Bluejay

Hi, Finrock. Of course not all is well with me today: people are disagreeing with me! ----- It isn't that arrogance doesn't exist; it's that there's no way to objectively pinpoint what is arrogant and what isn't. I'm very much of the opinion that trying to categorize personality traits is a waste of time. Labeling things doesn't really improve understanding of them.

Hi, Mormonmusic But, it's still a perception. That two or more people perceive the same thing in the same way doesn't make it not a perception anymore. Every person could likely find a community in which they or their actions would be considered arrogant. For instance, aggressive posting is often viewed as arrogant here at lds.net, while refusing to engage in debate is considered an honorable move. At the other forum I post on, evcforum.net, the exact reverse is true: aggressiveness is expected and lauded, and refusal to address counterpoints is considered rude and arrogant. Arrogance is generally defined by the observer (or by the community of observers), rather than the individual (even those who profess their own arrogance do so on the basis of observational feedback from the community).

Hi, Declanr. The trouble is that everybody draws the line in a different place. Some people think people who try to give advice to someone else are arrogant. Some people think people who contradict them are arrogant. Some people think people who complain about somebody else's actions are arrogant. Some people think people who post terse messages on internet forums sound arrogant. Some people think people who post detailed, wordy messages on internet forums sound arrogant. Like Bini says, it's more of an "eye of the beholder" thing: it's a label applied when another person feels inferior and wants to increase their feeling of self-worth by rallying a support group. Other than that, there really aren't any objective, consistent criteria for determining who is arrogant.

HI, Moksha. I'm glad: too many people were hearing "LSD" when I said "LDS."

Hi, Gold. I don't see anything particularly objectionable in Moksha's post. Sure, KKK references may be a little excessive (like Hitler references), but not so excessive as to deserve ridicule (in this case, at least). You might be interested to know that "race" is a loaded term to begin with: studies have shown that, beyond a handful of outward characteristics, there really isn't much genetic or biological distinctiveness between races. In light of this, I think Moksha's point is spot-on: defining people by "race" really stems from the same kind of superficial mentality that results in bigotry and intolerance, and really is a mentality that should be avoided.

Long posts are a good thing on forums where I normally post, and everybody there curses short posts.

Hi, Daenvgiell. Thread titles that don't give me any information as to what the thread's about.

It is a pretty big mess, isn't it? I'm anxiously/patiently/aloofly awaiting further evidence so we can see what really happened. Then, visiting those places might make the Book of Mormon seem more "real" to me.

Assistant Ward Clerk, finances. They had me in at Ward Clerk until somebody better moved in. It's better this way: grad school is getting the best of me, and my family life was suffering.

Hi, Livy. Good to see you(r words) again. Then we have only the hemispheric model remaining.

Hi, Vestig8or. That's more like what I'm trying to find out. Thank you, Vestig8or. Now, what is it about States’ Rights that brings about a balance of power? And, wouldn't Cities’ Rights also provide the same thing? And, couldn't we go down, and down, and down the bureaucracy, each time citing the principle behind the 10th Amendment to defend our decision that the lower rung on the totem pole should hold the power, and the upper rung should leave that lower rung alone? It seems to me that the State is an arbitrarily-selected level of the bureaucracy in which to vest power. If the decision is arbitrary, I think there needs to be a demonstration that the State is a superior place for the power to rest. To my knowledge, no such demonstration has really ever been provided.

Hi, MarginOfError. Why is Item Y written on Document X? Surely the answer to that is the real answer to the original question, isn't it? And, if one can answer that question, then any question that one is tempted to answer with, "Because it is written on Document X" should instead be answered with the answer to the question, "Why is it written on Document X?" Otherwise, the question, "Why is it written on Document X?" is sure to be the very next response one gets. So, why not just provide the real answer to the question the first time it is asked?

Hi, InquisitiveSoul I assume this message was a response to me? I understand that the Constitution says X and the Yth Amendment says Z. But, is that really the reason you think the power should be vested in the states? You have to admit, "because it's written on Document X" is a pretty feeble reason, regardless of what Document X is. Surely there’s a principle behind it that you support.

Hi, InquisitiveSoul. I'm not sure I understand the States' Rights argument. Won't you still have the same issue within a state that you have between states? If government is centered at the State level, there will still be people who want to argue for Cities' Rights or Counties' Rights within the State. Whose side would you take in that debate?

Godwin is vindicated yet again!

Hi, Webbwayne. You're getting a lot of stiff replies here, so I thought you could use something softer for a change. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding between what amounts to be two entirely different views on life. People on the right wing, who always argue for personal responsibility, are generally people who do not like being dependents, who like to feel like they can manage (or be empowered to manage) the challenges that come before them. I feel absolutely worthless when I have to ask my parents for help, even though I'm a doctoral student with a wife and a two-year-old and barely enough stipend money to pay my rent and car insurance. I vehemently hate having to ask other people to help me for anything, because there is some switch in my head that goes off and makes me feel like I'm weak, imcompetent, and unable to provide and take care of the family that I am determined to take care of. Incidentally, I've recently been forced to accept Medicaid to pay for some medical expenses that my stipend and insurance can't cover, and it absolutely kills me. I cannot (try as I have) understand why other people do not think the way I think about this issue: why are so many other people so willing to ask for help and care, when it seems like such a demeaning and pathetic thing for me to do myself? People who think like me in this matter and are more politically minded than am I, will tend to speak out and try to explain why our way of looking at the world is better. Often, the worldview is not transmissible as easily as we think it is, so we get frustrated and resort to passionate squabbling and cynicism, just as you seem to have on this thread toward us. I'm confident that there is a way for us to figure out how to get along together, but it seems we have a long way to go. In the end, it wouldn't kill any of us to realize that "compromise" is not a vulgar word: we can't all get everything we want, because we all want such different things. The best we can do is follow (I think it's Gwen)'s tagline, and just deal with people's "issues" while trying to work out the problems. Balancing everybody's worldviews is more important than winning any particular debate.

Hi, Gwen. Spirituality has never come easily for me. I've concluded that it's because my spirit is broken, disabled or in a coma. Maybe it will return to functionality sometime.

But the chronology of these destructions is all wrong. In Mormon 8:8, Moroni says that, once the Lamanites killed off the Nephites, they went to war with one another, and the "whole land is one continual round of murder and bloodshed." There is no evidence of this around AD 300-400 in Mesoamerica. I’ll grant that the Hopewell peoples’ destruction happened around AD 500, which is also somewhat off from the Book of Mormon time period, but it is the actual destruction of a great and prosperous civilization, rather than a rather large hiccup in the development of a big civilization that would ultimately rebound and return to its former glory. ----- ----- One thing we learn about Mesoamerica, is that when a people collapse, they really don't fully disappear (usually). Instead, they are incorporated into the new group. Olmec traditions are found among the pre-Classic Maya, who replaced them. Later, Pre-Classic Mayans are incorporated into the Classic Maya, who are incorporated into the Post-Classic Maya. The Aztec maintain many of the traditions they received from conquering Mayan lands. We see the same thing in the Book of Mormon, where Jaredites and Mulekites (and probably others) are incorporated into the Nephite/Lamanite peoples. According to 4 Nephi and Mormon, chapter 1, the Nephite decline didn't start until AD 321 or 322: 4 Nephi has them still being rich and trafficking gold after AD 300. According to this website, the collapse of the pre-Classic Maya period began around AD 100 or 150---which should have been right in the midst of the most prosperous and righteous period for the Book of Mormon peoples (3 and 4 Nephi)---and ends around AD 200 or 250. The Book of Mormon timeline has the decline stretching from AD 300 to 400. It takes a lot of twisting and bending to make the Mesoamerican timeline fit the Book of Mormon account. Comparatively, the Hopewell timeline is more appropriate for the BoM timeline, ranging from 200 BC (Mulekite-Nephite merging) to AD 500 (near complete disappearance). I’ll grant that there are three major difficulties for the Hopewell model: (1) there is no written language (2) the putative Jaredite timeline (the Adena culture) is questionable (3) the destruction is about 100 years off (but still closer than the Maya timeline yields; and I've read sources that claim that the Hopewell disappeared around AD 400, rather than AD 500).

Hi, Rameumptom. We can positively pinpoint the locations of exactly two people---no, two anythings---from the Book of Mormon. Both of them were in the northeastern United States. I think the working hypothesis needs to be that this is where the Book of Mormon took place, not that the only two data points we have just happen to be outliers. ----- As far as I can tell, no such statement can be positively attributed to Joseph Smith. There is a Times and Seasons article, but there isn't any clear evidence that Joseph Smith was involved in the production of that article at all. Joseph Smith is documented as having said several apparently contradictory things about Book of Mormon geography. I'm not sure how much of it we can count as prophetic, and how much of it should be considered apocryphal or speculative. In that spirit, I think I'll back off from my previous claims about anecdotes from early Church history.

Hi, Faded. True. It certainly is fun to discuss. isn't it? ----- I’m going to have to retract part of my original statement here: I don’t think the UP or the Ontario-Erie passage are viable alternatives, due to blockage by waterways. The Erie Canal didn’t exist until the 1830’s, so that was an open stretch of land. All the other connections were blocked (although the Detroit and St Clair Rivers that separate Erie and Michigan probably weren’t as major a barrier), so it was likely that the Erie Canal region did represent the only real pass for a large army on foot to use. The Adena civilization predates the Hopewell civilization, but only spans from 1000 BC to 200 BC (which is a significant deviation from the traditional Tower-of-Babel time reference given for the Jaredites), so it would seem problematic in that regard. ----- In my mind, we have about two options: either a northern nation like the Hopewell was the Nephites, or the Nephites and Lamanites spanned the entirety of the Americas. We have several anecdotes from the life of Joseph Smith discussing the Nephites and Lamanites as inhabiting the United States (e.g. the Zelph incident): so, a limited-geography model that only considers Mesoamerica doesn’t fit well with that. My primary reason for considering the Hopewell the better alternative is that I am convinced that the stories in Book of Mormon probably were not a hemispheric phenomenon: the evidence from population genetics pretty convincing demonstrates that the Native Americas are pretty much entirely Asian, which indicates, to me, that the Nephites and Lamanites could not have made a sizable contribution to the Native America gene pool. The lack of any apparent written language among the Adena and Hopewell cultures concerns me most of all: that really is an absolute necessity, given that our entire religion is founded on a book that these people allegedly wrote. ----- I realize that: I just chose my terminology poorly.

No, they're not. ----- 2000 BC to AD 250 does not fit the Nephite/Lamanite period even remotely well. ----- There is no record of a broad-scale collapse anytime immediately prior to 600 BC in the pre-Classic Maya. You can't seriously think that the Nephites just effected a seamless transition from the Jaredites, such that archaeologists couldn't tell that these were two distinct civilizations. Furthermore, AD 250 to AD 900 is the golden age of the Maya: this should have been a period of desolation and destruction if it really is the site of the Book of Mormon.

Hi, Faded. The Maya culture lasted from 2000 BC until the Spanish wiped them out in the 1600's, with the only major breaks occurring at AD 250 and AD 900. Their peak was after the Nephites were said to have been exterminated. The dates for this civilization are not consistent with the Book of Mormon narrative. Compare this to the Hopewell civilization of the eastern United States: 200 BC - AD 500. I think the Hopewell culture is a pretty good match, although there would still need to be an explanation for why there is no evidence of the civilization from 600 BC to 200 BC. Perhaps, the small size and nomadic, fugitive nature of the Nephites at the time could explain this: the earlier dates of the Hopewell tradition nearly coincide with the discovery of Zarahemla in the Book of Omni, so a case could be made for that to be the start of the Hopewell tradition. Admittedly, it's not exact, and I’m not really fully convinced myself, but it's much more realistic than the Mayan civilization based only on chronology. ----- Walking around the Great Lakes is not "easy": on one side of Lake Ontario, you have the St Lawrence River, which would have been as much a barrier as any of the Great Lakes, and which completely cuts the northern from the southern portion of the land. On the opposite side of Lake Erie, they would have had to navigate Lake St Clair, or the Detroit or St Clair Rivers, or else march all the way around Lake Superior, which would have taken them months. So, unless the Lamanites could transport their massive armies by boats (which are not mentioned in any of the war chapters), the neck of land between Lakes Erie and Ontario is the only suitable pass. ----- The Book of Mormon doesn't mention a lot of hurricanes either, but that doesn't stop most people from proposing Central America as the location. ----- They do experience drastic shifts in rainfall, though. One would think they would have mentioned that somewhere too, right? Weather doesn’t seem to feature nearly as prominently in the Book of Mormon as any climate in the Americas would seem to justify, so I don’t think weather presents a meaningful argument to this debate at all. ----- Canada counts, too. I thought "North America" was a suitable counterpart term to "Central America." I'm sorry if I confused you with imprecise terminology. ----- Another important observation is architecture: the Nephites built their buildings and cities out of timber (Helaman 3), and the Maya apparently did not use much wood in construction: rather, they used stone. The Book of Mormon even has “ridges of earth” as a defense tactic among the Nephites (Alma 50:1-2), which, to me, indicates mound-building peoples, like the Hopewell civilization. This custom is not to be found among the Maya.

Hi, Faded. I disagree, for the following reasons: There are a number of "narrow necks of land" that separate the Great Lakes from one another. ----- Helaman 11:6,13,17 mentions seasonal crops. Mosiah 18:4 mentions seasonal animals. Alma 46:40 mentions seasonal diseases. These are certainly at least as consistent with the climate of North America as with the climate of Mesoamerica, perhaps even more so. ----- There are noteworthy civilizations of sufficient age in North America to be consistent with the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, so this is a non-issue.

Hi, MsQwerty. All right, we're square. I think we've both made our case, and we've provided enough information that any onlookers can also make informed decisions for themselves. It's not worth making enemies over, so I'll stop here. Have a good day. ----- P.S. I don't think I would be interested enough to see a kangaroo boxing event, anyway; so, even though I'm not morally opposed to it, they wouldn't be getting any support from me. That ought to make you happy. :) P.P.S. I've seen redback spiders in a zoo before. We have black widows here (same genus, and just as dangerous). And, yeah, Australia's pretty famous for its bugs. At least, in my professional circles it is. :) P.P.P.S. I was recently educated about the way to make a smiley with its tongue sticking out. Even though the smilies legend on the right says to use a capital 'P', you have to use a lower-case 'p' on this web-site. Like this:

Hi, Anatess. To be fair, the guy probably did abuse the kangaroos. Poor medical attention resulted in the deaths of two of his kangaroos (I don't think he was actually convicted of this, though). But, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to admit that MsQwerty has successfully demonstrated that the kangaroos were abused in that way. My view is that the boxing performance itself is not the problem. It could have been done without abusing the kangaroos, so the boxing performance, in and of itself, doesn't constitute abuse, as long as the trainer is not fighting for real, and is checking his swings (as he did in the clip). Maybe making it wear those boxing shorts was a bit abusive, though.