Anddenex

I hear you here, and used to fill the same way.  The solution is to quit being a passive passenger in learning.  Look deeper & apply deeper.  Some concepts (like God loves you) have really simple nursery-level milk lessons, which are actually word-for-word identical for the most advance meat-course.  The difference is not the words of the lesson, but how deeply into your soul you let the lesson penetrate and lift you. 

A few thoughts:
Go look up wherever it is that Paul wrote about itching ears.  Seems applicable.  (Itch can't appear that many times in scripture...) Go re-read Matthew chapter 5.  Have you mastered everything taught therein?  If not, you're not ready for something new and interesting.  (It is my belief and I suspect prophets and apostles have taught this, but it's too late right now for me to go hunting for it, that until a sufficient percentage of us have mastered a sufficient percentage of what we already have, we will not receive more.  If you want more, master what you already have, then the Lord will give you more.) President Kimball (I believe) once said he'd never been in a boring Sacrament meeting - presumably because he was there to learn from the Spirit, not from the speaker / teacher.  I suspect he also wasn't self-deceiving and tried hard to extract the pieces which applied to him and which he needed to work on.  Learning requires immense effort.  (In other words, if you need something new and interesting, go to the Lord in humble prayer, with real intent, and be willing to receive whatever he gives you, through the Spirit.) There are ample resources for you to do personal study on things which will be new and interesting to you.  Church is where we are to "preach nothing but repentance" until such time as the Lord tells us otherwise.  Church is the place to learn doctrine, not be entertained, shocked, or debate some divisive issue. Until the students in the class spend as much effort preparing for the class as the teacher spends, and until they stop sitting in the class like bumps on logs, and share their own insights, and ask their own questions, and engage in teaching one another, there's not much the teacher can do besides teach the lesson - teaching is a 2-way street.  But if everyone came fully prepared, and participated, the discussion could go much deeper than it usually does (in my experience). In other words, if you're bored, that's your fault, not the teacher / speaker's fault - because you decide whether you're going to feel the Spirit, and the Spirit is never boring.  If you want to learn something new, all you need is to go do it, using tools and methods already available.  And yes, that is infinitely harder than having some intellectual-type scratch your itchy ears for you.

Fundamentally, church is a milk bar and a hunting school.  Speaking generally, we're supposed to get basic sustenance there and acquire the skills we need to go find the meat on our own.

I don't think he lost; I don't think he won big either.  I think he held serve and did what he needed to do.
I've said this before, Trump is very, very good at persuasion.  In this debate he was cautious.  IMO it was a conscience decision to not go after the e-mails, Bengahzi, Clinton Foundation etc.  I think the reason for this is because of who he was talking to.
We already know that ~40% of the electorate is going to vote red or blue regardless of what happens, but there is approx. 20% that are persuadable.  The dynamics of this debate are much different than in times past. #1 For many people, last's nights debate was their first real introduction to Trump; meaning the 1st time they've really seen him speak and talk. #2 He is debating a woman. Those two things change the dynamics a bit.
He had to be bold, but not seem overly critical. For a 1st impression to many people, he could not be overbearing.  Clinton's whole argument is that Trump is nuts, racist,  sexist, etc. 1st impressions are everything, he had to make sure that he did not play into that. IMO Clinton's last jab at Trump about him and the Nuclear Codes, and women, etc. fell completely flat except for anyone that is already going to vote Clinton no matter what.
So his goals last night as the first true 90 min. introduction to many people were to a) demonstrate competence, b) demonstrate that he isn't nuts, crazy, etc. without saying so (i.e. by demonstrating it) and c) basically plant the seed in people's minds, he isn't as nuts as the media and Clinton make him out to be.
IMO, if last night debate was one's first real introduction to Trump, the take away is, he is competent and not nearly as crazy or such a horrible person as people make him out to be.  And if that is all he accomplished last night, then he won.
Trump used this debate as a set-up for the next debate (the election is still over a month away). My guess is build up trust among people that normally don't see you and then once Trust is established unload on Hillary.
Again 1st impressions mean everything.  If he unloaded on Hillary with both guns that is great for political junkies, but average joe would see him as too overbearing (especially b/c she is a woman).  The gloves will come off I think next time.
 

Thank you Addendex, this is helpful and informative. 
 

This Bible Dictionary has been around longer than 15 years and we can read, "As soon as we learn the true relationship in which we stand toward God (namely, God is our Father, and we are His children), then at once prayer becomes natural and instinctive on our part (Matt. 7:7–11). Many of the so-called difficulties about prayer arise from forgetting this relationship. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings."
Helaman 5: 10, Nephi is given power that what he says will occur, why, "for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will." Nephi's will is in alignment with the Lord's will, and as such things are done "done unto thee according to [Nephi's] word."
D&C 46:28,30, "And it shall come to pass that he that asketh in Spirit shall receive in Spirit... He that asketh in the Spirit asketh according to the will of God; wherefore it is done even as he asketh." More evidence from scripture that when we ask, we are to ask in the Spirit (which aligns oneself to the will of God) as when we ask in spirit we are asking according to the will of God.
The purpose, motivation, of prayer has always been to align our will with God's; otherwise we face this possibility, Alma 29:4, "I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction."
Will God give us according to our will? Yes, and if our prayer is not in alignment with God's will (his initial will) we now must accept the future outcomes of our desire which was not in alignment with God's initial will, even to our detriment, not our blessing. The children of Israel desiring a King even though they had been counseled otherwise, with one of the most important statements made in scripture, paraphrazed, "Give them what they want. They have not rejected you. They have rejected me."
A sad example in scripture of how our will, our desires, can actually harm not only ourselves but our posterity (even a city depending on our position of rule), is that is Hezekiah. We are told, "Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." The Lord's statement, we could even say "will" at this time was that Hezekiah would die. Hezekiah did not like this news. He prayed with all his might and received the following words from the prophet, "Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee." Hezekiah's life was extended 15 years. Within these 15 years (three years into it) Manasseh was born. Manasseh upon his fathers death took the throne, "Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem." And we are able to read this about Manasseh, "Hezekiah’s son Manasseh who, after the righteous reign of his father, reigned as one of the most wicked rulers in the history of Judah. And his mother’s name was Hephzi-bah." It was during Manasseh's reign that Isaiah was martyred. A beloved prophet murdered.
How would have Israel faired if Manasseh had not be born? How many years longer would Isaiah have lived? What was the Lord's original will, statement made by Isaiah to Hezekiah?
Yes, one of the main purposes of prayer is to align our will with the Lord's will, and it isn't new and is supported by scripture. These are just a few examples.
 

We have been taught (particularly of late) that the purpose of prayer is to learn the will of God and change our own will to match his.  However, it seems to me as if in some situations, the Lord only has plan A, and no amount of praying will get us anything other than an understanding of plan A.  At other times, however, there appear to be "backup" or "alternate" plans, so that the overall purposes of the Lord allow for some variability, and depending on our faith and what we ask for, he allows or causes things to happen in one of several possible ways - still based on his will, but in this case, his will includes the variability to respond to our righteous desires and faith.
In relation to some of the examples you cite, do we not already know from other scriptures that the Lord desires to bless us?  Therefore, cannot these examples be demonstrating the principle that some things must be requested before they are granted, no matter how much the Lord desires to bless us?  Revealed prayers, such as temple dedicatory prayers, may be similar to these, and may also be intended to teach those who hear them.
Also, I think the answer to these questions is tied up in the full meaning of faith (which I don't think we will understand as mortals, but for which the best resource I've found in Lectures on Faith).  I think we understand faith as a motivator fairly well.  I don't think we understand faith as a power terribly well.  Further, our faith must be in God and Jesus Christ.  Therefore, we don't go forward trusting they'll do what we want (that's faith in the superiority of our own will).  Rather, we go forward trusting in what God wants - this is faith in him.  In those lectures (and I think in some of the scriptures you cite) the only way we can believe that we will receive is if we understand the will of God in relation to what we're asking.  For example, I can ask all I want for a million dollars (or the means and wisdom to earn a million dollars), but until and unless I believe that this is God's will for me, how am I to believe that he'll grant my request?  On the other hand, if I know that he wants me to serve in my calling, then when I ask for guidance in that calling, it's fairly easy to believe that he'll give it.  To me, it's fairly easy to believe God can do something, and much harder to believe he will do something.
As for the Lord's prayers, I think he always knew his Father's will, so we don't see so much of this example in his prayers.  Though we do see evidence that some things must be asked for before they'll be given (a part of the principle of agency, I think).
And so we go back to the fact that we're taught to pray for the prophet.  I think it is the Lord's will to bless the prophet, and our prayers are to help us support and love the prophet - I mean, if you pray for him often enough, I think you're either going to fall into the practice of vain repetitions (to your own condemnation) or develop sincere love and concern for the prophet (to your blessing and his and those around you).

This has a potential for more than one meaning:
1) An Old Testament experience, paraphrased, "There are more with us than withe them," and eyes were opened to see legions of angels protecting the city. 
2) As we are a people that will defend ourselves, a united strong front is enough to detour wicked mobs, even by force. For a blunt cliche, "Don't wake up the sleeping bear." Don't attack Zion, for they are great and terrible, and if not by legions of angels, then by sheer power from the people physically which detours others to fight against you. If you are the kid that beat up the school bully, you are less likely to be attacked by other bullies.
3) We may be like the 3 prophets in Jerusalem, the ability to call forth elements through power (righteousness) and authority (keys) of the priesthood. 
These are current thoughts I have on this matter, and it could be a combination of all three.

Why I can't be Libertarian
 
During my young adult years I experimented, not with drugs or sex, but with alternative political ideologies.  Libertarianism caught my attention.  I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand), and really liked the emphasis on individual responsibility and promise.  On the other hand, as I considered social issues, I ran headlong into Rand's militant atheism and anti-charity views.  Her personal life was immoral, and she despised religion and charity--and especially religious charity.  Then I considered the legalization of drugs, all gambling and prostitution, combined with the withdrawal of US troops from foreign lands were recipes for national and worldwide decline.  The modern iteration of the Libertarian Party may be far less extreme, but my Christian motivation to be salt and light in a very dark, sinful world drives me a way from the Libertarian bandwagon.  The need to defeat HRC's self-hating, religion-restricting reign is strong enough that not voting for her is not enough.  I must vote against her in a way that has a chance of matters.  I have to vote for the alternative candidate that can actually win.

While reading on the Fountain Pen Network, I came across a link to an interesting article titled "Science Shows Something Surprising About People Who Still Journal".  I had heard before about the mental health benefits of journal writing (and writing down all your worries immediately before you needed to act without those worries getting in the way), but this is the first I've heard that it could have benefits to physical health (though it makes sense after reading it).  Anywho, I thought I would share - in case anyone needs a little motivation to keep / start writing in that journal they got as a youth...

In my studies, and my simple knowledge of the gospel, I have wondered why some are constantly up in arms over "plausible" truths. Why do we as members, and even investigators, create turmoil within ourselves over truth and "plausible" truths.
If a doctrine is true. Then there is no need to fuss. God is either good and just, or not. There is no middle ground. God either loves us and does all that is "good" for the benefit of his children (as scripture specifies) or he doesn't. God is good and just. God does everything for the benefit of his children and all that is good comes from God. We can firmly place our trust in his infinite wisdom: faith, hope, and charity.
If polygamy is a truth of the eternities, then why do some people let it bother them? If true, then we only hurt ourselves by kicking against the pricks. Our learning, mind and heart, in the eternities will not be held back by mortal prejudices. We will begin to see everything in its sphere of truth. As a father, I often wonder how God feels when he speaks truths, and his children gnash their teeth, like my own children on simple truths (i.e. Dinner will be ready in 15 minutes...."Oh, but I am starving now!" It still doesn't change dinner will be ready in 15 minutes). They fuss over a simple truth as it doesn't fit their current prejudice. If polygamy is not an eternal principle, then great, why make a fuss. If polygamy is an eternal principle, then it is an eternal principle, and if not revealed now, knowledge and understanding will be given in the eternities and we move on.
At this moment, we have been commanded again to have one wife, and one wife only (living). Thus in reference to this statement, "What I'm trying to do is focus on finding 1 girl in this lifetime who I want to spend eternity," this is all you have been commanded to do. Move forward, and don't worry about what is out of your control, and may or may not, be in the eternities.

In my studies, and my simple knowledge of the gospel, I have wondered why some are constantly up in arms over "plausible" truths. Why do we as members, and even investigators, create turmoil within ourselves over truth and "plausible" truths.
If a doctrine is true. Then there is no need to fuss. God is either good and just, or not. There is no middle ground. God either loves us and does all that is "good" for the benefit of his children (as scripture specifies) or he doesn't. God is good and just. God does everything for the benefit of his children and all that is good comes from God. We can firmly place our trust in his infinite wisdom: faith, hope, and charity.
If polygamy is a truth of the eternities, then why do some people let it bother them? If true, then we only hurt ourselves by kicking against the pricks. Our learning, mind and heart, in the eternities will not be held back by mortal prejudices. We will begin to see everything in its sphere of truth. As a father, I often wonder how God feels when he speaks truths, and his children gnash their teeth, like my own children on simple truths (i.e. Dinner will be ready in 15 minutes...."Oh, but I am starving now!" It still doesn't change dinner will be ready in 15 minutes). They fuss over a simple truth as it doesn't fit their current prejudice. If polygamy is not an eternal principle, then great, why make a fuss. If polygamy is an eternal principle, then it is an eternal principle, and if not revealed now, knowledge and understanding will be given in the eternities and we move on.
At this moment, we have been commanded again to have one wife, and one wife only (living). Thus in reference to this statement, "What I'm trying to do is focus on finding 1 girl in this lifetime who I want to spend eternity," this is all you have been commanded to do. Move forward, and don't worry about what is out of your control, and may or may not, be in the eternities.

I have always said that if there is no steak in heaven, I'm just not going.

I know you're cutting/pasting from our modern scriptures, but take a look at the original scripture.  Take a good, close look at where the commas used to be in the original.

Yep, it's pleasing to God that meat isn't used only in times of winter.  Sounds to me like a scriptural refutation of the notion that you should only use meat in times of winter.  
(That said, I'm totally fine with people eating or not eating whatever they want, whenever they want.  Go be a vegan if you want.  Or one of those deluded folks that think organic is healthier and GMO is full of poison.  I don't care.  Just don't tell me that I'm breaking the WoW when I enjoy my summer pizza.

Of course, the easy solution is to have a few extra wives so they can take turns staying home.

This whole conversation has been intriguing and disappointing. Upon reading the whole thread an individual mentioned the Lord who at one point said this, "And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Source) Was the "Son of man" rich (wealthy) as to the standards of his time? The answer is apparent, no. The only expectation a woman can have of a priesthood holder is that he honors his priesthood. The amount of money he will make is not equivalent to honoring the priesthood and honoring God. I am very fortunate to have married a woman who understands this, and these parents are not my in-laws (I have found one more blessing I can count). The parent's advice to even hint of divorce due to "income level" is pathetic, and shame on them. They wouldn't have even been pleased with the Lord as their son-in-law, who was by no means wealthy or rich, and yet we read people seeking to tie wealth with the priesthood and righteousness. Elder Robert D. Hales have meaning in this thread, "Our world is fraught with feelings of entitlement."
When, my beloved and I were newly weds, we both agreed her education was important. We agreed that she should be a SAHM. To achieve this while going through school and seeking to live within our means (just to support daily living) I worked a full-time job, a part-time graveyard, and was in school taking anywhere from 12 to 17 credits at BYU. This allowed my beloved to be a SAHM and go to school full-time. The first ten years of our marriage I never made above 25K and it wasn't without trying. One time I finally was able to make over 35k/yr. I thought, "Finally, I have the opportunity to make even more money." Six months later the company went under. This thread gives me reason to count a blessing that I have the father and mother-in-law I do; otherwise, the financial struggles we have experienced would have been impacted, multiplied, by irresponsible and sad advice from the in-laws. 
 

This whole conversation has been intriguing and disappointing. Upon reading the whole thread an individual mentioned the Lord who at one point said this, "And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Source) Was the "Son of man" rich (wealthy) as to the standards of his time? The answer is apparent, no. The only expectation a woman can have of a priesthood holder is that he honors his priesthood. The amount of money he will make is not equivalent to honoring the priesthood and honoring God. I am very fortunate to have married a woman who understands this, and these parents are not my in-laws (I have found one more blessing I can count). The parent's advice to even hint of divorce due to "income level" is pathetic, and shame on them. They wouldn't have even been pleased with the Lord as their son-in-law, who was by no means wealthy or rich, and yet we read people seeking to tie wealth with the priesthood and righteousness. Elder Robert D. Hales have meaning in this thread, "Our world is fraught with feelings of entitlement."
When, my beloved and I were newly weds, we both agreed her education was important. We agreed that she should be a SAHM. To achieve this while going through school and seeking to live within our means (just to support daily living) I worked a full-time job, a part-time graveyard, and was in school taking anywhere from 12 to 17 credits at BYU. This allowed my beloved to be a SAHM and go to school full-time. The first ten years of our marriage I never made above 25K and it wasn't without trying. One time I finally was able to make over 35k/yr. I thought, "Finally, I have the opportunity to make even more money." Six months later the company went under. This thread gives me reason to count a blessing that I have the father and mother-in-law I do; otherwise, the financial struggles we have experienced would have been impacted, multiplied, by irresponsible and sad advice from the in-laws. 
 

“Today, I say that if the Church or its doctrines are attacked in blogs and other social media, contentious responses are not helpful. They disappoint our friends and provoke our adversaries,” said Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during an address to students at Brigham Young University. The Mormon apostle was the devotional speaker in the Marriott Center on the Provo, Utah, campus Tuesday, September 13, 2016.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks
http://ldsmag.com/elder-oaks-addresses-elections-hope-and-freedom-at-byu/
 
I think this is also very applicable here on the forums.  I see personal attacks here on the site all of the time.  Yes, even from us moderators.   I think we all could be a little kinder in our responses.   

This whole conversation has been intriguing and disappointing. Upon reading the whole thread an individual mentioned the Lord who at one point said this, "And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Source) Was the "Son of man" rich (wealthy) as to the standards of his time? The answer is apparent, no. The only expectation a woman can have of a priesthood holder is that he honors his priesthood. The amount of money he will make is not equivalent to honoring the priesthood and honoring God. I am very fortunate to have married a woman who understands this, and these parents are not my in-laws (I have found one more blessing I can count). The parent's advice to even hint of divorce due to "income level" is pathetic, and shame on them. They wouldn't have even been pleased with the Lord as their son-in-law, who was by no means wealthy or rich, and yet we read people seeking to tie wealth with the priesthood and righteousness. Elder Robert D. Hales have meaning in this thread, "Our world is fraught with feelings of entitlement."
When, my beloved and I were newly weds, we both agreed her education was important. We agreed that she should be a SAHM. To achieve this while going through school and seeking to live within our means (just to support daily living) I worked a full-time job, a part-time graveyard, and was in school taking anywhere from 12 to 17 credits at BYU. This allowed my beloved to be a SAHM and go to school full-time. The first ten years of our marriage I never made above 25K and it wasn't without trying. One time I finally was able to make over 35k/yr. I thought, "Finally, I have the opportunity to make even more money." Six months later the company went under. This thread gives me reason to count a blessing that I have the father and mother-in-law I do; otherwise, the financial struggles we have experienced would have been impacted, multiplied, by irresponsible and sad advice from the in-laws. 
 

If two separate companionships are teaching the same family, yes that is a problem. I remember receiving the warning and when the warning was received I wouldn't be able to update/save the new companionship. This was a few years back though.
The idea of two families home teaching each other isn't uncommon, and when I have seen it done it usually is because the EQP knows they will home teach each other. Some people prefer home teaching friends.
If it concerns you, as you are in a calling with Stewardship in this regard, address the concern with the EQP.

This whole conversation has been intriguing and disappointing. Upon reading the whole thread an individual mentioned the Lord who at one point said this, "And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Source) Was the "Son of man" rich (wealthy) as to the standards of his time? The answer is apparent, no. The only expectation a woman can have of a priesthood holder is that he honors his priesthood. The amount of money he will make is not equivalent to honoring the priesthood and honoring God. I am very fortunate to have married a woman who understands this, and these parents are not my in-laws (I have found one more blessing I can count). The parent's advice to even hint of divorce due to "income level" is pathetic, and shame on them. They wouldn't have even been pleased with the Lord as their son-in-law, who was by no means wealthy or rich, and yet we read people seeking to tie wealth with the priesthood and righteousness. Elder Robert D. Hales have meaning in this thread, "Our world is fraught with feelings of entitlement."
When, my beloved and I were newly weds, we both agreed her education was important. We agreed that she should be a SAHM. To achieve this while going through school and seeking to live within our means (just to support daily living) I worked a full-time job, a part-time graveyard, and was in school taking anywhere from 12 to 17 credits at BYU. This allowed my beloved to be a SAHM and go to school full-time. The first ten years of our marriage I never made above 25K and it wasn't without trying. One time I finally was able to make over 35k/yr. I thought, "Finally, I have the opportunity to make even more money." Six months later the company went under. This thread gives me reason to count a blessing that I have the father and mother-in-law I do; otherwise, the financial struggles we have experienced would have been impacted, multiplied, by irresponsible and sad advice from the in-laws. 
 

This whole conversation has been intriguing and disappointing. Upon reading the whole thread an individual mentioned the Lord who at one point said this, "And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Source) Was the "Son of man" rich (wealthy) as to the standards of his time? The answer is apparent, no. The only expectation a woman can have of a priesthood holder is that he honors his priesthood. The amount of money he will make is not equivalent to honoring the priesthood and honoring God. I am very fortunate to have married a woman who understands this, and these parents are not my in-laws (I have found one more blessing I can count). The parent's advice to even hint of divorce due to "income level" is pathetic, and shame on them. They wouldn't have even been pleased with the Lord as their son-in-law, who was by no means wealthy or rich, and yet we read people seeking to tie wealth with the priesthood and righteousness. Elder Robert D. Hales have meaning in this thread, "Our world is fraught with feelings of entitlement."
When, my beloved and I were newly weds, we both agreed her education was important. We agreed that she should be a SAHM. To achieve this while going through school and seeking to live within our means (just to support daily living) I worked a full-time job, a part-time graveyard, and was in school taking anywhere from 12 to 17 credits at BYU. This allowed my beloved to be a SAHM and go to school full-time. The first ten years of our marriage I never made above 25K and it wasn't without trying. One time I finally was able to make over 35k/yr. I thought, "Finally, I have the opportunity to make even more money." Six months later the company went under. This thread gives me reason to count a blessing that I have the father and mother-in-law I do; otherwise, the financial struggles we have experienced would have been impacted, multiplied, by irresponsible and sad advice from the in-laws. 
 

Divorcing a husband because he can't make your temporal dreams come true... what a complete rejection of God's commandment to LOVE especially in a marriage covenant.  There is nothing - nothing in the scriptures that says unless you make X you can't enter the kingdom of heaven.
Now, word of the wise - What you make doesn't matter.  What you spend it on, does.  So anybody who says - I will not be happy with this guy until he makes X will NEVER be happy even if he makes a million dollars.  That is because - she has not learned the value of money.
Now, the good wife is the wife that says - My husband only makes X.  I can plant a garden, raise chickens, move to a 2-bedroom apartment, etcetera etcetera so we can live comfortably on an X income and I can still stay home to nurture children.  This is the wife who can be entrusted with a million dollars.
 

I haven't read all the posts, but I think the counsel President Uchtdorf gave his address during the Priesthood session of April General Conference may be relevant here
A Society of Disposables
I think another reason this tender scene has stayed with me for so long is the contrast to some of today’s attitudes. In so many societies around the world, everything seems to be disposable. As soon as something starts to break down or wear out—or even when we simply grow tired of it—we throw it out and replace it with an upgrade, something newer or shinier.
We do this with cell phones, clothes, cars—and, tragically, even with relationships.
While there may be value in decluttering our lives of material things we no longer need, when it comes to things of eternal importance—our marriages, our families, and our values—a mind-set of replacing the original in favor of the modern can bring profound remorse.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/in-praise-of-those-who-save?lang=eng
 
 

GGRRRRR... I'm really starting to hate these I LOVE HIM BUT... attitudes.  DEFINE LOVE!
And $30,000 is not enough?  Does she live in New York City or something?  My mother used to yell at me when I was a kid whining about how small my weekly allowance is - "You keep that up, I'm sending you to live with your grandmother!"  My grandmother, of course, lives in a little fishing village where houses don't even have indoor plumbing.  That's what she needs - a swift kick in the face through a visit to small-town, USA, or even the Philippines to see how the rest of the world lives.