mrmarklin

Respectfully, your mission president was an idiot. 

My fiancee father had veto power, I knew I could no marry without his permission. But my opinion probably does no matter because of cultural differences. For example, 
Usually in Costa Rica a woman only move out of her parent house when she marry a man, so is taking the responsibility to protect her from her father. So is necessary for her father to decide if you have capability to take over protecting and caring for his daughter. 

This... is not advice I'd give someone.
When you marry somebody, you aren't just marrying that person, you're marrying their whole family.  You don't have to like it, it's simply how it is.  Is it really wise to  begin that way? 
This is your future father-in-law we're talking about.  Not  just some custodian who happens to have been taking care of this woman up until now.  He's one half of the team that raised her, and until this moment was probably the most important  man in her life.  Does it really seem wise to disrespect him that way?  This man will be grandfather to your kids.  Think the family will appreciate the awkwardness at family get-togethers knowing her dad doesn't like you - and with good reason?
Besides, to disrespect her family is to disrespect her.  "Yeah baby, I know your dad loves you more than his own life and you love him too, but why should I bother showing him any respect?"
Pffft.
Last year a very respectful young man called me to ask my permission to marry my oldest daughter.  He'd have asked me in person but they live in another state and he was unable to make the trip.  We talked for a while and he earned a ton of respect from me by showing me a  ton of respect.  I'm looking forward to calling him my son-in-law and he and my daughter have an ally in me. 

The Bible says cleave unto your life and none else, so basically your wife has a biblical pass to put you on the couch.

If I say these thing to my mother I will wake up a week later. I ask my mother too because I never marry a woman my mother doesn't get on with. 

That's honestly surprising they're not divorced or subject to Church discipline . As someone who considers herself worthwhile i would never permit a man to do that. It's honestly one of the most selfish things I've heard. And not much better in my mind than the Mormon "megadate" where couples go get civilly married for a day or a week just to have sex then divorce. If they wanted to be financially dependant on their parents, it was straight up dishonest not to tell them. And that IS NOT enjoying all the privileges of matrimony FYI!!! I have a lot more to offer as a marriage partner than just sex. Hopefully they do too. Sick some people think that's all there is too it. Trying to find a loophole around sin is sin itself. To me I would compare that scenario to someone who doesn't wanna confess to smoking but decides to hotbox with their friends. Still sin.
Wow. Just wow. I dearly hope you weren't intending to proffer that story as a SUGGESTION to ME because that's offensive. Any man I marry is gonna man up and be a man and act like one.

I found myself the same way before my mission.
I would NOT recommend dating non-LDS guys. Friends, sure. But from how painful my experiences were, no.
First of all, I was surprised that there were LDS guys that were willing to keep the law of chastity. Men are attracted to women with self confidence and standards, and the laws of God tend to do that for a person, so I never had a guy give me a hard time about that. One thing that helped were my friends. They were all over the guy saying, "You KNOW she's not gonna do anything right?" so that helped. However, because they were ok with me keeping the law of chastity it made me not feel so bad about dating them. {However...you are not equally yoked already with this person in that regard. If you do slip up and have chastity issues, you are going to feel guilty while they won't feel as guilty and as big of a need to correct the problem as you do. Also, if you break the law of chastity, the blame is on you. You would have been a poor example to them and it could hinder their desire to feel the Spirit and learn more.}
Second, I also found that (sorry LDS guys!!) but non-member guys will tend to treat you better. I think there is just a lack of quality women in the world so when they find one, they make sure to treat her right rather than just like another date. They want to hold on.
Third, I felt like non-members would not be marriage hungry like LDS guys. I always knew I was going to serve a mission, so I think I dated non-members as a way to avoid marriage. WRONGO. I think as a result of the first and second point I made, all three of the boyfriends I had before my mission became very preoccupied with marriage, in spite of since the onset of the relationship telling them that I would never marry outside of the temple and didn't see our relationship going that way.
Fourth, Elder Costa did not give that talk intending to tell our girls to go snare a boyfriend to baptize. Anytime you enter into a relationship and place an expectation on them to change, you are essentially being mentally/emotionally abusive. It's also very unwise for you to date someone hoping they will change as they can put on a good face at first and then reveal their true colors later on when it's too late.
Along that line, the more pressure you put on him to change, or to investigate the Church (which CANNOT come without repentance and change) the more the man you are dating will feel that pressure and tend to go the other way.
I may sound harsh but I gave my personal experiences. I dated an athiest guy while i was preparing for my mission Good guy.. From the beginning I told him verbatim "I would not marry you" and he told me what he was looking for in a marriage partner and it was so clear we weren't a fit and he wasn't looking to get married ANYTIME SOON. But it was clear we liked each other and wanted to spend time with each other. So we started dating and soon we were boyfriend and girlfriend. And then he started pushing marriage on me a lot. He told me (after three weeks!!) that if I didn't have my papers in to serve a mission by December we would get married. And I was in lala land and stupidly agreed and then freaked out. But I felt like I couldn't break up with him because he was investigating the church...he started to. I had never pushed him to learn at all, I just was myself and he expressed interest. And I justified things as well and told myself that at least while he was with me he wasn't breaking the law of chastity or drinking, so he was better off with me. I did turn in my papers around the same time he set a baptism date. I went to the MTC and waited that first PDay for a letter from him telling me how his baptism went, only to find out he had dropped his date and was no longer speaking to missionaries. I was the most heartbreaking thing in my life. He never joined the church, started drinking again, and later moved in with a girlfriend. That tore me apart. I've since dated and broken up with LDS guys, and have been shocked at how much less painful and how much more quickly I can recover from heartache compared to non-LDS guys.
I mean, you may ignore everyone's advice. I just say it because I was in so much pain and I had a comp towards the end of my mission go thru the same thing and it broke my heart to see her struggle.
Just be careful. When I met one of the guys I dated I thought, "I would be friends with him, but I don't think he would ever like me." and then there was mutual interest. And I thought, "I like him, flirting with him, but I'd never go out with him." And then he asked me out. And I thought, "Ok, I'd go on a date with him, but I'd never be his girlfriend." And then he started calling me his girlfriend. "Ok, so I'm his girlfriend, but I'll never marry him." And it came to the point where I had a one way ticket booked to go back to him and we were gonna get married. He turned out to be very abusive emotionally and mentally, but I fed into that when I said I wanted to marry him but only if he joined the Church. He was one of the people that put on a good face but was not a person I would have dated had I known.

I highly doubt these attractive and scantily clad women went and all decided to send friend requests to your fiance all at once. I guarantee he was purposefully friending attractive women, if only to look at their pictures.
Maybe suggest getting a combined Facebook page? If he doesn't care about making you secure in the relationship he is probs hiding something. 

I have negatives experiences with men saying they would make changes for me and in my experience they don't hence my choice to not progress the relationship.

Here is a true story:
A couple I know wanted to get married in the temple, but couldn't afford all the niceties because they wanted to complete their education etc etc.  So they married civilly without telling anyone. 
They "dated" for at least two years to my knowledge, of course with all the benefits of matrimony.  They never lived together during this period, but stayed with their families. But to the world and even their families, the were only dating.
Let your conscience be your guide.

I mentioned this in a similar thread you recently opened; but I don’t see non-Mormons violating the WoW as sinning per se; any more than an ancient Assyrian was “sinning” for not keeping kosher.  The WoW is simply a token of the covenant we, as Church members, have made.  *We* are accountable for our conduct vis a vis that covenant; others are not, and we are not accountable for their not keeping a covenant they have declined to make in the first place.
That said:  I’m a firm believer that alcohol is a social plague; and I’d avoid trafficking in alcohol due to that civic belief.  Ditto for weed.  As for coffee:  I think there would be professional issues with preparing/serving a product for which you personally can’t do any quality control; but if you figure out a way that you can do that effectively—knock yourself out.

I find it tragic and baffling that there are still people who think race matters as anything other than descriptive.

No one here likes beer butt chicken?
Yes, we have beer just for that purpose. To roast excellent chicken on our barbecue. 
We have many friends that enjoy coffee in the morning. While we have never bought any coffee, we have allowed preparation at our homes. 
One thing I will not tolerate is indoor smoking. 

No one here likes beer butt chicken?
Yes, we have beer just for that purpose. To roast excellent chicken on our barbecue. 
We have many friends that enjoy coffee in the morning. While we have never bought any coffee, we have allowed preparation at our homes. 
One thing I will not tolerate is indoor smoking. 

Just wanted to resurrect this thread after....4 years...and update my view.
Leasing is by FAR the better way to go (if you can afford the monthly) for driving newer cars.
It's a highly controversial view, with strong opinions on both sides, but I fall strongly on the pro-lease side of things now-a-days (having gone through 3 leases now (yes, that's right...3 in a matter of 4 years. Trapped in a lease, my foot.)
Obviously there's no getting around the fact that driving older, cheap cars is cheaper than driving newer ones, so that comparison isn't really what needs to be made. If one is willing to drive older cars, then one is willing. But...if one is going to drive newer cars and that is a priority, leasing wins, hands down, imo.

You got me.  My wife would not want to live in a house that has less square footage than her kitchen, however.  I'll follow this.  With a 4400 sq foot yard, if buildable, it will likely be bid up over the 600k mark.

Location is everything.  Even in CA depending on where one lives, there was a huge correction in property values in the last downturn..  In the SF Bay Area, not so much.
Like most economic things it boils down to supply and demand.
My son bought a house in Idaho, held it for ten years, and barely got his money back.  No appreciation at all.  This is fairly typical in much of the US.  He was able to squeeze into a home in the SF Bay Area last year and already has around $60K of appreciation.  It's crazy, I know.
In the SF Bay Area a starter home in most areas is around $1,000,000.  This allows you to own a 3 bedroom/2 bath fixer upper.  It for sure won't be perfect.  And won't be large.  Think around 1,200 sq ft.
How can this last??  It won't.  But for right now, there is so much new money coming into the Silicon Valley that this is the situation.
Think about it..........With 20% down (who has 200K laying around?  answer: guys with stock options) your monthly nut is $3,820 payment, taxes around $1,250 per month and Insurance of $150 per month.  That is a monthy nut of $5,220!  Not a lot of people in the country can crack that payment  month in and month out.  That does not count the maintenance, utilities and other benefits of home ownership!!
What with income taxes, vehicle costs, raising kids etc etc, it's no wonder that a lot of people making $200,000 or more per year consider themselves working poor.

Iran signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty and agreed to not have nuclear weapons.
North Korea has not signed, but has made threats to its neighbors and fired weapon delivery systems.  So I don't think any normal country would want them to have nuclear weapons.
If your neighbor, a gun owner, made similar threats and shot guns into the air near your house,, he/she would likely have a problem with law enforcement and have weapons confiscated.

No one here likes beer butt chicken?
Yes, we have beer just for that purpose. To roast excellent chicken on our barbecue. 
We have many friends that enjoy coffee in the morning. While we have never bought any coffee, we have allowed preparation at our homes. 
One thing I will not tolerate is indoor smoking. 

SLC IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT. This is not news. 😎

+1

I have watched the movie Saving Private Ryan a number of times and felt it did not glorify violence at all.  What I saw was a small piece of the horrors of war and the price of freedom and what it costs.  Arlington National Park and many cemeteries around the world are full of people that paid the steep price of liberty which is blood and lives.  Sadly there are too many in our generation and the younger generations that are forgetting these stories and lessons. 

That's not at all what I'm saying.  I don't even see where you guys are getting that notion, unless your faith in the MPAA is so strong that it carries near scripture level reliability.
Again, I make my movie decisions based on my own efforts to learn what kind of content they contain, which is easy to do with the Internet available.  Thus, the MPAA doesn't need to factor in.
My question for you is:  What is it about the MPAA that you trust so much that you're critical of someone who doesn't use its guidance?

If you are hot, you should definitely wear a bikini.  Acne goes away, hotness doesn't unless you get fat.

For the record, Italy is about the size of California. When I hear "small country", I think Belgium or Luxembourg. For a European country, Italy really isn't small.