One true church - Virtue or Vice?

[hope_for_things]

On 1/20/2018 at 5:44 PM, mfbukowski said:

1- please find me anything on lds.org referring to the church as the "one true church".  "Only true and living church"- yes of course but that is very different.

I found a lot of hits when I did a search of that phrase "one true church" on lds.org.  One interesting article was by Elder Oaks recently, see the attached link.  He seems to conflate true and living church with only true church throughout this article.  From my experience these phrases are treated the same way by your average orthodox member, no distinction for them.  How its treated in Mormon culture in this case is more important than arguing over whether there should or shouldn't be an actual distinction.  

https://www.lds.org/youth/article/only-true-living-church?lang=eng

On 1/20/2018 at 5:44 PM, mfbukowski said:

2- Please find me anything on lds.org which says 

• Quote

   

   

  • My beliefs are superior or more complete because they are in alignment with God
  • Little to no critical thinking of the advice given by church leaders
  • An underlying mistrust of the secular and scientific
  • Shunning of family members and friends who are seen as a threat
  • Ignorance of broader religious scholarship, biblical and other religions are seen as inferior or threatening
  • Hyperjudgmental - people, choices, ideas, everything is judged through a Mormon lens to determine if it fits the ideal or threatens it

   

  Are these common beliefs in certain geographical areas near a large body of salt water in the west-central portion of the United States?  Yes.  Are they common in other areas?  Not that I am aware of.

• I have never seen a sense of superiority

• or the taking of church authority without question

• a mistrust of science

• shunning of family members

• intentional ignorance of broader religious scholarship- in fact I have seen such knowledge being praised

• hyperjudgemental people.

I'm speaking to observations I have of the culture.  I'm sure I could likely find different talks on lds.org that reinforce these ideas.  For example, I was reading Mormons and the Bible by Phil Barlow recently and in there he has a section talking about Bruce R. McConkie and how adversely he looked at science and scholarly materials.  After reading some of the statements McConkie made, which were even more extreme than how I had imagined, I was reminded just how vehemently some orthodox people are when it comes to this mistrust of science.  

I imagine that you've observed similar things that I've mentioned here, maybe not all because you live outside of Utah, but I'm sure that your more progressive area isn't completely immune from these things. 

[hope_for_things]

On 1/20/2018 at 8:24 PM, carbon dioxide said:

 A reasonable observer would notice that the scriptures DO in show that God sanctioned polygamy in certain circumstances.  A reasonable observer would have have a very difficult time finding even one scripture that shows that God would sanction other sexual unions like gay marriage. 

With the development of AI and sex robots in society, eventually AI will be merged with sex robots. I predict that one day society will accept marriage between humans and these robots.  I also predict that some churches will accept these unions.  It sounds crazy but no more crazy than the idea of gay marriage 30 years ago.  Very few people considered gay marriage in any serious way 30 years ago.  I believe I will be right on this one.

I don't agree that the scriptures show that God sanctioned polygamy.  I think the best we can say is that the cultures of those people polygamy was normative enough that the authors of those texts didn't believe they were violating any of God's commandments by practicing polygamy.  

I think your arguments about what may or may not happen in the future sound like slippery slope fear tactics.  But either way, I think it just shows how obsessed our culture has become on the subject of sex.  It also reminds me how often slippery slope arguments were used throughout the prop 8 saga and other times that same sex marriage has been debated.  

[hope_for_things]

On 1/20/2018 at 8:29 PM, carbon dioxide said:

If one believes Daniel 2:44 that God will establish a kingdom, it seems reasonable to conclude that truth will be found in that kingdom.  Anything outside that kingdom that rejects the truth that is found in that kingdom has to be false.  That kingdom that God would establish would be the one true kingdom.  If this not the case, why would God bother establishing such a kingdom when it does not matter anyway?  One can find just as much truth outside it and one does not need to be a part of that kingdom?

Lots of interpretations of that prophesy throughout time, especially those predicting the end times.  I think this is just tribal thinking though, and I honestly don't think God is concerned with tribes.   

[Kevin Christensen]

On 1/20/2018 at 9:28 PM, Exiled said:

How is "one true church" very different from "only true and living church?" The two seem to be saying the same thing.

If you go to the first page of this thread, for my Nov 27th post, you can see my post on exactly why the two are saying very different things.   D&C 1:30 uses every word carefully, and it not just a florid and emphatic way of saying something that it could have expressed in three words.   I've posted on this many times in several places, including a Sunstone presentation, and an Interpreter article.

Quote

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants was received in Hiram, Ohio on November 1, 1831, as a formal statement of “mine authority, and the authority of my servants.” (v 6). The leading verses describe how people have “strayed from mine ordinances and have broken mine everlasting covenant.” Verse 17 describes the calling of Joseph Smith in response, and verse 18 describes how God also gave commandments to unspecified [Page 133]“others.” Later, God explains that “I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh; for I am no respecter of persons.” (v 34-35). Truth and revelation here are important for LDS claims, but both are expressly non-exclusive.

Speaking of the LDS leaders against the notion of absolute and actual truth as static and unchanging, see verses 24-28:

These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were made humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

The truth the LDS possess is here explicitly imperfect and incomplete rather than absolute and final. Because the formal claims made for LDS authorities include incompleteness and imperfection, the presence of such should not diminish their authority any more than the imperfections and incompleteness of science diminishes the authority of science. By formal definition, both societies offer not static absolute truths but self-correcting processes.

My reading of verse 30, regarding the distinction of the church, suggests that the word “only” applies to the phrase “with which I, the Lord am well pleased.” (Consider a sentence about the “only blue and idling car upon the face of the whole parking [Page 134]lot, with which I, the attendant, am well pleased.” That is not just a florid and emphatic way to say “only blue car” but provides a very different thought.) The “well-pleased” designation in D&C 1 applies to the church and is relative to what “true and living” means as descriptive qualities for church. It happens that the Biblical occurrences of true and living cast light on the meaning: “true vine,” “true treasure,” “truth and life,” “tree of life,” “living bread,” “living waters,” “new and living way through the veil” (Hebrews 10:20); and “true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). The Bible imagery of “true and living” has to do with the voice of warning (Jeremiah 10:10, and D&C 1:2), priesthood (true vine, John 15:1-5), living bread and living waters (sacrament and baptism, Holy Spirit inspiration, scripture; that is, ordinances and covenants and revelation), and finally, tree of life and “living way through the veil,” which both point to the temple and Christ’s role as the Melchizedek High Priest who enters the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement.⁴⁹ The themes that go with Biblical “true and living” imagery parallel the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse. Collectively all of these Bible images based on “true and/or living” center on the ongoing revelation and the distinctive priesthood ordinances and covenants, scriptures and temple worship that do, in actual fact and practice, distinguish the LDS from other faiths. But the designation is expressly non-exclusive and incomplete relative to truth, revelation, and human virtue.

 

Quoted from this essay:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

 

And the essay and the Nov 27th post go into the human development issues that inevitably cloud the reading for some.  So, I have given this a lot of thought, and know what I am talking about.  Most people tend to read D&C 1 in the same way that a single minded stone worker makes statue of an elephant, by chipping away every word that does not look like what they want to see.  And that, of course, leaves an elephant in the room and a group of people reluctant to talk about how it got there.

 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

 

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't agree that the scriptures show that God sanctioned polygamy.  I think the best we can say is that the cultures of those people polygamy was normative enough that the authors of those texts didn't believe they were violating any of God's commandments by practicing polygamy.

Just to reiterate a couple of examples with which you are probably already familiar:

1. God specifically gave Saul's wives to David, and would have given him more.
2. God commanded Israelite men to marry their brothers' widows, without regard to their own marital status.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think your arguments about what may or may not happen in the future sound like slippery slope fear tactics.  But either way, I think it just shows how obsessed our culture has become on the subject of sex.  It also reminds me how often slippery slope arguments were used throughout the prop 8 saga and other times that same sex marriage has been debated.  

And when it comes to matters of policy, slippery slope arguments are valid.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Lots of interpretations of that prophesy throughout time, especially those predicting the end times.  I think this is just tribal thinking though, and I honestly don't think God is concerned with tribes.   

Just ideologies, right?

[mfbukowski]

On 1/20/2018 at 6:28 PM, Exiled said:

How is "one true church" very different from "only true and living church?" The two seem to be saying the same thing.

Well been having a bit of trouble getting replies back for some technical reason.

Bottom line:  Big difference

Ben Spackman

Quote

 

We must live in tension, holding fast to what comes through God’s prophets while also anticipating new revelation pointing in new directions. A Church founded on continuing revelation, “line-upon-line,” (2 Nephi 28:30) and the doctrine that “God will yet reveal many great and important things” (Ninth Article of Faith) is a living Church that changes, adapts, and grows through divine revelation and adaptation.

This tension, or at least the two different sources,  has been recognized in the past.

“The Latter-day Saints do not do things because they happen to be printed in a book. They do not do things because God told the Jews to do them; nor do they do or leave undone anything because of the instructions that Christ gave to the Nephites. Whatever is done by this Church is because God, speaking from heaven in our day, has commanded this Church to do it. No book presides over this Church, and no book lies at its foundation. You cannot pile up books enough to take the place of God’s priesthood, inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the constitution of the Church of Christ. … Divine revelation adapts itself to the circumstances and conditions of men, and change upon change ensues as God’s progressive work goes on to its destiny. There is no book big enough or good enough to preside over this Church.” Conference Report, Ensign May 1976, p.65-66

Perhaps this accounts for the full phrase “the only true and living Church” in D&C 1:30.

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2017/01/quick-thoughts-dc-130-true-living-church/#1ekpLQxxsWEsG3p2.99

 

And I see Kevin has already answered it for you- I tried to link to that earlier and had problems, see  Kevin's answer above

Edited January 22, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

And the essay and the Nov 27th post go into the human development issues that inevitably cloud the reading for some.  So, I have given this a lot of thought, and know what I am talking about.  Most people tend to read D&C 1 in the same way that a single minded stone worker makes statue of an elephant, by chipping away every word that does not look like what they want to see.  And that, of course, leaves an elephant in the room and a group of people reluctant to talk about how it got there.

 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

 

  Thanks Kevin, absolutely brilliant analogy.

Indeed (  ) I wish I could write like that.

Eminently steal-able. 

 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If you go to the first page of this thread, for my Nov 27th post, you can see my post on exactly why the two are saying very different things.   D&C 1:30 uses every word carefully, and it not just a florid and emphatic way of saying something that it could have expressed in three words.   I've posted on this many times in several places, including a Sunstone presentation, and an Interpreter article.

 

Quoted from this essay:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

 

And the essay and the Nov 27th post go into the human development issues that inevitably cloud the reading for some.  So, I have given this a lot of thought, and know what I am talking about.  Most people tend to read D&C 1 in the same way that a single minded stone worker makes statue of an elephant, by chipping away every word that does not look like what they want to see.  And that, of course, leaves an elephant in the room and a group of people reluctant to talk about how it got there.

 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

 

D&C 1:30 is an interesting one for sure.  In 1831 it speaks as if the BoM had yet to be translated and as if the Church's foundation had yet to be laid.  and the question must be asked, if God really spoke those words, or if they were granted some amount of license, whether artistic or not by Joseph, did that claim go on in perpetuity?  Is the Church today true and living just as it was in 1831?  Or has the Church changed so much it loses it's tag of being true and living?  

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Just to reiterate a couple of examples with which you are probably already familiar:

1. God specifically gave Saul's wives to David, and would have given him more.
2. God commanded Israelite men to marry their brothers' widows, without regard to their own marital status.

Just to be completely clear.  The perspective of the author of the book of 2nd Samuel is captured here, not necessarily God's perspective.  Interesting that Joseph Smith had a different opinion when Jacob 2 was dictated about David's wives stating "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

Also, the Levirate marriage that you refer to is part of the traditions of that culture and the scriptures in Deuteronomy and Genesis don't necessarily reflect commandments by God, but I think reflect the ideals of the culture.  If you believe everything in the bible is a commandment from God, there are bunch of ancient traditions in the Hebrew Bible that thankfully nobody practices anymore, including Levirate marriage.  

51 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

And when it comes to matters of policy, slippery slope arguments are valid.

Thats an odd statement, can you clarify why?  When would slippery slope arguments be valid?  They are frequently considered to be logical fallacies used as manipulative tactics to distract from the realistic merits of a discussion.  

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Just ideologies, right?

Not sure what you're saying, are you saying God is concerned with ideologies? 

[hope_for_things]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well been having a bit of trouble getting replies back for some technical reason.

Bottom line:  Big difference

Ben Spackman

And I see Kevin has already answered it for you- I tried to link to that earlier and had problems, see  Kevin's answer above

There are parts of this kind of an approach that work for me, but parts that I have a hard time with still. Like the a priori assumption that all decisions by church authorities for the institution as a whole have the impetus of being the will of God.  I don't believe the Nov 2015 policy is the will of God.  It is in direct conflict with many of the principles that I find to be central to the gospel message. 

If we consider all the mistakes throughout Mormon history, that aren't bound in a book of scripture, I'm talking about policy and practice mistakes like the priesthood ban that were implemented and administered by church prophets.  Then why should we call this church the only true and living church?  What is the point of that kind of claim?  If true and living means making mistakes and muddling through life, then that may be an appropriate label, but that isn't what the straight forward meaning of those words is.  Also, how would that differentiate this church from other religions around the world that are also muddling through and making mistakes along the way. 

Honestly, I don't see any redeeming reason to try and privilege this church above other churches around the world.  I actually see a lot of harm in trying to privilege this church above others (pride, tone deaf to others needs, inability to see institutional weaknesses.)

I would like to see a strong argument from a cost/benefit utility perspective for the true church claim.  If this its true, lets make it manifest by proving contraries as Joseph suggested.  So me the money!!! 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

  Thanks Kevin, absolutely brilliant analogy.

Indeed (  ) I wish I could write like that.

Eminently steal-able. 

Yes, writing is one of the natural aptitudes of an INFP personality type (which Kevin is).   Some are obviously more gifted than others, as I too am an INFP 

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There are parts of this kind of an approach that work for me, but parts that I have a hard time with still. Like the a priori assumption that all decisions by church authorities for the institution as a whole have the impetus of being the will of God.  I don't believe the Nov 2015 policy is the will of God.  It is in direct conflict with many of the principles that I find to be central to the gospel message. 

If we consider all the mistakes throughout Mormon history, that aren't bound in a book of scripture, I'm talking about policy and practice mistakes like the priesthood ban that were implemented and administered by church prophets.  Then why should we call this church the only true and living church?  What is the point of that kind of claim?  If true and living means making mistakes and muddling through life, then that may be an appropriate label, but that isn't what the straight forward meaning of those words is.  Also, how would that differentiate this church from other religions around the world that are also muddling through and making mistakes along the way. 

To quote Kevin:

Quote

The truth the LDS possess is here explicitly imperfect and incomplete rather than absolute and final. Because the formal claims made for LDS authorities include incompleteness and imperfection, the presence of such should not diminish their authority any more than the imperfections and incompleteness of science diminishes the authority of science. By formal definition, both societies offer not static absolute truths but self-correcting processes.

Don't think of it in absolute terms. 

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, I don't see any redeeming reason to try and privilege this church above other churches around the world.  I actually see a lot of harm in trying to privilege this church above others (pride, tone deaf to others needs, inability to see institutional weaknesses.)

I would like to see a strong argument from a cost/benefit utility perspective for the true church claim.  If this its true, lets make it manifest by proving contraries as Joseph suggested.

If the ordinances and covenants were not redeeming, I might agree with you. 

"Pride" - "my will and not thine be done" (I don't see that as a result); "tone deaf to others needs"  (Don't see that either, except to the extent that humans are not perfect at anything); "inability to see institutional weaknesses" (I see much acknowledgement of imperfection).

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

S[h]o[w] me the money!!! 

Like a sign seeker?  Or, do you mean like the fruit evidence which comes from the work of planting and nourishing a good seed?  If you are speaking of actual monetary money, on the other hand...show me the money indeed!  Should we compare what proportion of donations go directly to the pockets of the leaders of different religious institutions? 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Not sure what you're saying, are you saying God is concerned with ideologies? 

No, I'm asking whether you think God is more on board with your comfortable, trendy, self-congratulatory ideology than with the "tribalism" you affect to despise.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Just to be completely clear.  The perspective of the author of the book of 2nd Samuel is captured here, not necessarily God's perspective.

Just to be completely clear: I'm aware of the buffet approach to the Scriptures, and I generally reject it.

As soon as you take upon yourself the role of arbitrarily deciding which bits of Scripture are authoritative and which are not, you are making yourself the source of all religious authority. Don't you think that's a bit of a tall order?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting that Joseph Smith had a different opinion when Jacob 2 was dictated about David's wives stating "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

Believing Latter-day Saints don't think Joseph was the source of the Book of Mormon; therefore, we don't think it represents Joseph's opinions at the time. Just so you know.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, the Levirate marriage that you refer to is part of the traditions of that culture and the scriptures in Deuteronomy and Genesis don't necessarily reflect commandments by God, but I think reflect the ideals of the culture.  If you believe everything in the bible is a commandment from God, there are bunch of ancient traditions in the Hebrew Bible that thankfully nobody practices anymore, including Levirate marriage.

See above. Also, please note that that is an example of a "slippery slope" argument.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 Thats an odd statement, can you clarify why?  When would slippery slope arguments be valid?  They are frequently considered to be logical fallacies used as manipulative tactics to distract from the realistic merits of a discussion.  

Slippery slope arguments are fallacies when they argue that some proposition P cannot be true, because if P became generally believed, it could lead to a chain of undesirable consequences. For example, fringe Mormon blogger Natasha Helfer Parker (with whom I have no doubt you would feel entirely comfortable) passionately argues against the concept of sex addiction because it might make people feel bad about their own sexual behaviours, which is her idea of what constitutes "harm." This is an example of a fallacious slippery slope argument.

However, when deciding upon a course of action, slippery slope arguments become formally valid, because ignoring possible consequences when making such decisions would be rather silly. Whether the predicted consequences are actually likely is another matter, but you can't simply dismiss arguments against radical overhauls of bedrock social institutions by flinging the "slippery slope" epithet at them.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

To quote Kevin:

Quote

The truth the LDS possess is here explicitly imperfect and incomplete rather than absolute and final. Because the formal claims made for LDS authorities include incompleteness and imperfection, the presence of such should not diminish their authority any more than the imperfections and incompleteness of science diminishes the authority of science. By formal definition, both societies offer not static absolute truths but self-correcting processes.

Help me understand what the self-correcting processes are in the Mormon religion, that are similar to self correcting processes in science?  

With respect to science, there is built in peer review and incentives to continually test the hypotheses that are presented, to replicate results, and where replication shows different outcomes, to adjust the models to fit the evidence.  I don't see anything similar to this in Mormonism, as Mormonism is based on claims of authority and conservatively holding to tradition and not questioning those traditions, but holding to them in spite of evidence to the contrary.  It seems to me that the mechanisms in place in Mormonism are working counter this idea of self correcting processes.  

Admittedly science can be influenced by the dynamics of human nature, of people protecting sacred theories and tribal tendencies as well, but not withstanding these human dynamics, the scientific method has shown significant resilience to break through even the strongest of human influenced bias over time.  

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

If the ordinances and covenants were not redeeming, I might agree with you. 

"Pride" - "my will and not thine be done" (I don't see that as a result); "tone deaf to others needs"  (Don't see that either, except to the extent that humans are not perfect at anything); "inability to see institutional weaknesses" (I see much acknowledgement of imperfection).

Redeeming ordinances is another a priori assumption without any objective measure for evaluating its utility.  Muslims believe their faith is redeeming, so do many other religions.  To evaluate the utility of Mormonism's truth claims, I think we'd have to set that claim aside as we have no way of measuring it.  

As for the pride elements and tone deafness, there are examples of this on a regular basis.   Look at the press conference just last week.  The leaders condescension towards Peggy Fletcher Stack, and their really not addressing her question in a substantive way.  Or not addressing how to speak to the millennials and the lack of activity in this generation. 

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

Like a sign seeker?  Or, do you mean like the fruit evidence which comes from the work of planting and nourishing a good seed?  If you are speaking of actual monetary money, on the other hand...show me the money indeed!  Should we compare what proportion of donations go directly to the pockets of the leaders of different religious institutions? 

No need for the "sign seeker" jab.  I'm asking for true evaluation of the merits of the true church claim.  I still haven't seen any strong arguments for keeping it.  I hear people express why they think the church is still true and living, yet I never see anyone engage in pros and cons, a cost/benefit type analysis of the value of that idea.  Rather than evaluating it for its merits, I see people try to defend why they believe it can be true, yet moderate how that truth is applicable in a less literal sense.  I would love to see someone try to explain why they think it makes sense using reason and logic. 

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

No, I'm asking whether you think God is more on board with your comfortable, trendy, self-congratulatory ideology than with the "tribalism" you affect to despise.

Your difficulty of having respectful dialogue really is off-putting.  I continue to try and respond to your replies and ignore the condescending comments, but it gets tiresome.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Just to be completely clear: I'm aware of the buffet approach to the Scriptures, and I generally reject it.

As soon as you take upon yourself the role of arbitrarily deciding which bits of Scripture are authoritative and which are not, you are making yourself the source of all religious authority. Don't you think that's a bit of a tall order?

Its not a buffet approach to the scriptures.  Its an attempt to understand the original author's intentions through scholarly methods and careful approach to the scriptures.  These are ancient documents written in entirely different cultures and languages.  Anyone reading these texts brings assumptions from their current environment and culture that may be completely different than the assumptions the original authors brought to the text.  May I suggest a good book that covers this topic, as I think its so important to better understand these assumptions and try to read scripture very carefully.  

https://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Scripture-Western-Eyes-Understand/dp/0830837825/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1516664385&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=misreading+scripture+with+western+eyes&psc=1

9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Believing Latter-day Saints don't think Joseph was the source of the Book of Mormon; therefore, we don't think it represents Joseph's opinions at the time. Just so you know.

I don't expect that all believing Mormons have the same opinion on this topic, like some kind of hive mind.  I know many who don't think the BoM is historical, yet still believe it has inspired value, and others who hold perspectives somewhere in-between the literal historicity belief and a non historical belief, people like Brant Gardner who hold to more of a Blake Ostler expansion perspective on the book.  Are you unaware of differences in belief on this subject, if so, I would recommend some of the many books and essays on this subject.  

[CV75]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would like to see a strong argument from a cost/benefit utility perspective for the true church claim.  If this its true, lets make it manifest by proving contraries as Joseph suggested.  So me the money!!! 

Our scientific resources are generally aimed at achieving three things: overcoming illness and death, promoting happiness, and increasing power (I’m thinking in terms of the strides were are making in genetic, pharmaceutical and AI research and development, but I suppose the case could be made for such endeavors as space and nautical exploration). Do you see these as “true and living” endeavors? What do you see as their pros and cons?

Edited January 23, 2018 by CV75

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Your difficulty of having respectful dialogue really is off-putting.  I continue to try and respond to your replies and ignore the condescending comments, but it gets tiresome.  

Because, when believing Latter-day Saints accept the Lord's dictum as revealed in Doctrine and Covenants Section 1, there's nothing even remotely condescending about sneering at it as "tribalism," right?

You seem to be quite oblivious to your own condescending remarks.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm asking for true evaluation of the merits of the true church claim.  I still haven't seen any strong arguments for keeping it.  I hear people express why they think the church is still true and living, yet I never see anyone engage in pros and cons, a cost/benefit type analysis of the value of that idea.  Rather than evaluating it for its merits, I see people try to defend why they believe it can be true, yet moderate how that truth is applicable in a less literal sense.  I would love to see someone try to explain why they think it makes sense using reason and logic. 

Not to dismiss the rest of your post, but this really gets to the heart of the matter. 

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the one true and living Savior?  I am assuming that you do...but why?  Trying to convince someone else through reason and logic that Jesus Christ is the one true and living Savior makes about as much sense as trying to convince someone by the same means that the LDS church is the one true and living church with which the Lord is well pleased.  You tell me, what is the "true evaluation" of the merits of the true and living Savior claim?  There is your answer.

I don't expect others to believe the same as me.  I expect and encourage others to follow their conscience (aka "the true evaluation").  If they do so to the best of their understanding, I believe that we will eventually converge via the same gate of baptism (in this life or the next).  But that can only happen through the utility of authorized priesthood ordinances; which leads to the ultimate utility:  

Exaltation

You will of course argue that this can't be demonstrates as a utility using reason and logic.  I will simply counter that not all utilities need to be demonstrated through reason and logic, such is the case with the utility of the one true and living Savior claim.  Sometimes we need to trust our conscience and spiritual intuition.  This leads to spiritual integrity (another important utility).

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Redeeming ordinances is another a priori assumption without any objective measure for evaluating its utility.  Muslims believe their faith is redeeming, so do many other religions.  To evaluate the utility of Mormonism's truth claims, I think we'd have to set that claim aside as we have no way of measuring it.

Truth claims aren't accepted because of their "utility," they are accepted because we believe them to be true. Hence the expression "truth claims." If we accepted or rejected them based  upon their utility, they'd be "utility claims."

I don't know who you propose to include in that "we." But "we" who can plausibly claim to be believing Latter-day Saints (without indulging in any lexical duplicity) don't set LDS truth claims aside. We accept them as our starting point.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As for the pride elements and tone deafness, there are examples of this on a regular basis.   Look at the press conference just last week.  The leaders condescension towards Peggy Fletcher Stack, and their really not addressing her question in a substantive way.  Or not addressing how to speak to the millennials and the lack of activity in this generation.

I watched the press conference last week. I didn't see what you saw.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No need for the "sign seeker" jab.  I'm asking for true evaluation of the merits of the true church claim.  I still haven't seen any strong arguments for keeping it.

We'll keep it because we believe it to be true.

We believe it to be true because God revealed it.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I hear people express why they think the church is still true and living, yet I never see anyone engage in pros and cons, a cost/benefit type analysis of the value of that idea.

Which is a rather startling approach to a truth claim. Again, we accept them because they are true, not because they confer benefits.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  Rather than evaluating it for its merits, I see people try to defend why they believe it can be true, yet moderate how that truth is applicable in a less literal sense.  I would love to see someone try to explain why they think it makes sense using reason and logic. 

Believing Latter-day Saints accept the Church's truth claims. (That's virtually tautological.) Rejecting the Church's truth claims is what is known as "apostasy."

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Because, when believing Latter-day Saints accept the Lord's dictum as revealed in Doctrine and Covenants Section 1, there's nothing even remotely condescending about sneering at it as "tribalism," right?

You seem to be quite oblivious to your own condescending remarks.

Tribalism is just a description not pejorative from my perspective, I’m very tribalistic when I cheer for my favorite sports teams.   

If you’re taking that comment I made as a slander of some kind I can tell you that wasn’t intended.  I am critical of the church at times, but I try to do so in respectful ways.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Our scientific resources are generally aimed at achieving three things: overcoming illness and death, promoting happiness, and increasing power (I’m thinking in terms of the strides were are making in genetic, pharmaceutical and AI research and development, but I suppose the case could be made for such endeavors as space and nautical exploration). Do you see these as “true and living” endeavors? What do you see as their pros and cons?

Science covers so much more than those limited categories.  I don’t describe science in those terms of true and living though.  

I’d like you to answer my question first before I explore pros and cons of science.