Have you demonstrated that organizations/institutions (not people) can be morally refined? Even if we buy that questionable assumption, and we buy the assumption that religious organizations must become more morally refined, you have not demonstrated that the same is not true for other organizations at all. You have simply asserted it is so.

I do not believe however that other religions are our institution/organization’s “competitors” for that market share.

This claim is demonstrably false. It is pretty simple logic really. There are a finite number of people on the planet. If organization A is working toward 100% of people choosing to belong to it and organization B is working toward to same goal, and if one cannot belong to both organizations at the same time then organizations A and B are in fact direct competitors for that market share.

You’ve already consented that at the level of the “individual member”, other religions should not be viewed as “competition”.

No, actually I said that an individual member of one religion should not view individual members of other religions as competition. You are again making an apples and oranges comparison — the very thing I have been objecting to all along here.

I do agree with you however that people get confused and conflate religions (the organizations themselves) and actual individual people too easily. Because of that confusion I can agree that using marketplace analogies can give people the wrong impression — not because the marketing principles don’t accurately and aptly apply at an organizational level, but because too many people are unable to separate the organization from the individual in their minds.

That is organizational refinement to be sure.

Organizational refinement is not necessarily moral refinement. A prerequisite of a religion as an institution/organization (so you know that I’m not conflating anything here) is moral refinement. This is not a prerequisite for a company/business institution/organization.

I just object your conflating members of organizations with organizations themselves in this conversation.

To clarify: I do not believe however that other religions are our institution/organization’s “competitors” for that market share.

There, (potential) conflation corrected.

The root question at play is whether or not other religions should be seen as “competition” in the marketing sense; and from what perspective (i.e., the members of the organization or the organization itself).

You’ve already consented that at the level of the “individual member”, other religions should not be viewed as “competition”. So let’s talk about the organization.

Let me first be clear, however, that I never denied competition between religions (did you read post #41?). My entire point was to challenge the applicability of the hermeneutic of the marketplace of religions, and to point out that while it highlights certain things, it masks and even distorts others. As I said in #41: To apply the language of the “marketplace” to this situation is to import the baggage of “competition” (i.e., Coke vs. Pepsi), where the “other” should be conceived of in a way rather different than “competition”.

In other words, what I am arguing is that the language of “competition” from the hermeneutic of the “market” is inadequate at BOTH the individual level of the member and at the institutional level of the organization. The reason it is inadequate at the institutional level is that “competition” for a company carries with it the presupposition of gaining “market share” as the primary motivation for interation between institutions. This can be a non-moral activity based on strategy and even deception, where the ends are valued above the means. I do not believe this holds true however, for religions.

I’ve stated this all before, and rather than responding to these points directly, you make the argument into one about the relationship between the individual and the organization.

Of course companies benchmark themselves off of their competition. When one comes out with a diet drink and it works the others do to. That is organizational refinement to be sure.

2) There is no “ought” to moral refinement as a defining characteristic of being in business.

Well first, you seem to assume that organizations are moral or not moral. I can buy that I suppose. But if we do buy that then I simply disagree when you say there is no reason organizations ought be be moral. What do you base that assertion on? I assume you think people ought to be moral and organizations like companies are made up of people so I don’t know how one can be consistently moral while belonging to and supporting immoral organizations.

I do not believe however that other religions are our “competitors” for that market share

Who is the “our” you are referring to here? You are playing that apples and oranges game again I think. You speak of Coke and Pepsi as if they are single-minded entities and then you refer to the LDS church as if it is “us”, as in all of us as individuals, instead of the church as a single-minded entity too. If we consider the church along the same lines as you are treating those companies then I think you are fooling yourself if you want to say that The Church is not interested in seeing as many people as possible become converted and join the organization in full participating fellowship. Preaching the gospel is in fact one of the stated missions of the church. Now one of the requirements to become a member of the church is to no longer be a practicing member of another religion. So in a very real sense there is some organizational competition going on and there always has been. To deny this is just silly I think.

Now I agree if your point is that we as individual members should not see individual members of other church as our competition or even worse, our enemies in the world. They are not. Rather they are our spiritual brothers and sisters. I just object your conflating members of organizations with organizations themselves in this conversation.

It seems to me to follow from what you say that God is apathetic about which religion we choose, or whether we choose one. It’s all the same to God.

Not at all. This entire issue is contextualized in within the discussion of the “other” and Geoff’s assertion that a market hermeneutic is appropriate in this situation.

I think we would agree that:

1) There are many different ways of conceptualizing the “other”.

2) Some ways of conceptualizing the other are better than others (perhaps depending on the circumstances).

And

3)The term of “market competition” is one way of conceptualizing the other (we’ve been talking about it in terms of Coke vs. Pepsi).

Geoff’s claim is that Coke vs. Pepsi is similar to “competition in the marketplace of religion” (perhaps something like Mormonism vs. Calvinism); and my critique is that this is an impoverished hermeneutic to apply in this situation.

To apply the language of the “marketplace” to this situation is to import the baggage of “competition” (i.e., Coke vs. Pepsi), where the “other” should be conceived of in a way rather different than “competition”.

I’m not denying the existence of “competing” truth claims (there are real differences between Calvin and JS). But I am making a claim about the level of awareness we should have when employing any hermeneutic (Again, the marketplace hermeneutic does provide an effective lens to look at religions in some regards, but we should be aware of its shortcomings and apply it with those in mind).

In that sense I do believe that God wants a “larger market share” (to use Geoff’s terms) as far as the conversion of souls is concerned; but I do not think “other” religions should be viewed as “competitors” (in the light of Coke vs. Pepsi), because such a view masks other important factors of the situation.

It seems to me to follow from what you say that God is apathetic about which religion we choose, or whether we choose one. It’s all the same to God. He wants greater market share, but there isn’t competition. Then what defines this market if not market competition?

If I’m understanding your correctly, theology is about truth, and you assume that truth is coherent (or perhaps by definition it is). So theology is based on the presupposition of logical coherence. But you also accept that theology is about the generation of meaning, and meaning is not necessarily based on logical coherence. If this is the case, I don’t see why there wouldn’t be a tension bewtween theology which presupposes logical coherence but at the same time tries to incorporate meaning-generation which may presuppose logical incoherence.

Certainly not, but 1) I don’t see why they would look to Coke (i.e., their “competition”) for that refinement. 2) There is no “ought” to moral refinement as a defining characteristic of being in business.

You don’t think God wants a larger market share?

Maybe we’re conflating two kinds of discourse. My descriptive point is that the metaphor of the “marketplace of religion” is limited. It’s limited in the sense that the assumption is that religions are after “market share”, which is not true of all religion. It seems like you agree at this level.

Now, normatively speaking, I do believe that God wants a “larger market share”. I do not believe however that other religions are our “competitors” for that market share; and they certainly should not be treated as such.

I guess I’m missing something. It doesn’t follow that if meaning isn’t fully dependent on coherence (and it decidedly is not) that a theology cannot be done which presupposes logical coherence. I suppose that the truth is coherent; but I don’t think that all meaning is found merely in coherence. Meaning is often found in the fissures that challenge us to make meaning out of the dissonance. We are meaning creating machines!

Why not? Do you think the people at Pepsi are opposed to becoming a more morally refined institution?

The largest reason this hermeneutic is lacking is because of the assumption that religions are after “market share”.

You don’t think God wants a larger market share? (Market share in this case is just another term for real people who are converted to the gospel of Christ after all.) The scriptures indicate to me that he does.

I don’t disagree if your only claim is that some religions somewhere are not interested in adding more adherents though.

I don’t see why you are so wed to this particular hermeneutic. Every analogy has things that it highlights and others that it disguises.

You make an apples to oranges comparison when you compare yourself, a lay Mormon, in the religious example with the entire Pepsi Corporation in the commerce example.

Alright, let me make this more clear. Why should our institution accurately learn about and depict the “other”? Because 1) It allows us to know our competition (more on this below). 2) We become a morally refined institution because we are transformed by the things we learn in this interaction. Why should Pepsi learn about Coke? I don’t see how number 2 holds.

The largest reason this hermeneutic is lacking is because of the assumption that religions are after “market share”. This may be true from a certain aspect of proselytizing religions; but this is neither the entirety of these religions (even our evangelizing success is not determined soley by numbers); nor is the representative of all religions.