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

[_bcuzbcuz]

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.

I'm so pleased for you, that you have found a way to turn on your red colour font when you make any statement. It's like you want every word from your mouth to be of utmost importance.

Too bad the red colour doesn't change the content, it's a gilded lily, but just red sh#t instead.

[_zerinus]

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!!!

It is not necessary to arrive at a rigorous philosophical definition of truth in order to determine whether something is true or not. There are millions of Latter-day Saints who know that the Book of Mormon is true without having done that. But when somebody insists on taking the course of the discussion in that direction, then it needs to be discussed.

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

D&C 93:

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

[_zerinus]

I'm so pleased for you, that you have found a way to turn on your red colour font when you make any statement. It's like you want every word from your mouth to be of utmost importance.

Too bad the red colour doesn't change the content, it's a gilded lily, but just red sh#t instead.

Dumb comment.

[_Chap]

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.

(My added emphasis)

OK, so definitions first, then discussion. So:

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 ... )

Then ....

It is not necessary to arrive at a rigorous philosophical definition of truth in order to determine whether something is true or not. There are millions of Latter-day Saints who know that the Book of Mormon is true without having done that. But when somebody insists on taking the course of the discussion in that direction, then it needs to be discussed.

D&C 93:

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

So we are going to start doing definitions after all ... and you are not going to try to explain what, in your view, a definition is. OK. The definition of truth that you cite (which is, according to Mormons, a divine rather than a human utterance, since it is in D&C) depends crucially on the concept of knowledge.

So how do we know when we have knowledge? Since Mormons do, I believe, customarily claim in public that they know things, they must be pretty clear on (for instance) the distinction between knowledge and belief, for example. Or on the distinction between knowledge and delusion. I await your further clarifications with interest.

[_zerinus]

So how do we know when we have knowledge? Since Mormons do, I believe, customarily claim in public that they know things, they must be pretty clear on (for instance) the distinction between knowledge and belief, for example. Or on the distinction between knowledge and delusion. I await your further clarifications with interest.

The whole question of "knowledge," what it means to "know" something, and where you draw the distinction between believing something and knowing something etc. relates to a branch of philosophy called "epistemology". Here is a good dictionary definition of it:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... istemology

And here are a couple of good articles relating to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/

I don't think it will be necessary or productive to get into a protracted discussion about epistemology here with you. If you are interested in discussing that science, there is plenty of good information on it on the Internet, the above being two good examples. We claim to know that the Book of Mormon is true by the power of the Holy Ghost; and there is no need to elaborate on that much further.

[_Chap]

...

It is not necessary to arrive at a rigorous philosophical definition of truth in order to determine whether something is true or not. There are millions of Latter-day Saints who know that the Book of Mormon is true without having done that. But when somebody insists on taking the course of the discussion in that direction, then it needs to be discussed.

D&C 93:

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

So we are going to start doing definitions after all ... and you are not going to try to explain what, in your view, a definition is. OK. The definition of truth that you cite (which is, according to Mormons, a divine rather than a human utterance, since it is in D&C) depends crucially on the concept of knowledge.

So how do we know when we have knowledge? Since Mormons do, I believe, customarily claim in public that they know things, they must be pretty clear on (for instance) the distinction between knowledge and belief, for example. Or on the distinction between knowledge and delusion. I await your further clarifications with interest.

The whole question of "knowledge," what it means to "know" something, and where you draw the distinction between believing something and knowing something etc. relates to a branch of philosophy called "epistemology".

Er, yes. I think rather a lot of people on this board probably already knew that.

We claim to know that the Book of Mormon is true by the power of the Holy Ghost; and there is no need to elaborate on that much further.

So after all the faux-philosophy that has been taking up so much space on this thread, what answer is given to the OP question - "The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?".

We claim to know that the Book of Mormon is true by the power of the Holy Ghost; and there is no need to elaborate on that much further.

Zerinus has borne his testimony.

Does anybody still have any questions?




Oh, right ...

[_honorentheos]

zerinus -

Knowledge is justified, true belief. Since we're wiki-ing our philosophy, simple.

So, let's get you back to justified, true belief regarding the Book of Mormon as it is, was, and is to come.

I'm interested in seeing you demonstrate the truth-value of your proposition, "The Book of Mormon is true." Show us what you got.

[_Chap]

zerinus -

Knowledge is justified, true belief. Since we're wiki-ing our philosophy, simple.

So, let's get you back to justified, true belief regarding the Book of Mormon as it is, was, and is to come.

I'm interested in seeing you demonstrate the truth-value of your proposition, "The Book of Mormon is true." Show us what you got.

He just did, and it's this:

We claim to know that the Book of Mormon is true by the power of the Holy Ghost; and there is no need to elaborate on that much further.

Good luck getting behind that.

[_zerinus]

zerinus -

Knowledge is justified, true belief. Since we're wiki-ing our philosophy, simple.

Thank you! I accept that as a good definition of "knowledge," or what it means to "know" something.

So, let's get you back to justified, true belief regarding the Book of Mormon as it is, was, and is to come.

I'm interested in seeing you demonstrate the truth-value of your proposition, "The Book of Mormon is true." Show us what you got.

I have the testimony of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. That means that I know by the power of the Holy Ghost, or by a personal revelation from God to myself that it is true. By "true" I mean all of the following:

• 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.

[_Starbuck]

zerinus -

Knowledge is justified, true belief. Since we're wiki-ing our philosophy, simple.

So, let's get you back to justified, true belief regarding the Book of Mormon as it is, was, and is to come.

I'm interested in seeing you demonstrate the truth-value of your proposition, "The Book of Mormon is true." Show us what you got.

We might need to define sources of truth. Science, repeatable expirements, observation, rocks in hats, feelings, etc.

The ultimate source of truth for Mormonism is revelation from the holy ghost. But this does not seem to be very reliable, so I generally disregard it as valid. For exampe, I received confirmation from the holy ghost, while watching the Hobbit, that Bilbo was a true hobbit and that what he was doing was true.

When truth can can from the supernatural or special pleadings, then it can certainly come from a rock in a hat. I don't know how a discussion of truth gets very far when it includes sources such as these.