honorentheos wrote:Exactly. (Except the existance part. Not sure why existance disappears without perception. ...
You are confusing too many things. We are defining “truth,” not “existence”. And “knowability” and “perception” are two different things.
... It may not have meaning in a way that we think about existance being tied to meaning but I don’t see a reason to say existance itself demands perception. Anyway.)
I have said nothing about existence or perception. I am defining for you the meaning of “truth” as taught in the D&C, which you had questioned. I am not defining existence or perception. I am saying that the concept of “truth” outside of “knowledge” or “knowability” has no meaning nor existence. There is no such thing as “truth” that is not “known,” or that is not “knowable”.
And since human perception is limited, subjective and flawed, I think that ...
“Human perception” has nothing to do with what we are discussing. How we know the truth is a different question from what truth IS.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.
I love how Mormonism turns out to be not true if you don't know about it. Lolol. You just can't make this crap up.
Eta: Is a Mormon real if you don't see one?
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
zerinus wrote:I have just edited that sentence for you to make it more intelligible.
Really? You sure about that?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
honorentheos wrote:Exactly. (Except the existance part. Not sure why existance disappears without perception. ...
You are confusing too many things. We are defining “truth,” not “existence”. And “knowability” and “perception” are two different things.
... It may not have meaning in a way that we think about existance being tied to meaning but I don’t see a reason to say existance itself demands perception. Anyway.)
I have said nothing about existence or perception. I am defining for you the meaning of “truth” as taught in the D&C, which you had questioned. I am not defining existence or perception. I am saying that the concept of “truth” outside of “knowledge” or “knowability” has no meaning nor existence. There is no such thing as “truth” that is not “known,” or that is not “knowable”.
And since human perception is limited, subjective and flawed, I think that ...
“Human perception” has nothing to do with what we are discussing. How we know the truth is a different question from what truth IS.
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. 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. 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.
Anyway, how Mormonism defines truth is not really meaningful but rather assigns the trait to something aligned with God’s knowledge regarding…well, everything. 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.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
