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

[_Tator]

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.

Do you have a hat? You need to handle that rock like Joe did. Hold it imagine, imagine a lot and stare at it and examine it closely over and over and this true/false rock will show you the true/false stuff. It'll have meaning and give you answers like yes, no, maybe or later but you might get lucky and get a whole book of reformed Egyptian.

[_I have a question]

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.

So, the Book of Mormon isn't true. Got it.

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

So, the Book of Mormon isn't true. Got it.

But isn't the Book of Mormon a lengthy proposition? That Jesus is the Christ?

The Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus Christ


Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

So, the Book of Mormon isn't true. Got it.

But isn't the Book of Mormon a lengthy proposition? That Jesus is the Christ?

The Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus Christ


Regards,
MG

It's a proposition (and you provide the demonstration) that some people will believe anything.

[_Quasimodo]

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.

So, the Book of Mormon isn't true. Got it.

Sophism.

True rocks:


False rocks:

Please go and wash your hands.

Both a true rock and a false rock.

[_zerinus]

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.

So, the Book of Mormon isn't true. Got it.

When we say that the Book of Mormon is "true," we mean that all the propositional statements we make about it are true. Here are some propositional statements we make about the Book of Mormon:

• It is true history.
• It was revealed by an angel.
• It was translated by the power of God.
• It teaches correct doctrine.
• It is scripture.
• It is the word of God.

That is what we mean when we say that "the Book of Mormon is true".

[_I have a question]

When we say that the Book of Mormon is "true," we mean that all the propositional statements we make about it are true. Here are some propositional statements we make about the Book of Mormon:

• It is true history.
• It was revealed by an angel.
• It was translated by the power of God.
• It teaches correct doctrine.
• It is scripture.
• It is the word of God.

That is what we mean when we say that "the Book of Mormon is true".

So when we say the rock is true, we mean that all the propositional statements we make about it are true. Such as:
It's granite
It's heavy
It's brown
Etc.

[_Starbuck]

It is true history.

Wrong! It is not true history. This propositions alone shows the book is false. If you can show real evidence that supports this proposition, I am willing to change my mind about this proposition. The other propositions are not even worth addressing until this one is true.

[_spotlight]

It is true history.

Except it's not as archaeology and DNA evidence demonstrate. Also the book fails to mention anything that really did exist such as beans, squash, cacao etc.

It was revealed by an angel.

It was revealed by Joe who claimed there was an angel involved. Of course he claimed angels for every treasure dig he was hired out to oversee as he sacrificed other people's animals to appease the guardians and keep them from slipping the treasures further away into the earth as they got close. The meat ended up on Joe's table except in the case of a dog that he sacrificed on one occasion.

It was translated by the power of God.

True if we define god to be Joe's magic peepstone. We depend upon a blanket acceptance of the facile statement from Joe whether there really was anything entering his head from the rock. The only other data point we have here for this kind of claim is Nightlion.

It teaches correct doctrine.

Well according to those who buy into the story. It is incorrect doctrine according to every other Christian faction under the sun each of which has their own unique interpretation of the Bible. No surprises there.

It is scripture.

See previous.

It is the word of God.

See previous.


And since these are all claims the burden of proof is on you.

[_Maksutov]

It is true history.

Except it's not as archaeology and DNA evidence demonstrate. Also the book fails to mention anything that really did exist such as beans, squash, cacao etc.

It was revealed by an angel.

It was revealed by Joe who claimed there was an angel involved. Of course he claimed angels for every treasure dig he was hired out to oversee as he sacrificed other people's animals to appease the guardians and keep them from slipping the treasures further away into the earth as they got close. The meat ended up on Joe's table except in the case of a dog that he sacrificed on one occasion.

It was translated by the power of God.

True if we define god to be Joe's magic peepstone. We depend upon a blanket acceptance of the facile statement from Joe whether there really was anything entering his head from the rock. The only other data point we have here for this kind of claim is Nightlion.

It teaches correct doctrine.

Well according to those who buy into the story. It is incorrect doctrine according to every other Christian faction under the sun each of which has their own unique interpretation of the Bible. No surprises there.

It is scripture.

See previous.

It is the word of God.

See previous.


And since these are all claims the burden of proof is on you.