47487 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Does it say in the scriptures anywhere or has it been said by a prophet that the Holy Ghost is male? I'm not trying to argue that the Holy Ghost is female, but people always speak as though the Holy Ghost were male and I'm just wondering if that is something that we actually know for sure.

- Nerd Girl

A: Dear Nerd Girl~

We had a mighty discussion behind the scenes on this one our way through this. I finally just asked the Mormons.

Glossary Definition
Holy Ghost

Also called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Comforter. He witnesses, or testifies of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and reveals and teaches the truth.

It is my personal opinion that Mormon.org's definition is close enough to official Church doctrine. If you disagree, feel free to write back and tell me what an idiot I am.

A: Dear Ethel,

Aside from Hobbes' source, we also find information in 1 Nephi 11:11 when Nephi is seeing his vision of the tree of life with interpretation. He's asking the meaning of the things he sees, and we read:

And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.

The part that says "he was in the form of a man" seems to be specifically what you're looking for.

It could be argued (and has been in the thread Hobbes referred to) that the "Spirit of the Lord" could be Christ, since he hadn't come to earth yet, but on page 704 of the Bible Dictionary we find:

Other names that sometimes refer to the Holy Ghost are Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, Comforter, and Spirit.

However, we also wondered if "in the form of a man" could mean man or woman as scriptures often do.

We find in Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1, by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, their description of the Holy Ghost (thanks to Azriel for the source):

PERSONAGE OF SPIRIT. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He is a Spirit, in the form of a man. The Father and the Son are personages of tabernacle; they have bodies of flesh and bones. The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, and has a spirit body only. His mission is to bear witness of the Father and the Son and of all truth. As a Spirit personage the Holy Ghost has size and dimensions. He does not fill the immensity of space, and cannot be everywhere present in person at the same time. He is also called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Truth, and the Comforter.

HOLY GHOST A REVELATOR. His mission is to teach us all truth. He partakes of the things of the Father and the Son and reveals them to those who serve the Lord in faithfulness. It was through the teachings of the Comforter, or Holy Ghost, that the teachings of Jesus Christ were recalled by the apostles. It is through the teachings of the Holy Spirit that prophecy comes.

Hopefully the scriptures and the declaration of prophets, as well as mormon.org, are enough for us to feel secure in the Holy Ghost being male.

-Polly Esther
Question #47486 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,
Where can I watch the cosmo videos from the football games online?

Bribery corruption scandal

A: Dear BCS (ha...ha.........ha................),

You can't. Not yet anyway. You can watch last year's though.

Question #47484 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Do you know why byu decided to take out the building south of the clyde and put in a grass field? It seems a little sketchy to me, but I don't know the reasoning behind it. Is there reasoning behind it?


A: Dear jdizz,

The KMB was torn down because it was an ancient building. The heating/air conditioner was having problems and the whole building was probably not up to code, and it was probably cheaper to build a new building than renovate the old, ugly one. For more info see Board Question #47198.

-Whistler, who had one of the last classes in the KMB
Question #47481 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I am a not-yet-student at byu (hoping to be and yaddayadda). I have finished high school and am taking a year off to work, save up money and generally.. grow up a little. This is all well but my problem or question is this: Since I'm planning to go to byu in a year (if I get in of course) and since I don't take any classes here back home I wont be studying for a year :O My brain is in serious danger of going numb..
Now, I'd like to avoid that.. I want my head fit and working when I get back to school. So, do you have any ideas of how to do this?

(maybe examples of books I could (or should) read or examples of exercises or .. whatever! I'll be thankful for all advice I can get. I have thought of some on my own but since you're amazing I thought I'd ask :p)

yeah, did I mention that you're amazing?.. and weirdly addictive! Thanks for all the work you put in :)

- Pooh bear

A: Dear Pooh,

There are any number of things you can do to keep your mind healthy, but whatever you do should be both new to you and something you are interested in. If it isn't new it won't keep you sharp; if it isn't interesting, you will give up. Some suggestions:

Study a foreign language, perhaps one from your ancestry, one you studied in high school, or one spoken in a country you would like to visit. Watch movies in that language, find a friend who would learn it with you, or correspond with an online pen-pal in that language.

Read the classics. You might not be a Shakespeare fan, but satires by Swift and Voltaire could still have you on the floor laughing. Or perhaps the Jane Austen you read in English class was too sappy for you, but you would find Nietzsche fascinating. My point being that there are classics for everyone, even people who think they hate reading. Explore and find your niche.

Keep a journal of your experiences, moods, ingenious ideas, etc. Keep in mind that after you are famous, countless generations of scholars will rely on this journal to write your biographies, so make it quality.

Learn to cook. If you already know how to cook, learn to cook food from a different culture or make up your own dishes.

Write a screenplay, and get your friends and relatives to perform in it. Put it on YouTube. Or write poetry, or music.

Learn to play guitar, piano, shamisen, or whatever else sounds fun.

Go to the park and find eccentrics to play chess with.

But don't do all of them at once, because you will get overwhelmed and give up on everything. I speak from experience.

--Gray Ghost
Question #47479 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So I was having a discussion with my mother about gay marriage the other day and she brought up this point: if homosexuals gain the use of the word marriage in their relationships, then bishops would no longer be able to perform civil marriages because a couple could literally demand that he marry them. I don't quite understand this. She says it also applies to temple marriages (i.e. a couple would have to be civilly married outside the temple then sealed inside). If the bishop (or temple) refuses to marry the couple, they could sue.
I don't really understand the concept of being able to DEMAND a marriage ceremony. In other faiths, you pay a priest to marry you, so can he refuse because he has a sign up on his wall like at McDonalds (we reserve the right to refuse service...)? Or can one actually demand the right to be married?

Yours Truly,
Eponine (really busy this semester, but still reading the board every day!)

A: Dear Ponie:

Please see Board Question #46262 and Board Question #47370.

Question #47478 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

One of the hangups with being baptized is if you murdered someone, right? But I also know that killing people in time of war is one of those necessary evils and doesn't count, right? But what is the line between killing people during a time of war and murdering people during a time of war? What if your job was to find enemy spies and you killed them for it? That goes under the category of "time of war" kinda stuff, but I wouldn't call it absolutely necessary--after all, you could just stick them in prison, right? So if a fellow wanted to be baptized and presented that scenario to his bishop, what would be the outcome?

- Not a veteran

A: Dear Ethel,

If a person who committed murder -- even "questionable" murder -- wanted to be baptized, his stake president or the mission president would have to write to the First Presidency for permission. They are the only body that can make the decision.

Aren't you glad you don't have that hard job?

-Polly Esther
A: Dear Not~

I believe the principle at play is that a soldier doesn't kill because he hates, covets, or anything like that. He is acting as an agent of his government, and the blood of fallen enemy soldiers essentially becomes his country's problem, not his. (This can be taken to absurd extremes, mind you, and leads to some paradoxical situations as in the case of Helmuth Hubener.)

Does this apply to intelligence agents who kill agents of other countries? I would assume so, but as Polly said, all these scenarios need to be reviewed by a higher Priesthood authority.

It's not really a cut-and-dried thing.

Question #47477 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Recently I have heard a couple of people espouse the notion that when you partake of the sacrament with a repentant heart not only are you renewing your covenants with the Lord but you are also washed clean of your sins. They postulate, therefore, that each Sunday you have the opportunity to be as clean as you were on the day that you were baptized.

I certainly hear, in the words of the sacramental prayers, a renewing of my commitment to the Lord that I made when I was baptized and his promise in return that his Spirit will be with me. But I don't hear anything about being washed clean of my sins as I turn my heart to him.

So my question is, where did this idea of being washed clean of sin by partaking of the sacrament come from? I can't find it anywhere in the scriptures. Did a prophet say so? Or is this a contemporary pseudo-doctrine that has formed as someone took the notion that "the sacrament is a renewing of your baptismal covenants" and extrapolated or speculated that this includes being washed as clean as you were when you were baptized as a repentant soul?


A: Dear Ron Howard,

The sources I've found seem to indicate that the renewal of covenants through the sacrament brings into effect the cleansing process of repentance (being "washed clean"):

"In partaking of the sacrament and making these commitments, Church members renew the covenant they made at baptism (see Mosiah 18:8–10; D&C 20:37). In return, the Lord renews the promised remission of sin and enables Church members to 'always have his Spirit to be with them' (D&C 20:77)." -True to the Faith

"No one lives without sin after his or her baptism, however. Without some provision for further cleansing, each of us is lost. How grateful we are that the Lord has provided a process for each baptized member of His Church to be cleansed from the soil of sin. The sacrament is an essential part of that process. We are commanded to repent of our sins, to come to the Lord with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and to partake of the sacrament. When we renew our baptismal covenants this way, the Lord renews the cleansing effect of our baptism. We are made clean and can always have His Spirit to be with us." -Dallin H. Oaks, italics added

"It is essential that we renew our covenants by partaking of the sacrament. When we do this with a sincere heart, with real intent, forsaking our sins, and renewing our commitment to God, the Lord provides a way whereby sins can be forgiven from week to week. Simply eating the bread and drinking the water will not bring that forgiveness. We must prepare and then partake with a broken heart and contrite spirit. The spiritual preparation we make to partake of the sacrament is essential to receiving a remission of our sins." -Vaughn J. Featherstone

"Do you remember the feeling you had when you were baptized—that sweet, clean feeling of a pure soul, having been forgiven, washed clean through the merits of the Savior? If we partake of the sacrament worthily, we can feel that way regularly, for we renew that covenant, which includes his forgiveness." -John H. Groberg

From these quotes, I get the feeling that the covenant we make with Christ is renewed on both ends. Our cleanliness after baptism is granted by the Lord as a reward for our willingness to follow him. It is a gift given to mark a new beginning. I think what Elder Featherstone says is essential: it is not just the physical eating and drinking that cleanses us, any more than it is being immersed in water that remits our sins. It is a matter of the authority of the priesthood and the sincerity of our hearts. When we earnestly and sincerely renew our covenant to follow, he grants, just as he did before, the cleansing of his Atonement.

Something that I think is interesting is the use of the word "essential" in the quote from Elder Oaks. I think that's because when we sin even one time, we have broken the covenant we made to keep all of the commandments, and as such, we have no hold on the promise that God has made to save us. Repentance is the idea that we have to realize this, change our minds and hearts, and make the promise again, taking it one step further this time around. We take the sacrament a bit wiser than we were last week, realizing one more weakness we have and how we can do better in the coming week. Doing this weekly, we take small steps closer each week toward repentance.

A: Opie,

Also remember that one of the primary roles of the Holy Ghost is that of a Sanctifier. While the act of baptism "washes" away past sins, it is the Holy Ghost that purifies as we prepare for eternity.

Question #47476 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have recently completed the first phase of a large project: the redesign of the Daily Universe. They ran an article about the project in the paper last week, but I am having trouble getting word out. There are hundreds of copies of the redesigned paper free for the taking at the exhibit in the HFAC, 5th floor. And another part of the project is a website that is supposed to be a prototype version of an online Reader's Forum (thedailydiscussion.com). What is the best way to let as many students as possible know about this project and website?

- Keenan

A: Dear Keenan,

Not on the fifth floor of the HFAC. This question is a good start.

-wet blanket
A: Dear Keenan ~

I would suggest advertising in places that people typically are. Like, the WILK. In all of the classroom buildings. Just put up posters everywhere. I tend to read them when I'm bored, or just as I walk through various buildings.

~ Dragon Lady
Question #47473 posted on 09/20/2008 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Why is the book Lolita so taboo? Have any of you read it? What is the Lolita principle? Do I want to know the answer to any of these questions?


A: Dear TMI,

While I have not read it, I would think the reasons for Lolita being so taboo are rather evident from even a basic plot summary. You can read about it here, but the basic plot is that a man in his thirties who is obsessed with nine to fourteen year old girls falls in love with a girl who at the ripe old age of twelve becomes his lover.

By the time this book was written (1955) the days of child brides in American and most European cultures were pretty much over. To read about this idea was repulsive to many. Perhaps most shocking, however, was the fact that Lolita (the girl) was not really victimized by the novel. In fact, it was she who seduced her older lover (one of the book's early supporters said that it was "not the corruption of an innocent child by a cunning adult, but the exploitation of a weak adult by a corrupt child." This was then and remains today an idea that most people are not comfortable with.

So, in summary? Pedophilia and very young sexuality are subjects that make many people feel icky.

As far as I can tell, the "Lolita Principle" is the idea that young girls can use sexuality to sell to the public. I've heard this used in reference to pop music, where there is a strong tradition of girls amping up their sexuality. Britney, for instance, was only 17 when the video for "...Baby One More Time" came out. And if you don't remember that video, it's very likely you aren't male. This article describes it as "sexualized innocence" (some may have issues with this article, by the way). The interesting thing about the Lolita Principle is that it works in reverse as well; it is not just sexualizing the young, but infantilizing sexual maturity (like grown women dressing as little girls, etc.).

Finally...well, maybe you didn't want to know, but here it is. I think you may not have known these things in great detail, but anyone in US society is already fully aware of the Lolita Principle.

A: Dear TMI,

While Claudio's summary is accurate, it is incomplete. The most disturbing thing about Lolita is that the book is so well-written that the reader finds himself rooting for Humbert Humbert, and then becomes disgusted with himself and the book upon realizing how inappropriate it is for an older man to have a sexual relationship with a twelve-year-old. The book is more than just about a pedophile; Lolita's desires and personality are also a commentary on America's bourgeoisie culture - Lolita adores movie stars, clumsily uses makeup, and, while she has natural talent for tennis, doesn't particularly enjoy the game. The novel also brings in to question the narrator's reliability, and Humbert makes reference to how he no longer has control over the manuscript (so in the end, we are still not sure what really happened).

So, yes, I've read Lolita, as well as a few other books by Nabokov, and I recommend it if you can let yourself enjoy Nabokov's artistry and not be completely offended and put off by the content. You might want to start with the surreal Invitation to a Beheading or the more light-hearted Pnin. And for the question I know you all have: yes, Lolita was originally written in English, and yes, Nabokov was born and partially raised in Russia, and wrote his first nine novels in Russian. Lolita was his third novel written in English.

-Whistler, currently reading The Cambridge Companion to Nabokov

PS Please enjoy this Dinosaur Comic "compressed novel comic" about Lolita.

PPS Also, here is an article on the Lolita effect from the Nabokov Online Journal.
A: Dear Whistler,

Sorry about that. Never read it. You're making me consider it, though!

A: Dear Info:

Yes, I just read it this summer. I think it is actually a pretty revealing look at child abuse, and I only felt sympathy for the victim and disgust towards the perpetrator. It's an adult book with adult themes, but it's a classic for a reason. Made me think, and devoured it in a couple days: definitely on my "like it" list, but not quite on my "love it" one (if for no other reason than Humbert's flowery erudition).