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

[_honorentheos]

MG -

Lemmie's post was a good summary of my point. I don't think you actually followed what I was saying. Also -

Tight translation. Loose translation. Group conference call. These efforts at explaining the Book of Mormon come up short individually but added together...the sum...they work.

They can't work together. They contradiction one another, each contradicts some of the evidence, and the third one undercuts the entire argument Callister is making.

I don't know what else there is to say. They were presented in a thread-bare fashion in a way I had hoped you'd recognize represented how poorly constructed Callister's points were to those who believe there are substantive issues with the Book of Mormon's truth claims that arguing about authorship when it's unresolvable makes it a distraction.

Instead, it seems like you saw those generalized point and chose to keep an "any and/or all of the above" position regarding them. What that means...eh.

Anyway, I guess we're done.

ETA - Honestly? I quit reading and came back to post after I read this sentence -

I am more or less a reductionist. The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts if one of those parts is God.

I thought the second sentence not only did not follow from the first, but it was...

Today was a bit of a crap day, to be fair. So I shouldn't take it out on you. I didn't approach your post with a lot of charity and I still can't. Maybe later, but I kinda doubt I will find myself inclined to revisit this at a point when it seems we can't find common language to begin with.

Please, avoid the pep rallies if possible for next time, though. I'd much rather haggle of Hardy than Callister. I think you've shown better judgement on topics you've brought to the board than this particular one. But hey, page 34 so maybe that's saying something.

[_mentalgymnast]

Anyway, I guess we're done.

Thanks for coming back and responding. I was under no illusion that we would successfully reach across the divide and solve/fix anything. You live in your world as an absurdist and I live in mine as a reductionist.

Different strokes for different folks and at a certain distance away from each other...never the twain shall meet.

But it is interesting to read your outlook/view towards 'truth'. Does a person with an absurdist position believe and/or think that there can be any Truth (capital T)? Or is it basically all relative to the time, the day, the place, etc.?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

ETA - Honestly? I quit reading and came back to post after I read this sentence -

I am more or less a reductionist. The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts if one of those parts is God.

I thought the second sentence not only did not follow from the first, but it was...

At first glance, that's what you might think...but they are related. I'm not sure how well I can explain it, but I know what I mean in my head. And it's too late to go there...

I hope tomorrow is a better day for you. Some days...

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Ack, I came back.

Wiki on reductionism -

Reductionism is a philosophical position that holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.

I hope this helps you recognize why I had to stop reading and take a break after reading those two sentences.

[_honorentheos]

Since I stopped back in against my better judgement -

But it is interesting to read your outlook/view towards 'truth'. Does a person with an absurdist position believe and/or think that there can be any Truth (capital T)? Or is it basically all relative to the time, the day, the place, etc.?

Right now, I'm still not able to get past the issue of language between us to feel confident in having this conversation.

I suspect you see in my point about absurdism being logical if maybe not how I actually live day-to-day (though today...yeah. damned Camus...) a commentary that you contrast with...ah, holistic syncretism? Really, Mormonism captures it to me. If one assigns to Mormonism an internal belief that all things "truth" are included and this includes things simply not tangible or accessible to others, where saying "light and truth are synonyms with intelligence" wins approval...I think Mormonism is really the only term for that which captures it's meaning.

So absurdism v. Mormonism...I'll grant you this. It's a nice thing to believe that the universe has meaning that transcends the relationships and meaning one creates in one's life which are really no more meaningful in the grand scheme of things than any other microscopic fleeting moment.

Truth is a difficult thing to discuss in this context, mainly because by it you mean something that has certain traits and features that must exist independent of human construction but you also assume divine human-like construction so it's just levels of subjectivity. If I suggest that we ought to work on actually reducing the traits of a thing down to those parts independent of human perception you will always assume something godlike with superior humanlike perception is universal. We end up debating the existing of God at that point. But if you care to try, let's start with how you would define something as being true in a way that doesn't require a human conceiving this is a trait this thing or concept can claim.

[_zerinus]

Truth is a difficult thing to discuss in this context, mainly because by it you mean something that has certain traits and features that must exist independent of human construction but you also assume divine human-like construction so it's just levels of subjectivity. If I suggest that we ought to work on actually reducing the traits of a thing down to those parts independent of human perception you will always assume something godlike with superior humanlike perception is universal. We end up debating the existing of God at that point. But if you care to try, let's start with how you would define something as being true in a way that doesn't require a human conceiving this is a trait this thing or concept can claim.

D&C 93:

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

[_honorentheos]

Having knowledge is a description of a person's relationship to a thing. Your definition of truth fails to divorce it from the human perception rather than a way of stating something about a thing itself that gives it the characteristics of being true independent of perception.

Under your description, it isn't something one might define as capital "T" truth like MG requested I answer if I believed in it. It's a way of saying a person's perception of a thing matches some other condition.

[_Chap]

stating something about a thing itself that gives it the characteristics of being true independent of perception.

Those words 'about a thing itself' confuse me. Do you just mean:

stating something that is true independent of perception

'Something' being a proposition, of course?

[_honorentheos]

Let's save some time.

In Mormonism, the concept of truth is tied to perfect understanding, perfect knowledge. God is the singular being who has access to this perfect understanding in Mormonism, and much of what a person is seeking is to become like God in this way.

The Truth with a capital "T" that MG asked about is understood in Mormonism requires there to be an omniscient and superior human-like mind that comprehends this state of all things.

That's fine, but it turns the discussion into a debate about the existance of God.

So I'm asking MG to attempt to break out of this approach and examine the question independent of perception. Can something even be "True" with a capital "T" without a mind seeking some form of relationship with the thing and defining it as true which gives it the characteristics of being true?

[_Chap]

Can something even be "True" with a capital "T" without a mind seeking some form of relationship with the thing and defining it as true which gives it the characteristics of being true?

Sorry - but surely a relationship with a thing cannot be true or false?

Only propositions can be true or false.

I am not trying to be nitpicking, but even after doing my best to understand the mechanics of your sentence above, I am confused. Do you mean something like:

'How can there any true or false propositions without a mind that thinks about its objects of perception or reasoning, and then forms propositions in which statements about those objects are asserted or denied?'

I have to say that your apparent insistence on the need for a thinking mind in order for truth or falsehood to be a property of propositions strikes me as doubtful. Thus, suppose that all the thinking subjects but one have died. Then the thinking subject, if aware of that situation, might well say:

"The number of thinking subjects in the world is one", and that would be a true proposition. But suppose that the thinking subject then dies. Would you not agree that the proposition "The number of thinking subjects in the world is zero" would be true, whether or not that proposition is present to any conscious and thinking mind?