The best way to study Truth.

[deacon blues]

If you were trying to solve a burglary what type of evidence would be the most helpful?
A. 3-6 witnesses.
B. 3-6 DNA samples
C. 3-6 videos.
D. Stolen goods in the hands of the suspect.(s)
E. All of the above.
F. Prayer.
G. Some other kind of evidence.
I put this in Doctrinal Discussion because I'm seeking ideas on how we learn truth and/or doctrine.

[jfro18]

It depends on what truth means.

And I would say 3-6 witnesses with deep connections to the burglar would be less helpful than 3-6 witnesses that were not related and or close to said burglar, but maybe that's just me.

But really it all boils down to prayer and obedience, right?

[dogbite]

Truth is a very loaded word, and is imho weak when applied to the burglary example. What you want in this case are facts you can take action on.

of your listed sources of available evidence, I would weight them as strongest to least strong:

C which should show what happened, and provide suspect leads which should lead to
D which should be corroborated by
B which only shows the suspect was present but not what happened there necessarily But the prosecutor may feel this expense is unnecessary to convince the jury given that
A is available much more cheaply, assuming their testimony matches the above evidence.


What is demonstrable, verifiable (separate from your subjective self), actionable?

[wtfluff]

Are you saying that evidence leads to "truth?"

So solving a crime/burglary = "truth?"

I guess you could look at it that way.

If you were trying to solve a burglary what type of evidence would be the most helpful?
A. 3-6 witnesses.

Even "eye witness" testimony is EXTREMELY bad when it comes to actual evidence; So, NOPE, not good evidence. (Look it up if you don't believe me.)

B. 3-6 DNA samples

DNA samples from the crime scene? In conjunction with other evidence, yes DNA is good.

C. 3-6 videos.

Videos from the crime scene? Again, in conjunction with other evidence: Good.

D. Stolen goods in the hands of the suspect.(s)

Again: Along with other evidence: Good. If this is the only evidence, then the possessor of the stolen goods is just going to say they acquired it via means other than thievery.

F. Prayer.

The. Worst. "Evidence" EVER. Prayer leads millions/billions of people all over the world to millions/billions of completely contradictory conclusions every day. Who would let a doctor operate on them after the doctor prayed to know if the doctor should operate?

G. Some other kind of evidence.

I'm sure there are lots of other forms of evidence that could be used to convict someone of a crime. (Truth?)

I put this in Doctrinal Discussion because I'm seeking ideas on how we learn truth and/or doctrine.

Sorry Deacon, I don't think truth and doctrine should be used in the same sentence. My useless opinion says: They have nothing to do with each other.

[2bizE]

I’d go with DNA and Video evidence. The science of our brains indicates that people are not very good witnesses…think of the “visions” Joseph has with others….he explained what he was “seeing” as the vision unfolded and they saw it with their Spiritual eyes (aka what Joseph told them they were seeing)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ-96BLaKYQ

[deacon blues]

Are you saying that evidence leads to "truth?"

So solving a crime/burglary = "truth?"

I guess you could look at it that way.

If you were trying to solve a burglary what type of evidence would be the most helpful?
A. 3-6 witnesses.

Even "eye witness" testimony is EXTREMELY bad when it comes to actual evidence; So, NOPE, not good evidence. (Look it up if you don't believe me.)

B. 3-6 DNA samples

DNA samples from the crime scene? In conjunction with other evidence, yes DNA is good.

C. 3-6 videos.

Videos from the crime scene? Again, in conjunction with other evidence: Good.

D. Stolen goods in the hands of the suspect.(s)

Again: Along with other evidence: Good. If this is the only evidence, then the possessor of the stolen goods is just going to say they acquired it via means other than thievery.

F. Prayer.

The. Worst. "Evidence" EVER. Prayer leads millions/billions of people all over the world to millions/billions of completely contradictory conclusions every day. Who would let a doctor operate on them after the doctor prayed to know if the doctor should operate?

G. Some other kind of evidence.

I'm sure there are lots of other forms of evidence that could be used to convict someone of a crime. (Truth?)

I put this in Doctrinal Discussion because I'm seeking ideas on how we learn truth and/or doctrine.

Sorry Deacon, I don't think truth and doctrine should be used in the same sentence. My useless opinion says: They have nothing to do with each other.

Thanks for your good thoughts, WTF. At first I was going to use the example of any trial, but then I thought murder is often a crime of passion, so I went with the example of burglary to emphasize the idea of "Just the Facts, Ma'am".
I agree that witnesses are not as good a video, or forensic evidence of a crime. This is a big change in our criminal justice system. (Dare I say, thank God?
I agree that prayer would would be bad, and I think any attorney or judge that asked a jury to pray about a verdict should be considered ridiculous and/or incompetent.
When I created this hypothetical situation I was aiming for the point that most people should be more rational in all their decision making, whether it concerns a trial, a religion, or even personal relationships. I'm just looking for another way to say "The facts don't care about one's bias."
I'm preaching to the choir here on NOM, but it just felt better for me to get it out somewhere.

[blazerb]

The Book of Mormon tells the story of a prophet giving military advice. If claims of the church were true, I would expect the leadership to be receiving revelation to help the military and law enforcement. I think we can empirically conclude that prayer is not a reliable way to learn truth since church leadership can't even tell if they are receiving revelation to choose a correct road.