The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_mentalgymnast]

It seemed most valuable to begin by first seeing if truth is something that we can even agree exists as a trait of anything independent of how we as human beings define it.

For the record, I think that the independent reality that would come closest to defining ultimate Truth...with a capital T...is entwined in the scripture that I think was quoted earlier.

D&C 93:

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.

If you don't like the "truth is knowledge" part of the 'definition', then exclude it.

Truth is things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.

I think that's about as close as one can get to the point of explaining or trying to wrap one's mind around 'ultimate truth/reality'.

See, I left God out of it.

So where would you go from here after leaving God out of the picture? How are you going to determine the reality the 'what is', the 'what was', and 'what's to come'...without a little help?

Is that where the absurdity of it all kicks in? You are making a basic assumption of past, present, and future consciousness, right? That there have been, are, and will always be sentient observers and interlocutors with what is and what will be?

Or are you saying that truth/reality is independent of the observer and that it is a fruitless enterprise to determine truth/reality?

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

So where would you go from here after leaving God out of the picture? How are you going to determine the reality the 'what is', the 'what was', and 'what's to come'...without a little help?

Is that where the absurdity of it all kicks in? You are making a basic assumption of past, present, and future consciousness, right? That there have been, are, and will always be sentient observers and interlocutors with what is and what will be?

Let's go back to the question of how a person determines "the reality (of) 'what is', the 'what was', and 'what's to come'." You seem to recognize there is a problem inherent with this definition with the question about if it requires a little help or where we go if we leave God out of things.

Where do you go?

Or are you saying that truth/reality is independent of the observer and that it is a fruitless enterprise to determine truth/reality?

No. If we look at Chap's earlier comments we see a few other human constructs that are important for how we assess truth from a non-religious perspective. He brought up tools of logic, language, and shared meaning (definitions). My opinion about truth is that it's incredibly important to have as accurate a methodology and concept for determining truth out of a multitude of needs. But at a very real level truth is a human construct. We assign accuracy on criteria that include if it appears to work and if others receive similar results, etc. I feel towards it the same way I feel regarding the free will debate: I think the evidence against us having true free will is strong, but I'm not going to live life in a way that simply dismisses agency. I do use this view to feel a certain degree of tolerance towards people that I don't know that I did before I came to this conclusion. So it matters in how I live my life, but not in a way that may seem intuitive to someone who strongly believes they have free will. Likewise, I'm fairly sure that our concept of truth is a constantly refining, sometimes missing, attempt at bringing the universe into focus. But the act itself of attempting to accomplish this is a very human thing to do. The universe isn't bending itself around notions of truth, we're looking out into the universe and trying to answer the questions of, "Why?"

When Chap's hypothetical last thinking being's mind is extinguished, the propositional condition of there being no thinking being in the universe might be met but the proposition that set the parameters that created a set of thinking beings disappeared with that mind. The set didn't become empty, it ceased to be. Set theory ceased to be. Truth in that sense, as a human construct attempting to understand the universe and order it into "what is, was, and is to come" went poof with the lights going out in that mind.

TL;DR - Determining truth is a valuable process with useful tools we use to make sense of the universe by ordering it in ways we can understand. But the universe itself, minus us, appears oblivious to this. As T.S. Eliot said in a poem,

Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place
I rejoice that things are as they are and
I renounce the blessed face
And renounce the voice
Because I cannot hope to turn again
Consequently I rejoice, having to construct something
Upon which to rejoice

[_zerinus]

To be as clear as I can, z, I wasn't questioning truth as an important and valid construct we rely on. MG had asked me if I believed in Truth, assuming something that is transcendent of the kind of truth that is accessible to us as the capital T implies.

That is a distinction without a difference. There is no such thing as Truth with capital “T,” versus truth with small “t”. There no “transcendent truth” versus “non-transcendent truth”. Transcendent to what? Those are your own inventions. You are imagining things. You and MG are inventing stuff as you go along which have no meaning or existence in the world of reality.

It seemed most valuable to begin by first seeing if truth is something that we can even agree exists as a trait of anything independent of how we as human beings define it.

If “we as human beings” cannot even define it, how can we know that it even exists?

I had a pretty good idea of how the discussion would likely go, and that it would by necessity turn on the question of God’s existance. I was Mormon once, you know.

You are talking a lot of airy-fairy stuff which doesn’t mean anything to anybody.

Anyway, how Mormonism defines truth is not really meaningful but rather assigns the trait to something aligned with God’s knowledge regarding…well, everything.

The only difference between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge is that God knows more than man does. I gave you a definition truth as given to us in a revelation from God. You don’t like that definition because it came from God, so you want to scrap it and invent your own definition; and it ain’t workin.

If that is the only paradigm available from which to discuss the question then I think it ended before it began. You are more than welcome to your own definition of it, though. It’s not meaningful to me either way.

That works both ways. Your “definition” is equally meaningless to me; and I will be happy to shoot it down for you as soon as it is airborne.

[_zerinus]

For the record, I think that the independent reality that would come closest to defining ultimate Truth...with a capital T...is entwined in the scripture that I think was quoted earlier.

What do you mean by “independent reality,” or “ultimate truth”? “Independent” of what, and “ultimate” to what? You are using words without checking to see if they have any meaning.

D&C 93:

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.

If you don't like the "truth is knowledge" part of the 'definition', then exclude it.

Truth is things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.

The definition doesn’t work if you leave the “knowledge” bit out of it. Truth is intimately tied with knowledge. Truth is not a “thing”. Truth is knowledge of things.

I think that's about as close as one can get to the point of explaining or trying to wrap one's mind around 'ultimate truth/reality'.

That doesn’t mean anything unless you can tell us what is the difference between “ultimate truth/reality” and “non-ultimate truth/reality”. Truth is truth, and reality is reality. There is nothing “ultimate” about either. I see a lot of dust and smoke in the air, but not much light.

See, I left God out of it.

That was the problem. That is where it started going wrong. The solution to godlessness is not to “leave God out of it,” but to put God back into it.

So where would you go from here after leaving God out of the picture? How are you going to determine the reality the 'what is', the 'what was', and 'what's to come'...without a little help?

Is that where the absurdity of it all kicks in? You are making a basic assumption of past, present, and future consciousness, right? That there have been, are, and will always be sentient observers and interlocutors with what is and what will be?

Or are you saying that truth/reality is independent of the observer and that it is a fruitless enterprise to determine truth/reality?

Regards,
MG

Those are valid points.

[_zerinus]

My opinion about truth is that it's incredibly important to have as accurate a methodology and concept for determining truth out of a multitude of needs.

How can you do that if you don’t have a meaningful definition of what truth is?

But at a very real level truth is a human construct. ...

That is another way of saying that truth is relative. What is true for one person may not be true for another. If that be the case, how can we be sure of anything? How can we share information with one another? Is gravity true for some but not for others? If truth was relative, nothing would be predictable, and life would be impossible.

Determining truth is a valuable process with useful tools we use to make sense of the universe by ordering it in ways we can understand. But the universe itself, minus us, appears oblivious to this.

The universe “minus us” is a questionable ​concept. We are part of the universe. If we are part of the universe, that means that intelligence, or the ability to “understand” is part of the universe. If that be the case, what makes you so sure that we are the only ones​ who are in possession of it?

[_honorentheos]

zerinus -

You have a few problems to overcome based on your posts above.

Earlier when you berated MG for removing "knowledge of" from the LDS scripture, you made it clear that you don't consider truth to be only about the state of objects (what is, was, or will be) but rather the knowledge of those things.

But when you came down to attack my statements you begin to treat the subject very differently. You speak about gravity like this, for example:

Is gravity true for some but not for others?

I don't think anyone would argue that the knowledge of gravity varies between people and rather widely. A new born infant will not have the same knowledge of gravity as the physicist who can describe it mathematically. If truth is defined by "the knowledge of..." then truth is relative to a person's knowledge. Clearly, there's a problem somewhere you need to deal with in your thinking.

To answer your question to me, my position is that constructing an understanding of the universe (what one may think of as true) as a way of describing something is not an entirely internal event. But it's also subjective. You and I have very differing views about things related to Mormonism but probably not gravity. Chap seems like the kind of guy who would know the equations related to gravity, while I haven't dealt with that since college so his understanding will be different regarding gravity but practically it will be very similar to how you and I understand gravity. We'll have differing understanding of quantum mechanics, but probably not the laws of motion. We'll have differing understanding of the theory of evolution, but probably not thermodynamics. There are subjective ways we both have come to understand these things, and there are constructs that other humans have developed that we may borrow that help us better understand them. But also make it so we end up with very different understandings (what you borrowed from someone to understand evolution is probably very different from what I've borrowed, for example). But even the concept of thermodynamics is a human construct, a way of ordering the universe so it can be better understood.

[_zerinus]

zerinus -

You have a few problems to overcome based on your posts above.

Earlier when you berated MG for removing "knowledge of" from the LDS scripture, you made it clear that you don't consider truth to be only about the state of objects (what is, was, or will be) but rather the knowledge of those things.

But when you came down to attack my statements you begin to treat the subject very differently. You speak about gravity like this, for example:

Is gravity true for some but not for others?

I don't think anyone would argue that the knowledge of gravity varies between people and rather widely. A new born infant will not have the same knowledge of gravity as the physicist who can describe it mathematically. If truth is defined by "the knowledge of..." then truth is relative to a person's knowledge. Clearly, there's a problem somewhere you need to deal with in your thinking.

To answer your question to me, my position is that constructing an understanding of the universe (what one may think of as true) as a way of describing something is not an entirely internal event. But it's also subjective. You and I have very differing views about things related to Mormonism but probably not gravity. Chap seems like the kind of guy who would know the equations related to gravity, while I haven't dealt with that since college so his understanding will be different regarding gravity but practically it will be very similar to how you and I understand gravity. We'll have differing understanding of quantum mechanics, but probably not the laws of motion. We'll have differing understanding of the theory of evolution, but probably not thermodynamics. There are subjective ways we both have come to understand these things, and there are constructs that other humans have developed that we may borrow that help us better understand them. But also make it so we end up with very different understandings (what you borrowed from someone to understand evolution is probably very different from what I've borrowed, for example). But even the concept of thermodynamics is a human construct, a way of ordering the universe so it can be better understood.

The word truth can only apply to propositions, not to objects. If I picked up a rock off the ground and held it in my hand, and said this rock is "true" (or "false"), that wouldn't mean anything. But if I made statements about that rock, those statements could either be true or false. If I said, "I am holding this rock in my hand," that could be true or false. If I said, "I just picked this rock up," that could be true or false. If I said, "This rock is smooth and not rough," that statement could be true or false. If I said, "this rock is granite rather than limestone," that could be either true or false. If I said, "this rock is heavy," that could be either true or false. If I said, "this rock is yellow," that could either be true or false. But the rock itself could neither be true or false. So truth can only apply to propositions, not to objects. And propositions are things that can be understood. They can be known. If a statement is incomprehensible and unintelligible, it can neither be true or false. Propositions and cognition go together. One cannot exist apart from the other. Hence "truth" is knowledge of things, not the things themselves. The problem I am having with this conversation is that you do not have coherent definition of truth. Hence everything you are saying appears to be inconsistent, incoherent, and for the most part unintelligible.

[_Lemmie]

And propositions are things that can be understood. They can be known.

[bolding added by me.]
Can be, agreed.

If a statement is incomprehensible and unintelligible, it can neither be true or false. Propositions and cognition go together. One cannot exist apart from the other. Hence "truth" is knowledge of things, not the things themselves.

So, can be known doesn't agree with cannot exist apart. If the latter, then why is honorentheos' newborn baby not weightless?

A new born infant will not have the same knowledge of gravity as the physicist who can describe it mathematically. If truth is defined by "the knowledge of..." then truth is relative to a person's knowledge. Clearly, there's a problem somewhere you need to deal with in your thinking.

Especially if the only way to define truth is to default back to god knowing truth to explain that truth exists.

I thought honorentheos' TL;DR gave a great working definition.

TL;DR - Determining truth is a valuable process with useful tools we use to make sense of the universe by ordering it in ways we can understand. But the universe itself, minus us, appears oblivious to this. As T.S. Eliot said in a poem,

Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place
I rejoice that things are as they are and
I renounce the blessed face
And renounce the voice
Because I cannot hope to turn again
Consequently I rejoice, having to construct something
Upon which to rejoice

Talk about expressing the human condition. Wow. Thanks for the poem, honorentheos!

[_Maksutov]

Let's just remember that Z-boy decries others as incoherent and irrational while he gets his authoritative books via magic banded jasper and the delusions of a man (Swedenborg) who claimed to talk with beings from Mercury and Jupiter. His beliefs also require vast conspiracies of frauds in all branches of science and historiography and linguistics.

Carry on, true believer.

[_Starbuck]

If I picked up a rock off the ground and held it in my hand, and said this rock is "true" (or "false"), that wouldn't mean anything.

How does this apply when someone says things like this:

Wrong! Mormonism is true as long as anybody knows about it---even if it is only God.

Wrong! I know the Book of Mormon is true!

I would agree that these statements don't mean anything.