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

[_Chap]

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

Nope. You really are confusing yourself here. The propositional statement about the Book of Mormon 'The Book of Mormon says the moon is made of green cheese' is false.

You could have said "we mean that the propositional statements that the text of the Book of Mormon makes or implies about historical facts and religious doctrine are true." That would have expressed your meaning: it would also have been false, but hey ho! Nobody ever expected you to talk sense ...

[_zerinus]

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.

If that is what you did mean by it, that would also be a legitimate statement to make; but that is not how people normally talk about a rock. But when we say that “the Book of Mormon is true,” it is pretty obvious to everyone what we mean by it.

[_spotlight]

but that is not how people normally talk about a rock

Oh the irony here is just too much.

[_Jersey Girl]

but that is not how people normally talk about a rock

Oh the irony here is just too much.

Don't even.

[_zerinus]

Dumb comments​, by the way, don’t deserve a reply.

[_Lemmie]

[color]Dumb comments​, by the way, don’t deserve a reply.[/color]

Oh you are so, so right!

[_Maksutov]

[color]Dumb comments​, by the way, don’t deserve a reply.[/color]

Oh you are so, so right!

[_honorentheos]

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".

Your propositional statement, "the Book of Mormon is true" and the contradictory propositional statement IHAQ made, "the Book of Mormon is not true" have opposing truth values. Based on the rule of non-contradiction one must be false.

I'm excited to see how your knowledge of what is, was, and will be can shed light on this little problem.

[_zerinus]

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".

Your propositional statement, "the Book of Mormon is true" and the contradictory propositional statement IHAQ made, "the Book of Mormon is not true" have opposing truth values. Based on the rule of non-contradiction one must be false.

I'm excited to see how your knowledge of what is, was, and will be can shed light on this little problem.

How we determine the truth of something is a separate issue entirely from the definition of truth, or what truth IS. So far we have only been discussing the latter, not the former. Once we have agreed on the latter, we can start discussing the former.

[Guest]

I am really excited by the prospect that this board will be the place where, at long last, a universally acceptable and succinct definition of the words 'true' and 'truth' is arrived at. Then we can really get on with discussing whether the Book of Mormon is true!!!

So, where's that definition? That will give us firm ground to stand on at last.

(I am a bit worried, though. If we are agreed that we need a definition of truth before we are allowed to start discussing whether something is true or not ... well, in order to know whether we have found a definition of truth, don't we need first to define what a definition is? Otherwise we might think we had a definition of truth when we really didn't. And then a discussion based on that supposed, but in fact illusory, definition will be a waste of time ... Oh dear, I can see some serious problems ahead ... )



[Edited for typo]