Conquest of Canaan

[LDS Guy 1986]

The Bible Dictionary isn't doctrine. The Book of Mormon is.

I disagree, the Bible Dictionary is part of the Standard works and is derived from the Scriptures, with the approval of the First Presidency. It is valid for study and doctrinal purposes, for all LDS.

[semlogo]

I disagree, the Bible Dictionary is part of the Standard works and is derived from the Scriptures, with the approval of the First Presidency. It is valid for study and doctrinal purposes, for all LDS.

Right, but the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion, trumps a dictionary.

Edit: I didn't catch that you said it was a part of the standard works - it isn't!

[volgadon]

Lamanites are Israelites with promises of inheritance. There is no equality between Lamanites and Canaanites....

Laban was an Israelite as well. If the BoM was Joseph rewrite of the Bible from a literalist POV, and the Bible has God commanding the utter annihilation of evil groups, then why not include at least one pericope where God commands the Nephites to wipe out a people and possess their land? Instead, according to you, we have him a story about an individual killing another individual. Honestly, there is a far more obvious biblical parallel, one which Ben MacGuire has published about.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Right, but the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion, trumps a dictionary.

Do you understand anything about architecture at all?

The Keystone is the center piece of the arch it holds the rest of the structure together, but it is not more important than any other piece of the arch, to lose any piece will result in a collapse.

The same goes for the standard works, yes the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our faith, it holds together the ancient revelations of the Bible to the Modern Revelations of D&C, PoGP, Ensign, ect.

The Book of Mormon holds the Standard Works of the Church together, it is not a trump, it complements the Bible it doesn't contradict the Bible. The Bible Dictionary is also part of the standard works, it complements the Book of Mormon, it does not contradict it.

There is not such thing as this trumps that, the inspired word of God is just that, the Bible Dictionary is complied for the clarification of terms from the Gospel for the benift of the Saints, by the order of the First Presidency of the Church. It does not contradict or trump any other standard work, just as the BoM doesn't trump or contradict the Bible Dictionary.

For any of the standard works to contradict another means that piece of the arch of our faith fails and everything falls down.

As Paul wisely teaches us ". . . the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need for thee: nor the head to the feet, I have no need of you." (1 Corinthians 12:21)

Just as every member of the Church is needed and are equally important, the books of the Standard Works are equally important to our salvation. The Book of Mormon cannot tell the Bible Dictionary, I have no need for thee.

We need all the standard works as well as the inspired teachings of the modern prophets, in context to understand what God is, because of all these writings and teachings we know that God is supreme, that everything just and moral comes from him it does not rule him, since he is the creator of justice and morality for us.

I rebuke your idea that some of the Standard Works are more important that others, all of the Standard works are important to our salvation.

[Calm]

The Bible Dictionary is also part of the standard works

No it is not. It is attached to one of the Standard works as a study aid. It is no more part of the standard works than the Webster's Dictionary.

The new Bible dictionary is not intended as a revealed treatment or official version of doctrinal, historical, cultural, chronological, and other matters found in the Bible. Much of the information has been drawn from nonscriptural scholarly sources and will be subject to reevaluation as new discoveries or additional revelation may require. The topics are treated briefly and in an introductory rather than a definitive way, so that the dictionary could be used by the average reader as well as the more serious student or teacher. If an in-depth discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary.

http://lds.org/ensig...e+dictionary%22

Standard works:

The volumes of scripture officially accepted by the Church, including the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

http://lds.org/study/topics/standard-works?lang=eng

[LDS Guy 1986]

'Precipitated' does not equal "act of war." Seriously, your wikipediastic popular wisdom isn't far removed from this: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=uk37TD_08eA

The poor old ostrich really did die for nothing.

The old figure of the assassination of the archduke being the spark on the powderkeg which ignited WWI is overly simplistic. The July Ultimatum (of which I suspect you were unaware of until just recently), shows this to be the case.

I knew of the buildup of the tension between the Syrians and the Austrians (which has caused by this July Ultimatum) that allowed the assassination of the Archduke to develop into war and drag Europe into WWI with it's massive alliances. Your Monty Python clip (it is truly sad that you take comedy as a reliable source of history and political commentary, I guess your source of modern news and political commentary is the Daily Show and The Colbert Report) has no weight on the argument and fact that the without the assassination of the Archduke you have no WWI, I concede that one can speculate that had the Archduke not be assassinated that war would of eventually broken out anyway, but that doesn't mean that the assassination of the Archduke wasn't the direct cause of the outbreak of hostilities in WWI. Adding speculation to an argument about whether the war would or wouldn't of happened without his assassination is useless.

The assassination did happen and it did start WWI, and speculate all you want but speculation isn't science nor history.

[volgadon]

I knew of the buildup of the tension between the Syrians and the Austrians (which has caused by this July Ultimatum)

I think you mean Serbs. The tension was there, the ultimatum exacerbated it.

Your Monty Python clip (it is truly sad that you take comedy as a reliable source of history and political commentary, I guess your source of modern news and political commentary is the Daily Show and The Colbert Report) has no weight on the argument

Blackadder. Did I say it was a reliable source of history? I was pointing out that your view of the cause of WWI isn't far removed from Baldrick's.

and fact that the without the assassination of the Archduke you have no WWI, I concede that one can speculate that had the Archduke not be assassinated that war would of eventually broken out anyway, but that doesn't mean that the assassination of the Archduke wasn't the direct cause of the outbreak of hostilities in WWI. Adding speculation to an argument about whether the war would or wouldn't of happened without his assassination is useless.

The assassination did happen and it did start WWI, and speculate all you want but speculation isn't science nor history.

And none of this turns the assassination into an act of war. The assassination was an indirect cause, and one of many. It captured the popular imagination, but it was not in itself an act of war. You use the term extremely sloppily. Let us say that Zedekiah captured Nephi. Who would he go to war with over the assassination?

I also find it funny that you lecture me over history, but appeal to wikipedia.

[LeSellers]

The assassination [of Archduke Franz Ferdinand] did happen and it did start WWI, and speculate all you want but speculation isn't science nor history.

History is much more complex than that. The assassination was the trigger, but a weapon does not fire if someone pulls the trigger unless there are all the other elements in place, too: bullet, shell, primer, the weapon must be cocked, all the springs tensed, and so on.

Just the same, if there had been no tensions among the various parties, the assassination would not have triggered the war. As the clips suggested, it was more difficult to keep the peace than it was to start the war.

Your earlier message, wherein you stated that the assassination "precipitated" the war was correct. But on its own it was a trivial event in the scope of history.

Lehi

[WalkerW]

I disagree completely, hate is what powers Islam and there fundamentalist, I do not preach hate. I preach the Gospel and it's message that all who sin and do not repent will be destroyed at the time of the Second Coming. To me you are one scary dude because you cannot tell the difference between the two.

The Westboro Baptist Church thinks they are preaching the Gospel and its message as well.

[WalkerW]

That's not what the scripture says. If God, failing to uphold the works of justice, can cease to be God, then it follows that God is not the source of Justice, but merely its custodian.

This is how I understand it. In traditional Christian views, the abstractions of "God" and "justice" can be conflated. Not so in Mormonism.

See, for example, Blake T. Ostler, "A God Who is Morally Praiseworthy: A Response to Carl Mosser," Element 4:2 (Fall 2008).

[LDS Guy 1986]

History is much more complex than that. The assassination was the trigger, but a weapon does not fire if someone pulls the trigger unless there are all the other elements in place, too: bullet, shell, primer, the weapon must be cocked, all the springs tensed, and so on.

Just the same, if there had been no tensions among the various parties, the assassination would not have triggered the war. As the clips suggested, it was more difficult to keep the peace than it was to start the war.

Your earlier message, wherein you stated that the assassination "precipitated" the war was correct. But on its own it was a trivial event in the scope of history.

Lehi

Wow, any why would Syria decide to assassinate the Archduke of Austrian, if there was no tension either?

The assassination was caused by the tensions between the nations and the result of the assassination was WWI, because Austria declared war on Syria following the assassination. The tension that lead to the decision to assassination the archduke is the ammunition being loaded and the weapon cocked, the assassination is the trigger being pulled. Without an assassination of the Archduke you have not war, just like without pulling the trigger on a loaded handgun you have nothing more than an expensive paperweight.

Mounting tensions DOES NOT equal war, look at North and South Korea, they have had mounting tensions that almost lead to war (and lead to several skirmishes) since the cease fire between the two nations. Tension is not an act of war, only the reasoning that leads to an act of war.

Deploying troops on boarders, threats of conflict, ect are not acts of war, it is posturing and it is trying to deter a war not create one. Let the other guy see how tough you are and they might back down, now once someone assassinates the heir to the throne of your nation when you are built up and warning them you mean business, that is an act of war.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The Westboro Baptist Church thinks they are preaching the Gospel and its message as well.

The Jehovah Witnesses think they are preaching the Gospel and it's message as well, also and it has no impact whatsoever that they do not have the authority to do so.

They do not have a prophet or apostles, they are not called of God, and they do not have the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[WalkerW]

I disagree, the Bible Dictionary is part of the Standard works

No, it isn't.

[Calm]

Let us say that Zedekiah captured Nephi. Who would he go to war with over the assassination?

Looking at all the likely variations of what could have happened after Nephi killed Laban, which one involves a war? At most you might have Zedekiah having Lehi's group eliminated if they attempted to prevent the arrest of the brothers, but Lehi's family was not a nation yet. And where is the intent of Nephi to start a war with anyone? He only wanted the brass plates, he did not intend to involved anyone he didn't have to. There is no sign of intent for war on Laban's part either and it is highly unlikely he would have wanted to explain to his commanders that he was sending out the troops to go after people he stole treasure from....

[WalkerW]

The Jehovah Witnesses think they are preaching the Gospel and it's message as well, also and it has no impact whatsoever that they do not have the authority to do so.

They do not have a prophet or apostles, they are not called of God, and they do not have the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Allow me to be more frank: your argument was stupid.

"Islam is preaching hate. I'm preaching the Gospel. It's ok to commit genocide because I've got the true God and He told me to do it."

[volgadon]

Austria-Hungary was unable to use Franz Ferdinand's assassination as a pretext for war with Serbia, which is why they had to come up with an ultimatum that would be rejected. The Serbs accepted most of it, but the Austro-Hungarians capitalised on what was rejected, and broke off diplomatic relations. Both sides mobilisied their troops. There were some border incidents, and several days later, the Austro-Hungarians declared war.

Vienna

28 July 1914

The Royal Serbian Government not having answered in a satisfactory manner the note of July 23, 1914, presented by the Austro-Hungarian Minister at Belgrade, the Imperial and Royal Government are themselves compelled to see to the safeguarding of their rights and interests, and, with this object, to have recourse to force of arms.

Austria-Hungary consequently considers herself henceforward in state of war with Serbia.

[volgadon]

Wow, any why would Syria decide to assassinate the Archduke of Austrian, if there was no tension either?

The assassination was caused by the tensions between the nations and the result of the assassination was WWI, because Austria declared war on Syria following the assassination. The tension that lead to the decision to assassination the archduke is the ammunition being loaded and the weapon cocked, the assassination is the trigger being pulled. Without an assassination of the Archduke you have not war, just like without pulling the trigger on a loaded handgun you have nothing more than an expensive paperweight.

Mounting tensions DOES NOT equal war, look at North and South Korea, they have had mounting tensions that almost lead to war (and lead to several skirmishes) since the cease fire between the two nations. Tension is not an act of war, only the reasoning that leads to an act of war.

Deploying troops on boarders, threats of conflict, ect are not acts of war, it is posturing and it is trying to deter a war not create one. Let the other guy see how tough you are and they might back down, now once someone assassinates the heir to the throne of your nation when you are built up and warning them you mean business, that is an act of war.

Belgrade must be the capital of Greater Syria. Here I was thinking that it was Damascus...

[semlogo]

Do you understand anything about architecture at all?

The Keystone is the center piece of the arch it holds the rest of the structure together, but it is not more important than any other piece of the arch, to lose any piece will result in a collapse.

The same goes for the standard works, yes the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our faith, it holds together the ancient revelations of the Bible to the Modern Revelations of D&C, PoGP, Ensign, ect.

The Book of Mormon holds the Standard Works of the Church together, it is not a trump, it complements the Bible it doesn't contradict the Bible. The Bible Dictionary is also part of the standard works, it complements the Book of Mormon, it does not contradict it.

There is not such thing as this trumps that, the inspired word of God is just that, the Bible Dictionary is complied for the clarification of terms from the Gospel for the benift of the Saints, by the order of the First Presidency of the Church. It does not contradict or trump any other standard work, just as the BoM doesn't trump or contradict the Bible Dictionary.

For any of the standard works to contradict another means that piece of the arch of our faith fails and everything falls down.

As Paul wisely teaches us ". . . the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need for thee: nor the head to the feet, I have no need of you." (1 Corinthians 12:21)

Just as every member of the Church is needed and are equally important, the books of the Standard Works are equally important to our salvation. The Book of Mormon cannot tell the Bible Dictionary, I have no need for thee.

We need all the standard works as well as the inspired teachings of the modern prophets, in context to understand what God is, because of all these writings and teachings we know that God is supreme, that everything just and moral comes from him it does not rule him, since he is the creator of justice and morality for us.

I rebuke your idea that some of the Standard Works are more important that others, all of the Standard works are important to our salvation.

Um, except the Bible Dictionary isn't a part of the standard works.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Your earlier message, wherein you stated that the assassination "precipitated" the war was correct. But on its own it was a trivial event in the scope of history.

See once again you prove my theory that one must read the entire quote, taking clips of a quote and acting like it has context, is the errand of disingenuous individuals. Yes the assassination caused to happen suddenly (the definition of precipitated) the declaration of war between Austria and Syria, and if you read the rest of the quote "This caused Germany and Austria-Hungary, and countries allied with Serbia (the Triple Alliance Powers) to declare war on each other, starting World War I.^{[2][3][4]" (emphasis added to ensure clarification). If you disagree I would encourage you to refute the 3 sources provided for that statement on wikipedia.com, here is the link for the page on the Archduke if you desire to present evidence against the sources of the claim instead of simply dodging because the sources are on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria}

^{No assassination means not declaration of War between Austria and Syria, no war between Austria and Syria means not WWI. The mounting tension was just that, tension the US currently has mounting tension with Iran and North Korea, and in both situations wither US troops and/or the troops of our allies are mobilized on the boarder of each of these nations. Does this mean we are at a state were war with either of these nations is imminent? NO, it simply means that we are at a heightened state of alert that any hostile action by either party also known as an act of war (say like Iranians assassinating Prime Minster Nouro al-Maliki of Iraq) will result in war between these two nations and there allies.}

As I have said before a refresher course on world history and diplomacy is in need here,

[WalkerW]

Do you understand anything about architecture at all?

Could you possibly be anymore smug and obnoxious?

[Calm]

^{No assassination means not declaration of War between Austria and Syria, no war between Austria and Syria means not WWI.}

Please use a map and go find where Syria is located.

[WalkerW]

^{If you disagree I would encourage you to refute the 3 sources provided for that statement on wikipedia.com, here is the link for the page on the Archduke if you desire to present evidence against the sources of the claim instead of simply dodging because the sources are on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....nand_of_Austria}

Volgadon provided more information and context to the beginning of World War I, which you have not dealt with. You instead repeated yourself, increased the size of the text, and asked for refutation of sources you haven't actually read.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Um, except the Bible Dictionary isn't a part of the standard works.

Oh, please tell me when the LDS KJV of the Holy Bible was dropped as a part of the Standard Works you should notify the Church immediately because they still publish the LDS KJV with the Bible Dictionary and put the LDS KJV (with Bible dictionary) up as part of the scriptures at: http://lds.org/scriptures/bd?lang=eng

I thank you for letting my know the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stopped using the Bible and it's accompanying dictionary as part of the Standard works of teh Church, I would like to see the statement from the First Presidency saying this though, because I think it still is part of the Standard Works and part of the LDS KJV of the Holy Bible.

So when you present that statement from the First Presidency that the LDS KJV is not longer in the Standard Works I will coincide the point, until then you are completely wrong.

[WalkerW]

On top of this, LDSGuy 1986 is moving away from what Volgadon initially was responding to: assassination as an "act of war." I don't see him denying the assassination increased tensions that eventually escalated into war.

[Calm]

I thank you for letting my know the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stopped using the Bible and it's accompanying dictionary

Key word. The Bible dictionary is not the Bible. It is not listed as one of the Standard Works, the Bible is. (see link I gave earlier) Take out the dictionary and we still have the Bible and the rest of the Standard Works.