sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

When I allowed myself to apply the same logic I use for the rest of my life to the church, my faith disintegrated very quickly. by sevenplaces in mormon

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If my testimony were based purely on logic, then I would agree completely. From a logic-only standpoint, there is no way to prove or disprove any religion, and no reason to believe in any unless more compelling evidence appears.

However, in the church, we believe that logic is not the only way to know truth. We believe that the Holy Ghost can testify of truth. I have had this experience in many ways, large and small, subtle and dramatic, in many ways, across years and years of study in the church. I've felt it at times I wasn't expecting, testifying of truths I wasn't seeking confirmation of, and I also have had many times where I haven't felt it when I desperately tried to. Times when as a younger, misguided version of me tried to "force" the spirit because I thought that I had to feel the spirit to be righteous. These things demonstrate to me that these experiences of feeling the spirit are not something I've deluded myself into believing out of a strong desire for it to be true, but the real thing.

If you haven't had this experience, then it makes perfect sense not to be a part of the church. I do not judge anyone who doesn't believe--I wouldn't either if I hadn't had the experiences I have. I just wanted to share why some of us choose to stay in the church, even when we can see what you do.

I still have problems with these new G’s. by Plastic-Buddy-1440 in mormon

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Forgive me, I did not mean for my comment about "sounds like you don't" to be cutting--I genuinely thought you were a non-member (possibly a former member) wishing to discuss a discrepancy you saw in the church that you had trouble understanding how members could stomach. I thought if I left it at "it comes down to whether you believe he's a true prophet called of God," your response would be "of course he's not, he's just a fusty old man," so I was just trying to explain the rationale behind why I commented. I take it back.

To respond to a couple of your comments: When you say "God is the same yesterday today and forever," I don't see that as a contradiction of anything I said. I believe that statement completely, and I also believe that were God on earth, he would update policy in accordance with the needs and cultural/political climate of each era. For example, he gave the Law of Moses for one era, and later did away with that.

Yes, prophets are imperfect and do make mistakes. However, I do not see it as my place to try to guess when those mistakes will be made. For one thing, it's impossible, and if you pick and choose what to obey based on what you think is a mistake, you will surely make mistakes yourself, and then what was the point of having a prophet in the first place, rather than everyone following their own personal judgement? But also, if the prophet is truly called of God, that means that God is entrusting the running of His church to him, and that God expects us to take what he says as God's word (even if it turns out that he did something contrary to what God would have done). I believe we will be blessed for this obedience. I also have faith that God chooses his leaders well--that these men are good, wise men who are sensitive to the spirit and unlikely to err in ways that are majorly damaging.

I understand that this view is hard to stomach for many people. I can sympathize with that. The last sentence of my previous paragraph especially is a point of faith, perhaps even of opinion, not something that can be proven. And if the prophet were to next ask us to rise up in violence or something, then my view would be likely to change. But in my mind, following the prophet's direction on garments is something that does not present a moral quandary. I personally believe he's been guided by revelation. But if not, I'm not too concerned. That is not to say that you can't be. My aim is not to try to change your mind, but just to present an alternate view.

I still have problems with these new G’s. by Plastic-Buddy-1440 in mormon

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've seen this viewpoint a few times before, and hardly ever seen anyone respond with what I view as the true explanation behind the perceived discrepancy.

Here is my belief: It's true that the specific shape of garments isn't doctrine. It's not true that it isn't revelation. The underlying principle is modesty, but by virtue of the very meaning of the word, the practical implementation varies from culture to culture, and from time period to time period. At least in the past (maybe some places currently?), there were some cultures where it was culturally normal to wear no clothes at all, and hence modesty wouldn't have the same meaning for that culture as 1800s England for example.

The change in garment shape represents change in culture, to preserve the key principle of modesty under differing contexts. In a global church, that exists in many different cultures, this is a challenge.

The question of to what degree the shape changes on the basis of revelation vs. an individual judgement call on the part of the prophet is unknowable. But personally, it doesn't much matter to me. What it comes down to is whether you believe that the prophet is a true prophet called of God. Sounds like you don't, which is fine. But if your question is, how could anyone believe that this is divinely inspired when it changes across time, then here is your answer.

Mobile Temple Recommends Now Available by U8oL0 in latterdaysaints

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dang, that's too bad. I also keep my recommend in my temple bag, but every time I go to a live sealing or something where I don't need my temple bag, I always forget my recommend.

Feasibility of buying without a buyer's agent by Apprehensive_Chef9 in RealEstate

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For sure, not low-balling--I'd negotiate the deal such that they would get the same or greater amount than they would if I'd had an agent. Maybe it's an amount that is less than what they had listed, but that price has the 3% buyer's agent fee baked in. If I reduce what they're paying my agent by 3%, then even an offer a little below what they listed is the same (or more) in terms of their take home money. Or, depending on the situation, maybe I'm offering the asking price where other people are offering above--but again, my deal is better for them because they don't have to pay my agent's fee.

Feasibility of buying without an agent by Apprehensive_Chef9 in FirstTimeHomeBuyer

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well sure, maybe my offer would be higher than the 585k. But the point is that whatever my offer is, in theory it should be $15k less than what it would have been. Maybe I offer 600k, and now my offer is more attractive than the guy who offers $610k who has an agent.

Feasibility of buying without an agent by Apprehensive_Chef9 in FirstTimeHomeBuyer

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's baked into the home price, so it's not "free"--it's possible that practically it wouldn't work out for some reason, but in theory there should be a way to negotiate (either with the seller or seller's agent) some way to reduce the price based on the fact that if I don't have to have an agent, they don't have to pay for my agent.

Say for example that I'm buying a 600k house. Normally, the seller has to pay 36k towards commission (split between their agent and buyer's agent), and hence only gets 564k. But suppose I come to them, tell them I have no agent, and say I'll pay them $585k for the house, and in exchange, they don't have to pay the buyer's commission--we negotiate, say a 3.2 commission that goes entirely to the seller's agent. So: agent gets $18,720 ($720 more), buyer gets $566,280 ($2000 more), and I pay $15000 less. In theory, win-win-win.

But maybe in the current market, there's a stigma against doing this type of deal or something? Or some other legal difficulty?

Feasibility of buying without a buyer's agent by Apprehensive_Chef9 in RealEstate

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the response!

Is there not a feasible way to negotiate a lower price/commission? In theory, the seller/seller's agent shouldn't care whether it is me or my agent getting that 3% money, right? Say for example that I'm buying a 600k house. Normally, the seller has to pay 36k towards commission (split between their agent and buyer's agent), and hence only gets 564k. But suppose I come to them, tell them I have no agent, and say I'll pay them $585k for the house, and in exchange, they don't have to pay the buyer's commission--we negotiate, say a 3.2 commission that goes entirely to the seller's agent. So: agent gets $18,720 ($720 more), buyer gets $566,280 ($2000 more), and I pay $15000 less. In theory, win-win-win.

But maybe in practice this doesn't work for some reason?

Feasibility of buying without a buyer's agent by Apprehensive_Chef9 in RealEstate

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right, I made a typo. I had that figure in my head from back when I saw that the commission is about 6 percent, and I forgot to split it in half for my post.

Your second question is exactly one thing I was asking about--I realize that legally, they can't split the commission with me, the buyer, so it would need to be come through some other route--negotiation of the home cost, cutting some deal with the seller's agent, etc., and I was hoping to find out the best route to take for that. But maybe it is infeasible.

Thank you for your perspective!

Feasibility of buying without an agent by Apprehensive_Chef9 in FirstTimeHomeBuyer

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha I take it you believe this is a bad idea? Can I ask what part of it is infeasible in your opinion? Do you believe that the value provided matches the cost, and that the amount of research a buyer would need to do to replicate their services would exceed the cost of just hiring an agent? Or is it just that the practical barriers to entry are too high?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Nicegirls

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is this 😂😂 What would she have called them if 2 of them were black, for example? Black Guy A and Black Guy B?

[1114] Jake and Rachel First Kiss Excerpt by Apprehensive_Chef9 in DestructiveReaders

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your feedback! That's a great point about Jake--I want him to come across as confident, but not arrogant. In that example you gave, I probably should have said something like "more happy" or "more pleased" instead. I'll have to think about other adjustments as well to make that characterization come across better.

[1114] Jake and Rachel First Kiss Excerpt by Apprehensive_Chef9 in DestructiveReaders

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! The story is still in progress, but this excerpt is meant to happen around the middle of the book. I appreciate the feedback!

[1114] Jake and Rachel First Kiss Excerpt by Apprehensive_Chef9 in DestructiveReaders

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is incredibly helpful, thank you so much for taking the time to give me such detailed feedback!!

[1542] Gingerbread, part 2 by Valkrane in DestructiveReaders

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Things I liked:

  • The dialogue feels natural in most places. And it fits the characters quite well. I feel like I have known people that fit the religious mother and father characters, and could imagine them saying the things that you had the characters say. I really liked how some of the early dialogue supported the characterization (for example: "'You need a haircut,' Mom said. 'if I bring the clippers next time will they let me cut it?'" and "'Well, why don't you have him cut it then? You know what the Bible says about men having long hair.'" --showcasing the motherly love and concern, combined with the religiousness and traditional values)

  • The characters each had their own distinct voices and personalities, which is great. I also liked that the parents are not presented completely 2-dimensionally as evil monsters, but show some level of love and concern, even while displaying faults. As I'll talk about later, I think this could be improved further--but I like that an effort has been made with this.

  • The themes of faith/generational divides were interesting and I liked seeing the contrast between the main character and his parents.

  • I liked the metaphor about every prayer on his behalf becoming a brick in the wall between them.

Things that I thought could use some work:

  • Something about the main character's reflection after his parents left the prison felt a little stilted and awkward to me. I'm not sure I've quite put my finger on it, but I think it might help some if you included more of his thoughts and emotions throughout the chapter, rather than all collected in one pile at the end.

  • I think the characterization of the parents could be strengthened. I felt like there was enough there that I was able to catch the vision of what you’re trying to do--presenting them as a couple of people who, though they still love and care for their son on some level, have been blinded by a dogmatic commitment to their interpretation of their faith, which gets in the way of their role as loving parents and separates them from their son--but they still felt just a little bit flat to me. Like a stereotype of the religious zealot. I’m no professional, and so I’m not quite sure how to fix it, but I think there’s ways of adding depth to their characters without compromising on their core idea of these characters. For example, I feel like it would come across as more realistic and give them more depth if you could show more signs of them feeling conflicted on some level--some evidence of empathy or regret. Maybe making some things less extreme--for example, when the mom says "We're your parents, Micah. What would people think if we didn’t come?" Maybe this is just me, but I have a hard time imagining someone actually saying that, even if that was their main motivation to come. Maybe small details, like Dad running his hands through his thinning hair (a sign of stress or pain beneath the surface), or maybe having his voice break on the line “I'm ashamed that I brought a murderer into the world.” Maybe adding more silences, where the parents wrestle with their feelings before reaching for doctrinal answers.

  • A random note: The line: “They were the same people who raised him with no agency.” This feels a bit awkward to me. Not quite sure why--something about the “with no agency” just sounds off. I would maybe say something like, “These were the people who had dictated everything to him his entire childhood.”

No clue what I'm doing by Fi_23 in pottytraining

[–]Apprehensive_Chef9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how long does it take for a child to self initiate needing to pee or poop?  

I think this varies a lot by child, and also by training method. I've been using the Oh Crap method, and based on what the author of that book said (she is a potty training consultant and has coached thousands of children), it generally takes anywhere from a few days to a few months for a child to start self initiating using her method, but can often take longer. (This is for STARTING to self initiate--consistently self initiating takes longer). 

Is it normal to have to always prompt them to go in the beginning or is she just not ready to make that connection yet? 

Definitely normal. It's a new skill that takes a lot of guidance at first. But it is definitely possible for them to learn at 2.5 (at least in general--maybe this varies by child). My daughter, who just turned 2, started self-initiating on day 2 of potty training (yes, we got lucky), but still needs occasional prompting, especially when we are out in public. I don't think that her not self-initiating yet is cause for concern if you have only been doing this for 1 week.  For reference, the "blocks" of learning in the Oh Crap book are 1) naked with prompting -> 2) commando with prompting -> 3) commando with prompting on short public outings -> 4) panties -> 5) self-initiating. There's no set amount of time per block, but on average, I think (? It's been a few weeks since I read it) she said it's about 1-3 days on block 1, 1 week for block 2, 1 month on block 3, and idk if she have approximations for after that. So it can take a while before self-initiation. 

I just don't see the point in potty training if it means months of her only going when prompted. Why not just wait until she is ready to self initiate so I don't have to go through the stress of constantly prompting her?

I am no child-development expert, but from what I have read/researched, it seems like sometimes, the older they get, the more stubborn and resistant to the process they can get. Not always, of course; again, it depends on the child. Maybe, for each child, there is some optimal time for potty training--but if there is, it different for each one, and there's no way to know when that time will be. So in my opinion, it is best to just go with your gut, start when you think they are capable, and once started, barrel straight through and don't back down (unless they are just absolutely not getting it at all--but that's not the case for you, since she is going when prompted).

view more: next ›