Anddenex

Wow... I remember paying 89 cents a gallon.

My first kiss -- Second grade. Bottom of the slide. Didn't understand why she licked me inside my mouth... (wasn't until I was older I heard of french kissing and then realized what she did and why). My first kiss and only kiss from her. My next kiss didn't happen until 7th grade. I wasn't rebellious. I was naive.

The most important aspect in all relationships blossoming toward engagement, and then marriage is whether or not you both feel you have received a confirmation from the Lord. When I was engaged my Bishop told me of two brother's who were engaged to their girlfriends (if you could even call them girlfriends) after the first date. At the end of the first date both brother's proposed, and the women said yes. They both , at this time, had been happily married for 25 years or so. In suggesting this, I am not saying this works for everyone, and everyone who dates should get engaged after the first date. I agree with other posters who mentioned to seriously think about what those who love you say. They are speaking from love, and especially parents, who are also speaking as stewards. Sincerely, think upon what they have shared, make your decision, and then give your whole heart and mind to your potential wife. As a father, I must admit if one of my daughters came home and said, "I'm engaged," and I knew they only had dated for a month, I would be a little worried. However, I am a hypocrite in my worry because I knew my wife for 3 months, we dated for 1 and a half months, and were engaged, and then married 3 months later. We knew each other for a total of 7 months. We have been married for 13 years, and have five wonderful children. Learn to recognize right away, none of us are perfect, and when you get married your eyes will be opened and her eyes will be opened even more. Be patient and forgiving. I have totally loved President Monson's counsel, "Never let the sun go down in anger." (That is a paraphrase, I don't remember the exact words) I have found this counsel to be beneficial. Be quick to say your sorry.

Yes. If you have mentioned it to your Bishop, then you are 100% correct, and there is no point to flogging a dead horse. This can be very frustrating, especially since you have children who pass the sacrament.

I remember reading an article from an Apostle, I believe Elder Packer, could be wrong though, who mentioned attending a ward where this was the case and he was concerned that the spirit of the sacrament would be lost. White shirts isn't a cultural tradition, it has been specified by Prophets, Apostles, and GA's. Here is what is said in the Church Handbook: I see nothing wrong in pointing this out to your Bishop ... however some priesthood leaders may take this as a sign of rebellion, so judge for yourself.

I agree with mnn727...not sure if these questions will actually relate, or give results of meaningful value.

Hehe....yet your post is now the last post Backroads, and thus PC's post will no longer be the last post. Now JD must wait until PC posts again, and no one posts after him. EDIT: Wait ... mine is the last post, darn it.

Already have Vort, already have. And as I have you keep telling me I haven't and misrepresenting me and thinking by calling it "relevant parts" now you aren't misrepresenting me. Nothing false in my accusation, I have already shown you, and have verified my previous words, "but you won't." You don't care, and with each share, you still don't care. There is really nothing more to say. As I said, you think you know my heart and mind. I have shared it with you. I have shared how beefche understood me. I have shared posts that you said didn't resemble Viann's words, but did, and you still don't care.

I already have, not going to post again, reread the threads, and if I did, you will continue to cherry pick, and then misrepresent.

I have Vort, and then you keep misrepresenting them as you have done with my previous comment. I have already specified my argument is "What is best for the child"? I have already specified that the father was wronged. I have already specified, to you, where you were wrong in interpreting my comments and I have already given you examples. Yet, when I give you an example you think to cherry pick one of my statement, misrepresent it, as you have done with my comments resembling Vianns, and how Viann, is sharing exactly what I was sharing. No where did I specify that a single father isn't fit to take care of children. I simple asked a question, and you have pounced on me telling me what I said, and what I meant, as if you know my heart and mind. I have defended myself, and I am tired of defending myself with someone who then misuses another one of my quotes.

Correct Backroads, it is just disturbing when the court doesn't act in the best interest of the children, when acting in the best interest of the children is the better avenue.

Since you like to cherry pick Vort, I am not surprised you didn't mention this in your response regarding my responses to you and viann's responses, especially her last response. I will quote myself again seeing you have a hard time recognizing what I meant and what I posted, but you like to cherry pick statements (Read carefully this time): Viann's recent comment: My comment to you: Yes, nothing reflects Viann's responses, and you haven't misrepresented me at all...keep telling yourself that. I will just use the emoticon for LOL, as you have, instead of the button.

Yes, very sad indeed Backroads. I understand Backroads, who can we rely but the law, however it is the law that put two children back into the home of a mother who watched, witnessed, and allowed her kids to be molested. It is difficult times we live in for sure.

None taken Backroads, none taken. She did state it better. EDIT: I will provide more insight, last year I watched two children given back to their mother because of "biological rights", who was a conspirator to her boyfriend molesting the two kids. They could not provide enough evidence, even though the children testified to the molestation, and even being tide up while their mother watched. It disgusts me. Why are they with their mother? Biological rights. It is truly sad. The father was sure he would get his two kids from this situation, but unfortunately he could not. Thus, as Viann specified - Is this "the best for these two children"? Now my friend in continually wondering what will happen to his children.

Nope, not at all. Viann, is exactly in understanding with what I have shared. Even her statement that "what is best for the child" is different for each circumstance, as she shares specific examples, which examples also highlight my point with my wife's parent's who sought to adopt a boy, but could not because of biological rights, even though the mother was a whore, addicted to drugs, and a drunkard, etc... This mother had no means and never was sober enough provide any physical or emotional well being for the child. However she sure would sober up enough, right before court, to make sure she kept her child and the child support coming in from the father (which went to drugs, alchohol, etc...). beefche also, gave insight to my thoughts, which nobody listened to.

And thus we see one of the only people on here who actually understood what I am saying and what I have said. Your two post are specifically in-line with what I have shared. Thank you Viann. Your examples are exactly my point. Thank you. I am not surprised the person who actually understood is a person who actually has been through it.

Patent the statement, before someone else takes it

My last comment. You have misrepresented me, you continue to misrepresent me for your own benefit. I will restate myself again seeing you are having a hard time. What is best for the child? Your last statement about single fathers and mothers is far off. If you read my last post about a single mother, and also cared to listen to beefche, you would already have your answer. But you won't.

Thank you beefche. However, it is high time I withdraw myself... I am loosing my own composure and will probably break some rule of LDS.net, if I haven't already.

Wrong! You are misrepresenting me and my words. Quit putting words into my mouth for your own benefit! Point in case, and I quote myself again, Vort: But of course you have not misrepresented my words, not a single word at all.

No, they are not reading my whole comment, as I have had to quote my position over-and-over again. People are welcome to disagree with me. Again, bringing up the Mormon thing, which wasn't my argument. If they weren't Mormon, my argument would be the same, "What is best for the child"? And being with the biological parent(s) is not always best. As does your argument have terrible ramifications. It is the father's right, thus it should be without any thought regarding the child. My wife's parents went through an ordeal to adopt a kid, who was in the foster system since he was 2. His mother was a drug addict, a whore, and drunkyard, and couldn't keep any job due to her habits (she could not provide any physical or emotional well being for this child), however as you have stated the state kept the premise, it was better that this child be moved from home to home (in the foster system), than be adopted because the mother was unwilling to give up her rights. Yes, of course, in this case it is better, as you share, the child should be with their biological mother. This is part of the reason why my wife has seriously considered going into family law because the rights of the children are constantly overlooked by the argument, as you suggested, "The rights of the biological parent(s)."

No, my preference is what is best for the child, that has been my whole argument, and I will state my question again that I specified in the beginning of my posts: Is it better in this situation for the child to remain with the adoptive parents? Or is it better, for the child to be given back to the father? I haven't read any argument which gives a good basis for the child being returned to the father. I have read comments saying the "adoptive parents" should be prosecuted, and are conspirator and accomplices. They were parents who went through what they considered a legal adoption, and that the child is legally and lawfully theirs. Is is amazing to me people are unwilling to recognize this. Viann's comment is inline with everything I have been trying to share, and again, she is spot on. @Backroads - I never said the father should loose his rights to the adoptive parents. I have declared this whole time, "What is best for the child"? Is a single father better for a child than an adoptive mother and father? If the father is best for the child, then the child should go with the father. If the child will be better off with the adoptive mother and father, then the child should remain where she is.

Did you miss my comment about children being "resilient"? Is this why General Authorities also encourage adoption? And since a layer says it, it must be true? Child trafficking? Don't agree with this blatant term used here. Child trafficking has the connotation of sex slaves. How many adoptions have taken place without the husband's signature? How many husband's have left their pregnant wives? I agree they took a risk, however, talking like "Selek" that they were accomplices and conspirators to a crime is sheer ignorance. EDIT: Seeing readers aren't reading my whole comments, I will quote myself: Thus, this shouldn't have happened, but unfortunately it did. I am glad Viann was able to make a post. Her comment is spot on.

Wrong. An adoption did take place. I never said anybody had to follow my lead, moot.

Thank you! Finally, and what a relief your comment is, and at the same time how hard this must be which probably brings back some heartache. I am glad to read your position is much better now.