Jump to content

Brother Bear

Members
  • Content count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About Brother Bear

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void
  1. My New Mormonism

    My bad 3DOP. Please accept my apology for being a jerk with my last post. I appreciate your efforts to be a peacemaker and to dialogue in a kind way. With tail also between legs, BB
  2. My New Mormonism

    Removed
  3. My New Mormonism

    To taste and bear testimony of the spiritual value contained in mormonism while holding the belief that Joseph Smith may have been sexually deviant, that historicity is irrelevant, or that leaders are quite capable of being racist is in no way blasphemous, contradictory, spiritually weak, or anti Mormon. Critics and defenders are engaged in this perpetual, stupid debate over Joseph Smith’s sex life, faces in hats, DNA, etc that is as useful a debate to one’s spirituality as two children arguing whether Batman or Ironman is the better superhero. If the church or gospel doesn’t work for a person that’s fine. If some one wants to defend or criticize JS’s behavior, go right ahead. But to argue as if these things are critical to the spiritual value of Mormonism is logically stupid.
  4. This has been on my mind recently. My view is that prophets and our testimonies of them are incidental to religious experience. I find the lack of emphasis on a sower in Alma 32 to be conspicuous, intentional, and instructive. The experimentation upon and fruits of the seed are what matter to the soul. Incidentally, and to the extent that good fruit is tasted, we have a testimony that a person was a sower of God’s word. But for some reason we like to add to the metaphor in ways that are counterproductive IMO. We add language like, “if you find that the seed is bad, continue to nourish it anyways and you will be blessed for sowing a seed of a chosen sower.” Or we shift our focus to discovering and defending the character of the sower. While I don’t believe there is anything wrong with wanting to know about the sower and even wanting to defend him/her, I believe, as you may be implying, that critics have succeeded (or maybe we first did it to ourselves) in shifting our attention from the intended object (the word) to one of no ultimate spiritual value (the character of the sower and any of their works that we may find produce no spiritual value in our lives).
  5. Once saved always saved?

    TomAYto, tomAHto. It’s anyone’s guess. How would you propose comparing your “plain” interpretation to Jesus’ intended meaning? Or how do you propose comparing what’s written in the Bible to anything Jesus actually said? You’re criticizing people for not wearing clothes when you yourself are naked.
  6. I’m interested to hear an example of what you believe would constitute a paradigm shift in Mormonism and what possible shifts you anticipate with any confidence occurring in the future.
  7. How sure/convinced are you?

    How would you define “faith” when you say that “science is not faith based?” When you say “science” is not faith-based, are you saying that statements like “we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees” are fact- not faith-based? Also, how did you learn about things like evolutionary biology, planetary motion, plate tectonics, etc?
  8. Working Out Our Salvation

    Curious what you mean by “correct” in light of the first quote from your post.
  9. Interesting in light of . . .

    It was a lame, dad joke anyways.
  10. Interesting in light of . . .

    Yes, hippies and lawyers provide roughly the same value to society. .....Infinite value of course because both groups are children of God
  11. Interesting in light of . . .

    There are skid marks in front of the skunk
  12. Interesting in light of . . .

    What’s the difference between a dead hippie and a dead skunk?
  13. Interesting in light of . . .

    Even mate? So spiritually destructive that consumption of it warrants denial of temple blessings? And why is a substance that alters mental states assumed to decrease spiritual sensitivity? Is it possible for a mind-altering substance to increase spiritual sensitivity?
  14. Interesting in light of . . .

    While I don’t personally see anything wrong with taking ayahuasca, I can’t imagine an intensely psychotropic tea being acceptable, while something as mild as green tea is condemned.
×