Fun w/ online missionaries: NY TIMES on 14 year old bride!

[_Dr. Shades]

Your truth doesn't have to be everyone else's. Sorry, but THAT is the truth.

There is no such thing as "my truth" or "someone else's truth." There is only THE truth or, on the other hand, falsehood.

[_asbestosman]

Your truth doesn't have to be everyone else's. Sorry, but THAT is the truth.

There is no such thing as "my truth" or "someone else's truth." There is only THE truth or, on the other hand, falsehood.

But there are things that are true for you which are not true for me. It is true for you that you speak Japanese, but it is not true for me that I speak Japanese.

[_Chap]

Your truth doesn't have to be everyone else's. Sorry, but THAT is the truth.

There is no such thing as "my truth" or "someone else's truth." There is only THE truth or, on the other hand, falsehood.

But there are things that are true for you which are not true for me. It is true for you that you speak Japanese, but it is not true for me that I speak Japanese.

But it can't be "true for you" that Joseph Smith found real gold plates, but not "true for me". The world we live in doesn't work that way. And the distinctive foundational claims of the CoJCoLDS are about that kind of fact - public ones, not private ones. And those claims are pretty certainly false.

(And all the hollering and finger-wagging in the world won't change that, whoever does it.)

[_asbestosman]

But it can't be "true for you" that Joseph Smith found real gold plates, but not "true for me". The world we live in doesn't work that way. And the distinctive foundational claims of the CoJCoLDS are about that kind of fact - public ones, not private ones. And those claims are pretty certainly false.

(And all the hollering and finger-wagging in the world won't change that, whoever does it.)

On the other hand, perhaps it can be true for me that the Axiom of Choice is correct but not true for you.While I agree that the foundational claims of the church cannot be true for one person and false to another, yet in the world we deal with it is rarely the case that the truth of falsehood of a statement is apparent. We are thus left with everyone guessing as best as possible as to what is true and what is not.

[_Dr. Shades]

But there are things that are true for you which are not true for me. It is true for you that you speak Japanese, but it is not true for me that I speak Japanese.

You're confusing the word "for" with the word "about." Observe:

But there are things that are true about you which are not true about me. It is true about you that you speak Japanese, but it is not true about me that I speak Japanese.

That's the proper use of the language.

Now, as Chap has observed, it is true "for" the missionary to whom Boaz & Lidia spoke--and for every other human being on the face of planet earth--that Joseph Smith married a 14 year-old, since it is indeed true "about" Joseph Smith.

Just because she doesn't know it yet doesn't mean it's any less true "for" her.

[_cksalmon]

Your truth doesn't have to be everyone else's. Sorry, but THAT is the truth.

There is no such thing as "my truth" or "someone else's truth." There is only THE truth or, on the other hand, falsehood.

But there are things that are true for you which are not true for me. It is true for you that you speak Japanese, but it is not true for me that I speak Japanese.

Hey Ab--

To agree obliquely with Shades, I'd suggest that your example confuses one instance of particular predication [(1) that (X) speaks Japanese] with another [(2) that (Y) does not speak Japanese].

The conjunction of (1) and (2) [(1^2)] is not self-referentially incoherent.

But, you already knew that, big fella.

[No true propositions were harmed in the formulation of this post.]

Chris

[Guest]

For the record, as Shades pointed out, I do NOT believe Joseph Smith had more than one wife. I don't care what the Utah Church claims.

Utah church claims? So you are some kind of throwback Reorganized apologist or something? Who cares what the LDS Church claims? What about plain old history? The only sense in which you might say Joseph did not have more than one wife is that he did not have more than one legal wife.

[_asbestosman]

Hey Ab--

To agree obliquely with Shades, I'd suggest that your example confuses one instance of particular predication [(1) that (X) speaks Japanese] with another [(2) that (Y) does not speak Japanese].

The conjunction of (1) and (2) [(1^2)] is not self-referentially incoherent.

But, you already knew that, big fella.

[No true propositions were harmed in the formulation of this post.]

Chris

for what it's worth, what I had in my mind is that Shades could state something which would be true coming from his lips but which if I repeated word for word would be false coming from my lips (i.e. "I speak Japanese"). But anyhow, it was a silly attempt on my part.

My more appropriate response is the second one, namely that assurance of knowing what is the truth is not so accessable to us and therefore we are all left making our best guess for most if not all instances.

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . assurance of knowing what is the truth is not so accessable to us and therefore we are all left making our best guess for most if not all instances.

Is the assertion that Joseph Smith married a 14 year-old girl merely someone's "best guess," or is it the truth?

[_asbestosman]

Is the assertion that Joseph Smith married a 14 year-old girl merely someone's "best guess," or is it the truth?

I don't know.