Runtu wrote: Of course I am the exception because I am quite simply the most intelligent and well-educated (well, as far as BYU could educate me) person here. There isn't a whole lot I don't already know.
Oh, and I'm really humble and modest, too. ;)
This reminds me of a Mac Davis song. "Oh, lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't help but look in the mirror. I get better looking each day. . . ."
(long list of smilies here indicating this is a fun exchange and not a slam)
beastie wrote:So how would you "label" someone who perceives him or herself as qualified to determine the "truly intelligent and educated" from those who "only assume" they are? I know you think you can determine those here who are "less capable" posters.
Would the words arrogance and pride be appropriate, as well?
I suppose, if those assessments are biased.
And what label could be ascribed to someone who was even willing to associate his/her challengers or critics with satan?
Depends on if the challengers or critics are really associated with satan.
charity wrote:Sorry to burst your little bubble, but that is what principal ancestor always meant. That among their pedigrees , Lehi was there, and because Lehi carried the covenant promise of Abraham to these people, he was the "principal ancestor" among the millions of their ancestors.
That has always been the meaning. But becasue people are so ignorant about genealogy, they changed it to make it more understandable to the less educated (in matters of genealogy) masses.
Charity, I have a small question, maybe you can shed some light. My knowledge is limited. Whenever I've read other journals, documents and books about one group of people visiting or traveling to another region or land, almost the first thing mentioned in the narritive is the native people they encounter. Maybe like, "we met some people of the land and they appeared hostile", or maybe "the people of this area seem very friendly and helpful." The text may even be rife with speculation of what the people may be like long before they reach their distination.
Why do you suppose there is no mention of another people - native or otherwise - by Lehi and his family?
Just a thought.
"If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… " - Orson Pratt on The Book of Mormon
charity wrote:Sorry to burst your little bubble, but that is what principal ancestor always meant. That among their pedigrees , Lehi was there, and because Lehi carried the covenant promise of Abraham to these people, he was the "principal ancestor" among the millions of their ancestors.
That has always been the meaning. But becasue people are so ignorant about genealogy, they changed it to make it more understandable to the less educated (in matters of genealogy) masses.
Charity, I have a small question, maybe you can shed some light. My knowledge is limited. Whenever I've read other journals, documents and books about one group of people visiting or traveling to another region or land, almost the first thing mentioned in the narritive is the native people they encounter. Maybe like, "we met some people of the land and they appeared hostile", or maybe "the people of this area seem very friendly and helpful." The text may even be rife with speculation of what the people may be like long before they reach their distination.
Why do you suppose there is no mention of another people - native or otherwise - by Lehi and his family?
Just a thought.
Nephi was keeping two sets of records. One was a history. The other was the"testament" or the record of the religious life of his people. May I suggest that he did keep a "we met some people of the land" kind of record with what he specifically states was a normal history. And since he already had done that, he didn't repeat himself.
charity wrote: Nephi was keeping two sets of records. One was a history. The other was the"testament" or the record of the religious life of his people. May I suggest that he did keep a "we met some people of the land" kind of record with what he specifically states was a normal history. And since he already had done that, he didn't repeat himself.
Wouldn't it be fun to have that other record?
Just my thoughts.
I don't know why this argument always makes me smile. The "testament" record was careful enough to talk about money and weights and measures, the kinds of clothes and armaments used, the horses and chariots of Lamanite kings, the kinds of crops and animals used, detailed battle descriptions, and meetings with other people, such as the Mulekites and Coriantumr. But for mention of interaction with vast numbers of indigenous peoples, we have to appeal to the "other" record, which, darn it, we just don't have.
charity wrote:Nephi was keeping two sets of records. One was a history. The other was the"testament" or the record of the religious life of his people. May I suggest that he did keep a "we met some people of the land" kind of record with what he specifically states was a normal history. And since he already had done that, he didn't repeat himself.
Wouldn't it be fun to have that other record?
Just my thoughts.
Yep, all 116 pages of it.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
charity wrote:Sorry to burst your little bubble, but that is what principal ancestor always meant. That among their pedigrees , Lehi was there, and because Lehi carried the covenant promise of Abraham to these people, he was the "principal ancestor" among the millions of their ancestors.
That has always been the meaning. But becasue people are so ignorant about genealogy, they changed it to make it more understandable to the less educated (in matters of genealogy) masses.
Charity, I have a small question, maybe you can shed some light. My knowledge is limited. Whenever I've read other journals, documents and books about one group of people visiting or traveling to another region or land, almost the first thing mentioned in the narritive is the native people they encounter. Maybe like, "we met some people of the land and they appeared hostile", or maybe "the people of this area seem very friendly and helpful." The text may even be rife with speculation of what the people may be like long before they reach their distination.
Why do you suppose there is no mention of another people - native or otherwise - by Lehi and his family?
Just a thought.
Nephi was keeping two sets of records. One was a history. The other was the"testament" or the record of the religious life of his people. May I suggest that he did keep a "we met some people of the land" kind of record with what he specifically states was a normal history. And since he already had done that, he didn't repeat himself.
Wouldn't it be fun to have that other record?
Just my thoughts.
I find it highly humorous that you actually approach these matters as if they are real. Do you read Harry Potter and start waving a chopstick around trying to cast spells too?
Wouldn't it be fun if the stories joe concocted were actually real? Why, one could justify racism, sexism, murder...you name it!
Your approach is laughable in the highest degree. I haven't seen cognitive dissonance like this since watching interviews with followers of David Koresh after the showdown in which they proclaimed the truthfulness of their gospel. Also see Hale Bopp, Aum Shinrikyo, J dub's and other religiously based cults.
So, pray about the truthfulness of Harry Potter.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
beastie wrote: First, psychology also deals with an individual's pattern of interacting with other human beings, which is what we are discussing, rather than larger scale interactions.
Second, I know it is commonly thought that today's society is ruder than in the past, but I am unconvinced. I think human beings have always tended to behave rudely at times, but increased technology simply makes those behaviors more publicized.
You seem to be suggesting that more intelligent, educated people also tend to behave more politely. In my experience, intelligence and willingness to behave politely have no causal relationship.
I have found that the truly intelligent and educated people tend to behave better than those who only assume they are the most intelligent and educated people around. The most intelligent and educated tend to undestand just how much they don't know, notwishtanding what they know. The smaller minds tend to get puffed up thinking they know it all. Like I said, arrogance and price come into it.
Too broad of a brush here for me. What about the "truly unintelligent and uneducated" do they misbehave? I have met many "truly's" both ways that have potty mouths and bad behavior and verse vicea. Also some of the most educated people I have met have been some of the stupidest.
It's "too" all over the spectrum to paint with so broad a brush.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
Nephi was keeping two sets of records. One was a history. The other was the"testament" or the record of the religious life of his people. May I suggest that he did keep a "we met some people of the land" kind of record with what he specifically states was a normal history. And since he already had done that, he didn't repeat himself.
[/quote]
I wasn't aware of another record. That does sounds like a possibility. Like I said, my knowledge is limited. But I'm struggling with how we go 1000 years never mentioning anyone else, not even once. (Jaradites don't count - they're suspect too). But maybe that's it. Second record.
Hmmm. Maybe. Maybe not.
"If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… " - Orson Pratt on The Book of Mormon