- ings for the meanings of communications addressed to
us; and just so far as you are developed to understand perfectly, you may get a perfect impression. But just so far as it is above your comprehension, you are liable to misunderstand, and charge the fault upon your communicator. The proposition is simply this: You and I can not understand infallibly what is truth, unless we are infallible ourselves in the determination of truth. That which, of itself, is fallible and liable to err, can not determine the quality of infallibility; and whenever an individual affirms, upon some authority, the truth of any thing which, by his acknowledgment, lies beyond the plane of his intellectual development, he asserts something unphilosophical and false. That is only truth which, in our minds, corresponds to the actuality. It matters not who speaks, even though it be God; just so long as you must depend upon your understanding to interpret the meaning of what is said, you are liable to get a falsehood instead of truth. The question of truth depends as much upon you as the communicator. There has been a great deal of discussion about the infallibility of the Koran, of the Shasters, of the Vedas, of the Bible, and of the Book of Mormon. It has all proceeded upon an erroneous idea. Although the book may contain infallible truth, yet since you have to depend upon your understanding to interpret the language employed, you may fail to get the truth. You need to be infallible before you can affirm that you have the truth. You hand me the Bible, perhaps, saying that it is the Word of God, that it was given by inspiration of God, and that every word it contains is true, infallibly true. Very well. Do
