Claim. Trueness has its source in God, not in human beings; therefore fallen humans cannot arbitrarily define or manage what is true — they must submit to trueness as governing them.
Elaboration. SMM argues from absence: trueness has not yet existed ‘in the genuine sense’ in human history, so its origin cannot be found within history — it must transcend history. Any framework that ‘only connects people among themselves’ fails to provide a source of trueness because no one on earth has yet been a true person; the source must be the Absolute Being (2.2. The source of trueness).
This grounds three corollaries: (1) religion is not ultimately about faith in a single founder — even religious founders point beyond themselves to God; (2) philosophy’s pursuit of the ‘value of existence’ and epistemology’s pursuit of the ‘origin of knowledge’ both inevitably terminate in God; (3) ‘a religion that proclaims trueness without God is unthinkable’ — a direct shot at secular humanist ethics.
SMM cites Confucius (‘Those who follow heaven will prosper and those who go against heaven will perish’) and Jesus (‘The Kingdom of God is in the midst of you’ — see Luke 17:21) to argue that even the great moral teachers grounded trueness in heaven, not in human consensus. He locates the dwelling place of trueness in ‘the deepest part of your heart’ — not in intellect or will but in emotion, the most fundamental of the mind’s three faculties.
The restorationist payoff: ‘trueness is not subject to the arbitrary management of fallen people. Rather, trueness is to govern fallen people.’ This inverts the modern intuition that humans construct values; for SMM, fallen-nature disqualifies us from being legislators of truth, leaving us in the position of receivers. Critics from autonomy-based ethics will reject the premise; SMM’s reply is that conscience itself testifies the standard comes from above.