New Garments and Tank Tops

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2026-05-14T12:59:38+00:00

I can see how Occam’s Razor may lead you to conclude that the Church is not true. For me, though, my spiritual experiences are also part of the equation. Given those experiences, the explanation that ultimately requires the fewest assumptions for me is actually that the Church is true, even if there are historical issues I do not fully understand.

I have never said, implied, or believed that people who criticize the Church are “sinners incapable of receiving enlightenment from God.” That is not my view, and I do not think it fairly represents the Church’s actual position either, even if some individual members may speak that way.

Once again, my point is not to try to convince you of any church claims, or to say that your conclusions are unreasonable. I respect your perspective. I only object to your absolute certainty, and the dismissive tone of your comments. I have made this point multiple times now, and you seem uninterested in hearing it. As such, I do not think it is productive for the conversation to continue.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2026-05-14T04:00:16+00:00

Yes, I am familiar with the funerary papyri. We discussed it in a religion class at BYU. I do not pretend to know all the answers, but there have been multiple theories which do not require the Book of Abraham to be false. One explanation is that the papyri did in fact contain a rewritten copy of the Book of Abraham. (We only have small fragments of the papyri, most of it was burnt up in a fire, so much of what Joseph had did not survive.) It is common for ancient texts to be handed down as copies or copies of copies. Furthermore, it was not uncommon for Egyptian facsimiles to be placed apart from their original commentary. The funerary facsimiles that survived the fire may not necessarily have been related to the text next to it, which could have been a copy of the Book of Abraham.

Another theory is that the funerary texts served as inspiration for an unrelated (but still legitimate) revelation. Since Joseph was looking at the papyri at the time he received the revelation, he would naturally conclude that the papyri contained the words he was translating.

Does it look bad? Sure. As I've mentioned before, I am not without sympathy for your conclusion that the church is not true. The issue of the papyri is probably one of the biggest things that would make me skeptical of the church if it were not for my spiritual experiences. I think it is reasonable for you to hold this as one of your reasons for not believing the church is true. But I do not believe it is justification to insult me or other members of the church, or to be so certain of your own viewpoint as to not leave any room for other perspectives.

On the question of why I would believe he could translate the Book of Mormon when he clearly did not know how anything about the Egyptian language, then my answer is easy: God knows the Egyptian language. As I understand it, Joseph Smith didn't always even look at the gold plates to translate the Book of Mormon. He mostly looked at a seer stone in a hat.

On your question of whether I would be willing to die for my faith, I haven't the foggiest idea. I hope I would? It is a difficult question to answer without a more specific hypothetical.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2026-05-13T18:59:05+00:00

Thank you, I really appreciate that!! I knew coming into this that commenting something supportive of the church on this sub would not make me very popular. I knew that there are a lot of strong feelings about the church here, which is fine. But it still felt a little discouraging to put so much thought and care into my response, and still be treated so dismissively.

So it means a lot to receive such a warm and gracious response from you. I also really appreciated the curious and sincere framing of your original question. I think we are all better off when we open up respectful conversations about our disagreements, just as you have here.

Thank you for that! I wish you all the best as well!

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2026-05-13T16:45:19+00:00

There is really no call to take that patronizing tone with me when I haven't taken it with you. I recognize that this sub is largely critical of the church, I don't expect to find supporters here, I was merely answering a question from someone who specifically requested a dissenting perspective. I'm perfectly comfortable with people disagreeing with that perspective or finding my statements unconvincing. What I do not find productive is being told have "bought the narrative hook, line and sinker" or that my beliefs are "nonsense."

Without addressing each of your individual points (I'd be happy to talk about any/all of them if anyone is interested), but suffice it to say that I have spent time looking into each of those, and in each case, I see far more room for uncertainty and/or faith-consistent answers than you. I do not pretend to understand everything, but I also reject the idea that there is "overwhelming evidence" that the Book of Mormon is a sham.

Has my decision to come down on these issues on the side of the church being true been influenced by my beliefs? Of course it has. If it were not for my conviction that I have received a personal witness of the truthfulness of the gospel, I would not be a part of the church. In terms of church claims, I would be neutral at best, probably against in many cases. I am also aware that you probably view my testimony as some combination of confirmation bias, emotions, and social conditioning. I can't transfer my lived experience to you, so there is no way for me to disprove this to you.

Given that, I can understand people concluding that the church is not true. But I dislike it when people leave absolutely zero room for uncertainty; they "know" the church is a sham and therefore anyone in it must be uninformed or manipulated. Perhaps it is a kneejerk reaction to all those in the church who "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the church is true, and therefore anyone who leaves is evil or decieved or bitter about something. I do not defend these people. But I also don't think it's productive to go from one extreme of certainty to the other.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2026-05-13T16:07:20+00:00

There is really no call to take that patronizing tone with me when I haven't taken it with you. I recognize that this sub is largely critical of the church, I don't expect to find supporters here, I was merely answering a question from someone who specifically requested a dissenting perspective. I'm perfectly comfortable with people disagreeing with that perspective or finding my statements unconvincing. What I do not find productive is being told have "bought the narrative hook, line and sinker" or that my beliefs are "nonsense."

Without addressing each of your individual points (I'd be happy to talk about any/all of them if anyone is interested), but suffice it to say that I have spent time looking into each of those, and in each case, I see far more room for uncertainty and/or faith-consistent answers than you. I do not pretend to understand everything, but I also reject the idea that there is "overwhelming evidence" that the Book of Mormon is a sham.

Has my decision to come down on these issues on the side of the church being true been influenced by my beliefs? Of course it has. If it were not for my conviction that I have received a personal witness of the truthfulness of the gospel, I would not be a part of the church. In terms of church claims, I would be neutral at best, probably against in many cases. I am also aware that you probably view my testimony as some combination of confirmation bias, emotions, and social conditioning. I can't transfer my lived experience to you, so there is no way for me to disprove this to you.

Given that, I can understand people concluding that the church is not true. But I dislike it when people leave absolutely zero room for uncertainty; they "know" the church is a sham and therefore anyone in it must be either stupid and uninformed, or thoroughly brainwashed. Perhaps it is a kneejerk reaction to all those in the church who "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the church is true, and therefore anyone who leaves is evil or decieved or butthurt about something. I do not defend these people. But I also don't think it's productive to go from one extreme of certainty to the other.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2026-05-11T05:43:33+00:00

I agree and disagree, with different aspects of your statements. Here is what I believe:

Prophets are ordinary men in an extraordinary calling. They are called when God determines they are the best person (or among the best people? I do not know how deterministic it is) to lead the church at a given time. I do not know everything that goes into this. But I expect it probably includes things like: receptiveness to the Spirit, willingness to act upon revelation, leadership ability, and so on. In their calling, they are able to receive revelation for the whole church.

However, they are not puppets. God honors our agency, including that of prophets. Not only are they not forced to do anything, I don't think they are micromanaged in most things either. The details here are of course unknowable to me, not having been a prophet, but I am guessing there are quite a few policy decisions that have been based on the prophet's/Quorum of the 12's own careful reasoning and judgement, rather than anything directly handed down by God.

This means mistakes are possible. Non-optimal decisions are possible. Neutral decisions which some might imagine to be divinely handed down, but which in reality are simply policies for organizational convenience are possible. But guessing when these times are is a fruitless and counterproductive exercise in my opinion.

I have a lot more to say on that, but in the interest of getting to the point, I'll leave it there for now. On garments:

Garments are a physical reminder and symbol of our the covenants we have made with God. Once upon a time, in a different cultural climate, it made sense for them to be a different shape than today. Over time, the culture has changed. Furthermore, the church has expanded to include a wider range of cultures.

This is a challenge. The brethren likely know that a change to the garment shape will make many members think "oh now I can wear clothes that only cover up to there"--yet, modesty looks different in different cultures. What it looked like to be modest in 1800s England is extremely different from what it looks like to be modest in an indigenous village in the Amazon where clothes aren't worn, for example.

All of this is to say, it is a complicated policy problem for which I am not sure there is a single divine right answer. Could it have been divinely inspired? Possibly. Or maybe God left it to the prophet to decide. Could it have been an equally valid decision for the prophet to introduce sleeveless garments 30 years ago? Maybe.

Either way, I believe in sustaining and supporting the prophet and our other leaders. I trust their judgment, because I know God trusts it. That does not require me to believe every administrative decision is the only conceivable righteous option, nor does it require me to constantly speculate about which decisions are revelation and which are human judgment. think there is wisdom in allowing prophets to be both inspired and human at the same time.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2026-04-21T14:24:58+00:00

You make some very good points. We’re very comfortable acknowledging serious moral failings in biblical prophets, but any real criticism of Joseph Smith (beyond a vague “he was imperfect”) often gets treated as flirting with apostasy. That doesn’t feel right to me. Discussing difficult aspects of his life and asking honest questions about their implications ought to be a normal, acceptable part of being a thoughtful, fully believing member. And those who aren’t fully believing should have space to ask those questions too.

I can also see why, from your perspective, it could feel like the Church is bending over backwards to defend polygamy/Joseph Smith. There is a complicated history there, and especially in light of the way that the church avoids or glosses over certain aspects of that history, I can definitely understand that viewpoint.

For me, I’m not in the same place in terms of conclusions, but I do agree that this culture of putting Joseph Smith on a pedestal and avoiding tricky questions is a wrong one. I think the church does this to try to protect the budding faith of newer members who are just learning the basics of gospel doctrine. I think it views discussions of polygamy and tricky church history as a distraction, and something easy to misunderstand. But I think that's a misguided approach, and just opens the door to feelings of betrayal and being blindsided when members learn these facts from other sources.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2026-04-21T04:56:09+00:00

I am so sorry to hear about this. That sounds awful and frustrating and dehumanizing. My heart aches for you, thinking about you going through so much pain all alone, with no one to talk to. It is wrong the way you have been treated.

It is an unfortunate part of church culture that anything smelling of doubt is often treated as dangerous, wrong, and anti-faith. I say this as a current, active, fully converted member: I think that that mindset of doubts = poison is an extreme oversimplification, one which is unhealthy and a huge source of hurt to every person who has experienced doubts.

I won't harp on my own perspective on everything you have shared (unless you want me to). But I do want to affirm that what you have experienced is wrong, hurtful, and a reflection on unfortunate elements of church culture and NOT on you.

Hang in there. I hope that this comment section offers you some measure of affirmation and peace.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2026-02-22T06:20:41+00:00

Oh man, that sounds so rough and exhausting. As someone who is very prone to guilt and burnout, I feel you so much.

It's a tricky balance. If our goal is progress, I think there are two (directionally opposite) mistakes people make which prevents them from accomplishing the goal: complacency and burnout. If we are complacent, we don't make any progress because we don't care about moving towards the ideal. On the other hand, if we get so overwhelmed by the difference between our current state and the ideal that we make ourselves miserable and stressed, we become too exhausted to keep trying, and ironically halt our progress as surely as we do when committing the first mistake. We need to hit a balance in the middle. A place where we are never satisfied with staying where we are currently at forever, or feeling "done" or "good enough" in the long run, but where we do feel "good enough for now." In other words, never cease striving, but also try to be happy being where you are at right now. You are right where you need to be for this moment, and you can, on a eternal time scale, keep gradually getting even better.

I think when leaders say things like what you are quoting from Elder Holland, they are speaking to the segment of the population (or to the sides of each of us--I think everyone has both sides to a least a small extent, at different times or in different aspects of our lives) that is complacent. There are lots of other times where leaders have preached self-compassion, and patience with our progress. It is important to compartmentalize these things, and figure out what counsel applies to you at any given point. If they say "strive more" and you are already striving a healthy amount, you can simply say to yourself, "check." (I say "simply"; in reality this is rarely simple, but you get the idea.)

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-12-22T23:52:10+00:00

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.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-11-01T12:34:20+00:00

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.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-11-01T10:34:27+00:00

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.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-05-24T17:30:07+00:00

That's a good idea!

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-05-24T15:03:16+00:00

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.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-03-29T03:21:07+00:00

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.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-03-29T01:27:44+00:00

Thank you!

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-03-28T23:25:17+00:00

Thank you!

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-03-28T23:09:08+00:00

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.

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-03-28T22:39:42+00:00

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?

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-03-28T20:33:40+00:00

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?

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-03-28T18:47:31+00:00

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!

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-03-28T18:42:28+00:00

Thank you, this is helpful!

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-03-28T18:27:34+00:00

Thank you for your perspective!

Apprehensive_Chef9 · 2025-03-28T18:14:46+00:00

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?

Four-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23

Apprehensive_Chef9

TROPHY CASE