Jamie123

Good answers here.  A phrase I heard a lot, growing up in church, was, "You might just have to put that on the back burner for awhile."  In other words, I don't know, and no one here does.  There may not even be a good answer that is readily available.  However, you don't have to discard the question.  Keep it tucked away.  Sometimes you find out the answer when you aren't even actively considering it.
 
With the example in the OP I'm guessing there is an answer.  It wouldn't have been available on the spot, but somebody probably had an answer, so that the next guest who asked it would know the why.  Personally, I hate cameras.  They are a necessary evil.  So, I never created panic in the sister missionaries when I made my visit.  :-)

I love hearing real answers to non-trivial questions. Just hearing and understanding the answer makes me feel smarter. No, that's not quite right. Not smarter; it just makes me feel better, like the world makes sense and that's totally cool.
 
But such explanations require a deep level of honesty. That might mean saying "I don't know" when you don't know; that is sort of a baseline expectation. But at a certain depth, your knowledge and metaknowledge (which is equally important, sometimes moreso) can illuminate wonderful things, such as that you don't have a structure in place to understand the topic of discussion. In fact, it's sort of a building-on-itself-from-nothing exercise to have any such understanding in the first place. Staggering to realize that that is the basis of almost everything we think we know. Here's Feynman explaining, or maybe not explaining, magnetism.
 

 
EDIT: There is not a word of bad language in the video. I don't know why the person that put it up felt the need to add an asterisked-up version of a filthy word.

As a university instructor I know that panic well! You don't want to look dumb in front of the students by not knowing the answer, and you know you'll look dumber if you try to figure out the answer on the spot and get it wrong (like Alan Beswick in my earlier post). The best thing to do is (like you say) admit you don't know and put the question to the rest of the class for suggestions. If handled well it can turn into quite a good class discussion. If no one else can answer it, you can make you can make "finding out" this week's homework. (But be sure to come to class next week armed with the correct answer!)

As a university instructor I know that panic well! You don't want to look dumb in front of the students by not knowing the answer, and you know you'll look dumber if you try to figure out the answer on the spot and get it wrong (like Alan Beswick in my earlier post). The best thing to do is (like you say) admit you don't know and put the question to the rest of the class for suggestions. If handled well it can turn into quite a good class discussion. If no one else can answer it, you can make you can make "finding out" this week's homework. (But be sure to come to class next week armed with the correct answer!)

Not knocking your poem Vort :)
 
Maybe this will help clear things up:
 
Words I would rhyme with Cecil:
Wrestle
Trestle
Bessel (as in Bessel functions)
Vessel
David Jessel (British TV presenter) 
 
Words I would rhyme with Diesel:
Easel
Beezle (nut used to make the oil that Horton's dust-speck is nearly boiled in)
Measle (you usually get more than one)
Teasel
Weasel

They are always bringing up this "Apollo lunar landings hoax" nonsense. Admittedly one or two pieces of evidence do make you wonder (a bit), but the conspiracy theorists always think that "no stars in the lunar sky" is the clincher. What nonsense this is! These films were taken on the day side of the moon with the sun shining bright! Admittedly it would (probably) be possible to see stars in daytime on the moon, but you would need to shield your eyes from anything the sun was shining on. If you then waited (probably) ten minutes for your eyes to adjust I daresay you would begin to see a few stars. But if the cameras the astronauts used had been sensitive enough to pick up starlight, everything else in the pictures would have been overexposed blobs.
 
I think science fiction may have played its part here. In H.G. Wells' "First Men in the Moon", the narrator describes seeing stars in the lunar daytime sky, and even Arthur C. Clarke in some of his early books describes the same. In fact most sci fi movies show sunlit planets and spaceships with stars shining brightly behind them. All total nonsense.

Beefche, well said.
 
I can relate with the sister missionaries.  I sometimes panic when I'm asked a question I don't know the answer to.  I need to learn it's okay not to know the answer, and answer according to my knowledge and perhaps do some research to find the answer.

Jamie, I largely agree with you, but this is not a matter of people saying, "Don't worry about Cecil. The world has bigger problems." This is a matter of the mass media (and the populist equivalent, FB) exploding in outrage over a lion getting shot while almost completely ignoring an unspeakably vile holocaust. It is the unabashed hypocrisy being derided.

In another thread or two, it's been stated that we don't know exactly what went on with former prophets and revelation.  We don't know and that it's ok that we don't--sometimes we are asked to go on faith.
 
I'm involved in the Indianapolis Temple open house/tours that is currently going on.  As part of the tour, we are letting people know that no photographs are allowed inside the temple, but photos are available on our website.  One woman asked why no photographs if there are already pictures available? The sister missionaries turned to me with panic in their eyes and I simply responded, "I don't know.  I don't know the answer to that. All I can say is that we are asking that you not take photographs while inside."
 
I think that we are in an information age that can be overwhelming with knowledge.  We have so many facts and other information available to us at the touch of a finger.  With the advent of the internet, information can be gained instantaneously.  But, sometimes we need to be courageous and say, "I don't know."  Sometimes that needs to be followed up with, "but I'll find out." And sometimes we need to be satisfied that we don't know something and that it doesn't mean we are wrong, dumb, or secretive. 
 
This reminds me that there are some things about the Gospel that I don't understand at all or fully.  But, isn't that what faith is for?  I have a testimony of Jesus as my Savior, that the church is His church, the Book of Mormon is scripture and Joseph Smith was who he said he was. Everything else just falls under that.  
 
So what if my understanding is less than a 2 year old? I plan on taking some awesome classes in the next life and there are gonna be some great teachers.... "Sealings: what do they really do and why are they so necessary? -- taught by Elijah and Malachi."  
 
I don't know everything and I'm ok....I need to make that my mantra. 
 
 

I agree - but it's understandable though. Unless you've suffered the plight of Albert's parents, a lion is basically just a larger version of Tibbles your household cat, who butts you affectionately with his head and purrs when you stroke him.
 
Tibbles is a member of your family; if your neighbour did anything to hurt him (deliberately) you would want to knock his block off! And that's exactly how you feel about nasty Mr. Palmer! (Booooo!!!) You know full well that there are worse criminals than your neighbour, but that doesn't make you feel any differently.
 
You also could use the "there are worse tragedies" to justify all sorts of mockery; like that sarcastic readhead who sang "Cry Me a River" over a male suicide victim because women supposedly have it so much worse*. And there was Richard Dawkins (yes - the atheist/evolution guy) mocking a women who complained she was harassed in an elevator... not because she didn't find the experience distressing but because Muslim women have bigger problems than she does.
 
Returning to the matter of Cecil, I think there's also something about the Anglo-Saxon mindset that favours animals over people. Why, for example, do we so often anthropomorphize animals and substitute them for people in children's stories? (Consider Arthur, Timothy Goes to School, Rupert, Berenstain Bears... etc.) We get more upset about the mistreatment of animals than we do over the mistreatment of people. Most of us I think recognize that this is wrong and fight against the urge, but the urge is there nevertheless.
 
*I did put a YouTube link here, but on second thoughts I removed it as she's a regular potty-mouth.

What you say is true, viewed in isolation. But you seem to miss the bigger picture.
 
Let's say that every day when I go to school, someone calls me a nasty name. Also, every day when she goes to school, my little sister gets beaten up. Broken teeth, broken nose, these things are common.
 
Now, my parents are completely ignoring my little sister's plight. But I complain long and loud that someone on the bus is calling me a nasty name every day, and my parents are right there, filled with righteous indignation. They're calling the mayor's office, hiring an attorney to threaten the school district with a million-dollar lawsuit, demanding that the bus driver be summarily fired and brought to trial for allowing such awfulness.
 
Meanwhile, my little sister keeps getting the snot beaten out of her on a daily basis, mostly to the sound of crickets.
 
Do you see the problem here? Do you see why otherwise sympathetic people might actually mock my "problems" because of the vast hypocrisy of our parents' actions?

I agree the question is badly expressed, but strict application of the rules of arithmetic make the answer 58.
 
When I was at school we were always taught the acrostic BEDMAS:
 
Brackets: There is only a 3 inside the bracket so nothing changes
Exponentials: 6^2=36
Division:36/2=18
Multiplication: 18(3)=54
Addition: 54+4=58
Subtraction: There is none so the answer is 58
 
If you wanted the answer to be 10, the correct way of writing it would be 6^2/(2x3)+4: The brackets around 2x3 forces that calculation to be performed first so 36/6=6 and 6+4=10. 
 
This is "grammar" of arithmetic, but very often the rules are broken - even by people who write physics textbooks! How often (I'm talking to physicists and engineers now) have you seen Coulomb's law written Q1 Q2/4pi e0 r^2?
 
P.S. - I wrote this a little prematurely before I read MrShorty's response above. Now I have, I wonder if the expression of Coulomb's law is an example of implied multiplication having a higher priority than division - rather than plain sloppiness (as I had hitherto always assumed). Food for thought - if this is true perhaps we should stop teaching children about BEDMAS.

Going through the references in Josiah's post (#10) was interesting. In some circles, they call this form of the notation "implied multiplication", and some circles like to say that implied multiplication should be done first (see Wikipedia's reference to the journal "Physical Review" that explicitly states that implied multiplication has higher precedence under order of operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations ).  
It seems that, with these kind of problems, the main concern is how to treat this "implied multiplication" type notation. It seems that many (maybe a majority) want this to be treated the same as explicit multiplication, but this convention is not universally accepted. This is where I think it is important that the instructor needs to be clear how they want to treat this before declaring one variation right or wrong.

Not bad, not bad at all :) though I suspect you and I don't pronounce "Cecil" quite the same way!

"wrestle/Cecil"? Really? I was thinking something more like:
 
In Zimbabwe, some poor fool safari'd a rental
(He should have stuck to matters dental)
And found himself facing a runaway diesel
When word got out that he'd shot down Cecil
 
In any case, I enjoyed your whimsical poesy.

After my dismal attempt at lion-related poetry earlier in this thread, I can't resist sharing something by one of the great masters!
 
To be read in a Lancastrian accent (or the best approximation you can manage)...
 
THE LION AND ALBERT
 
by Marriot Edgar
 
There’s a famous seaside place called Blackpool,
That’s noted for fresh air and fun,
 And Mr and Mrs Ramsbottom
 Went there with young Albert, their son.
 
A grand little lad was young Albert,
 All dressed in his best; quite a swell
With a stick with an ‘orse’s ‘ead ‘andle,
The finest that Woolworth’s could sell.
 
They didn’t think much to the Ocean:
The waves, they was fiddlin’ and small,
 There was no wrecks and nobody drownded,
 Fact, nothing to laugh at at all.
 
So, seeking for further amusement,
 they paid and went into the Zoo,
Where they’d Lions and Tigers and Camels,
 And old ale and sandwiches too.
 
There were one great big Lion called Wallace;
 His nose were all covered with scars-
 He lay in a somnolent posture,
 With the side of his face on the bars.
 
Now Albert had heard about Lions,
 How they was ferocious and wild-
 To see Wallace lying so peaceful,
Well, it didn’t seem right to the child.
 
So straightway the brave little feller,
 Not showing a morsel of fear,
Took his stick with it’s’orse’s ‘ead ‘andle
...And pushed it in Wallace’s ear.
 
You could see that the Liion didn’t like it,
 For giving a kind of a roll,
He pulled Albert inside the cage with ‘im,
And swallowed the little lad ‘ole.
 
Then Pa, who had seen the occurence,
And didn’t know what to do next,
Said “Mother! Yon Lion’s ‘et Albert”,
And Mother said, ‘Well I am vexed!”
 
Then Mr and Mrs Ramsbottom-
Quite rightly, when all’s said and done-
Complained to the Animal Keeper,
 That the Lion had eaten their son.
 
The keeper was quite nice about it;
He said “What a nasty mishap.
Are you sure that it’s your boy he’s eaten?”
Pa said “Am I sure? There’s his cap!”
 
The manager had to be sent for.
He came and he said “What’s to do?”
Pa said “Yon Lion’s ‘et Albert,
And ‘im in his Sunday clothes, too.”
 
The Mother said, “Right’s right, young feller;
I think it’s a shame and a sin,
 For a lion to go and eat Albert,
And after we’ve paid to come in.”
 
The manager wanted no trouble,
 He took out his purse right away,
Saying “How much to settle the matter?”
And Pa said “What do you usually pay?”
 
But Mother had turned a bit awkward
 When she thought where her Albert had gone.
She said “No! someone’s got to be summonsed”-
So that was decided upon.
 
Then off they went to the P’lice Station,
 In front of the Magistrate chap;
They told ‘im what happened to Albert,
 And proved it by showing his cap.
 
The Magistrate gave his opinion
 That no one was really to blame
 And he said that he hoped the Ramsbottoms
 Would have further sons to their name.
 
At that Mother got proper blazing,
“And thank you, sir, kindly,” said she.
“What waste all our lives raising children
To feed ruddy Lions? Not me!”

If you think you are doing people favors and avoiding offense by typing "G-d" instead of "God", "L-rd" instead of "Lord", "J-s-s" instead of "Jesus", "Chr-st" instead of "Christ", then good for you. More power to you.
 
But the reasoning is silly. Replacing a vowel with a hyphen does not obscure the name in any meaningful way. It's well-understood that when you write "G-d", the "-" means "o". So what is the difference? None at all.
 
Unless you believe that the letter combination "G-o-d" has magical powers, or that God himself demands that no one use those letters in sequence. I doubt you believe this.

G-d steps in when God is on vacation

A horrible man, with his guns and bows and arrows,
(It's bad enough when they just shoot at sparrows!)
Even Samson of old had the good grace to wrestle
So down with the killer of poor harmless Cecil!
 
I say we give Mr. Palmer the "Daniel" treatment. See how he likes that! 

You all are very cold hearted.

I can honestly say I've never seen Vort and Superman at the same time, so who knows?

In reality, the ministers are volunteers.  Incarcerated individuals have their religious practice accommodated through the use of chaplains, contractors (part-time paid clergy), volunteers, and through the provision of religious materials.  In this case, it appears that the volunteers are unpaid.  So, they are saving the state and taxpayers money.  Correctional systems tend to prohibit racist, violent, or anti-government type teachings.  If they move to prohibiting teaching about LBGT, then it may be that the actual violation is not upholding chastity but rather targeting other groups (i.e. LBGT inmates).  In a prison setting, where many inmates are immature, and can interpret religion to extremes, if the volunteer leader says, "Gays are sinners.  In the Old Testament they could be stoned to death." an unstable prisoner could interpret that as permission to beat up LBGT folks.  So, I'd exercise cautionerpreting this story.

A mathematician named Klein
Thought Mobius Loops were divine
He said "If you glue
The edges of two,
You end up with a bottle like mine!"

Now there's an interesting question; if we returned to polygamy, would senior missions expand to taking all the wives along, or would one have a road wife, a home wife, etc.?

A mathematician named Klein
Thought Mobius Loops were divine
He said "If you glue
The edges of two,
You end up with a bottle like mine!"