JoCa

Again, to clarify. I think adoption is great, it is a great solution to real-world problems. The optimal solution (which is what we should strive for, even knowing it may not always be obtainable) is for children to be raised by their biological parents.

More facts, facts don't care about your emotions: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage/marriage/30-years-of-research "Most researchers now agree that…studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married biological parents… Research indicates that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step or cohabiting-parent households." In addition, Child Trends concludes:"An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage… Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development." (Emphasis in original) This paper can be found at: https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/04_01_08.pdf Sara McLanahan of Princeton University, one of the world’s leading scholars on how family form impacts child well-being, explains from her extensive investigations:"If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent family ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it would provide a system of checks and balances that promote quality parenting. The fact that both adults have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child." Again facts don't care about your feelings.

But what do those old men know . . .obviously they aren't with it or up with the modern times. They don't know what it's like to be in today's world. The Church continues to teach this, it recognizes sometimes woman have to work outside the home, but the ideal, what should be strived for them not to be working outside the home.

Prophets disagree with you Benson: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/10/the-honored-place-of-woman?lang=eng A recent national magazine gave these alarming figures: “More than 14 million children ages 6 to 13 now have working mothers, and it is estimated that a third of them are unsupervised for lengthy periods each day.” (U.S. News and World Report, 14 Sept. 1981, p. 42.) The seeds of divorce are often sown and the problems of children begin when mother works outside the home. You mothers should carefully count the cost before you decide to share breadwinning responsibilities with your husbands. It is a truism that children need more of mother than of money.. Kimball: https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/mothers-employment-outside-the-home?lang=eng “Numerous divorces can be traced directly to the day when the wife left the home and went out into the world into employment. Two incomes raise the standard of living beyond its norm. Two spouses working prevent the complete and proper home life, break into the family prayers, create an independence which is not cooperative, causes distortion, limits the family and frustrates the children already born. … “Come home, wives, to your husbands. Make home a heaven for them. Come home wives, to your children, born and unborn. Wrap the motherly cloak about you and unembarrassed help in a major role to create the bodies for the immortal souls who anxiously wait. “Sometimes the mother works outside of the home at the encouragement, or even insistence, of her husband. It is he who wants the items or conveniences that the extra income can buy. Not only will the family suffer in such instances, brethren, but your own spiritual growth and progression will be hampered. I say to all of you, the Lord has charged men with the responsibility to provide for their families in such a way that the wife is allowed to fulfill her role as mother in the home. …

Why do you have a chip on your shoulder about this?

??? Excuse me . . . .look if things worked properly, there wouldn't be adoption-FACT. Deal with it. Otherwise what you would be arguing for is for a baby-selling mechanism and I can't possibly believe you would argue for that? The only reason adoption occurs is because either somebody or something got screwed up. Either parents died, couldn't provide for the child, etc. Therefore it is a logical conclusion, that adoption is a great solution to a problem that ideally didn't happen!!

How condescending of you MG. I expect better of you. You want to deny reality. Men are different than women, adopted is different than biological. It is just different.

And some things he's already told us in either The Proclamation on the Family or Scriptures on what's best . . . but everybody wants to be an "exception".

Have your done both . . .adopted and had a child. Come back to me when you have.

Yes some women never do; and yes adoption is necessary. I really don't get what you are trying to argue. I've never said adoption is bad, never said it isn't a good thing. I've only said that adoption is not equal to having your own children. I'm not sure here, I don't follow . . . did we just switch to donor eggs or something? Come back and talk to me when you have a biological child and then when you don't. It's different. It just is. When you see the baby being born and notice "oh he has your father's eyes" or oh he/she does this or does that and that is exactly like so and so. You don't have those moments with adoption. Babies need their biological mothers and fathers, in some cases, due to circumstances adoption is necessary and a great thing- but the better thing would be if they didn't need to be adopted in the first place! That is my point.

You are obviously only hearing what you want to hear.

No, it's just that some people have a chip on their shoulder b/c they are "special". Look, adoption is great, wonderful-where have I said it isn't? It can not, and does not replace a mother who carries the child for 9 months in her womb, of a father that sees the mother go through the changes and then to witness the birth of that child. There are plenty of studies that show that a child knows the mothers voice upon birth . . .b/c the child hears it in the womb.

If that were true than facts would be that every child should be adopted. This is plainly false. Adoption is a great solution to a fallen world problem. I do not dispute this; but the idea that in general adoption is as good or better than biological children is false.

Actually that is not true-studies exist that show the optimal solution is for children to be raised by their biological parents. In a fallen world this is not always possible-but it is the optimal solution.

If one has the ability to have biological children one should do so-but adopted will never be biological that is a fact of nature-period. Adoption, i.e. non-biological children is a sub-optimal solution. It is a great solution to allow individuals who can't have children or who want more children to do so. But biology, is biology-the child will never be flesh and blood. It can be raised as if flesh and blood, but will never be flesh and blood.

Lol . . .okay. I have not called you any names, but you can call me the least Christ-like. Got it. Great, have both biological and adopted. However, you did not mention having biological kids at first only adoption. My apologies for mis-interpreting your words-next time please be a little more clear. Yes, b/c adopted means not your own . . .that is what it means. Adopted: legally take another's child and bring it up as one's own. Take another child not your own and raise it as if it is your own . . .i.e. that it will become your own. But it is not your flesh and blood, never will be as in the child will never have your DNA-period-that's a fact.

Really?? The only thing I can think of is if she doesn't have the monthly issue .. . if I'm wrong, I'm wrong-I've just never heard of it before.

I would add, I think they are headed down the road of divorce. If one in a marriage is so concerned about everything being "equal" it will be an impossible task and at some point anger, enmity, sadness will result and more likely than not if that attitude continues it will lead to divorce. I know I'm blunt, but it is really amazing to me at how much really bad thinking about marriage and life is being indoctrinated into young people today . . . I guess that's what 12 years of public school indoctrination and college do to people. We get married for 2 reasons, #1 b/c God said "it is not good for man to be alone" and #2 "to replenish the earth". There are those who can't have children, but for those who can, marriage without children is simply disregarding God's commandments and one day will have to answer to God for committing sin (i.e. disobeying his first commandments). To fulfill #2 men and women have specific roles and responsibilities that provide the best way for raising the next generation. This idea of egalitarianism (i.e. that men and women are simply interchangeable) between the sexes is false, not of God and will cause, is causing major problems for society. I think it's because quite frankly people don't read scriptures (oh but this goes against modern day culture so therefore it is false . . .okay then): 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; It's in the temple . . .but nah, we can just throw out the parts we don't like . . .okay do so at your own peril.

Lol okay kid, keep dreaming. . . you have completely misconstrued what "equal partners" means. Equal does not mean that each person does equal amount of task A,B,C; i.e. splitting it 50/50. You do 50% of earning, I do 50% of earning, you do 50% of nurturing and I do 50% of nurturing. If you do that, your family will be sub-optimal. Equal partners means that each persons duties responsibilities, and tasks are of equal importance. I will demonstrate why you have a fallacious thinking . . .derived from economics. It's a very basic, simple economic principle-it is the reason why we are where we are today. It is called "Division of Labor"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour "In contrast to division of labour, division of work refers to the division of a large task, contract, or project into smaller tasks—each with a separate schedule within the overall project schedule. Division of labour, instead, refers to the allocation of tasks to individuals or organizations according to the skills and/or equipment those people or organizations possess." You are arguing for a "division of work", i.e. everyone does equal amount of the work assigned. That is fallacious and does not work. For a family to run smoothly and properly a division of labor is necessary. Could both I and my wife prepare an equal amount of meals? Sure we could. However, because she specializes in making the meals (and is very good at it) it frees up my time to specialize in work and home repair. She specializes in getting the kids ready, in the household things and I can specialize in my full-time work, and in my side-business. Because I can specialize and focus in those areas, I can make way, way more money than either of us could working "equally". Sorry, kid-you have been brainwashed by today's modern culture . . . you'll just learn the hard way it doesn't work too well and there is a reason why God ordained men as husbands to provide and woman as wives to take care of household. What you propose, seems to be really nice, fluffly, great "progressive" values but in the real world-it doesn't work. I would advise looking to those individuals who have raised many kids who are all good, righteous individuals, who have very strong marriages, been married to the same individual for decades, etc. If you look, you will find that almost always they will be a "traditional family". What you propose, just plainly doesn't work. Oh . . .and you have obviously not been around babies too much. For the first 2 years, their is very little "nurturing" that a father can really do. I don't have breast for a child to suck on (and that act is an extremely important bonding between mom and child).

Well, I wouldn't be considering the young man as a possible spouse if he is drifting!!! Young men, get it together!! But you see we have an young woman who is an enabler, i.e. it's "unfair" that he provide . . . so of course he is going to slouch . . . . . sigh

lol okay. Have at it. You obviously weren't listening to Elder Oaks conference talk today. Sorry my young sister-I truly am sorry you are confused (with the bolded) you have absolutely no clue . . . but life is a great teacher. This decision you are making (bolded) will be one of the worst decisions you can possibly make. God has said so, Prophets have said so, a modern Apostle of God has said so . . . .but be my guest in doing things your own way. Just when the heartache and problems occur don't say you weren't warned. Edit: You plan to adopt (b/c you can't have any-which I find strange b/c how would you know before you are married?? or b/c you believe it better than having your own???) . . .wow this current generation is screwed up . . .wow.

This, IMO, seems like a really simple decision that the world gets us confused on. Questions to answer, in your future marriage what is the primary role of the husband? What is the primary role of the wife? https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true "By divine design, fathers .. . . are responsible to provide the necessities of life. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." In general, in order for you future husband to fulfill his God-given duty and responsibility to provide for you and your future children, it is imperative that he get the best education possible in his chosen field. Your law degree is a long way off and will most likely require significant amount of debt that if you are to be married your husband will also be responsible to pay off. At least 4 more years (or more) and likely around 100k in debt. How many years of work will you or your husband need in order to pay off 100k in debt? How is that going to affect your future decisions in raising children and being a mother? Is that going to be more of a burden or a blessing to your future family? Even if you are able to have a minimal amount of debt with a law degree . . . of what purpose will it ultimately be in your future family? If you know who you want to marry, and the guy feels the same . . . why put education over marriage? I've been married 12 years and not once has my wife's degree helped the family out-in fact I have significant debt to pay back b/c of it. I'm glad she has a degree in case something happens to me; but the most important education she has obtained hasn't been from the classroom-it's been in the growth she has experienced being a wife and mother. If you aren't sure you want to marry him; that is another question and for that case I would say proceed with your own plans. However, if you would like to marry him, then do it. I would say separate out the questions. 1st should you marry him? 2nd when should you marry him? 3rd what to do about college? If the answer to the 1st is yes, then get married, allow him the honor, privilege and duty to obtain the best education he can so that he can provide for you, your children and so you can do what God has ordained you to do---nurture your children. God will provide if you follow His model . .. He just will.

Hmm. I guess Elder Oaks reads MormonHub ???? ;-).

Look police reports are generated when either someone calls the police to report a crime and or the police are somehow notified that a crime has occurred. In other words for the police to be on the look-out for a "black male age 24" means that someone reported to the police the description of a suspect that looked like that. Police do not go around just making up police reports. So when the majority of crimes reported to a police station involve black individuals-it's not b/c the police are "racists" it's because the police are doing their job and trying to catch the perps. So when the majority of individuals in jail are black; it's not b/c there is some systemic racism, it's b/c the majority of crimes are committed by blacks!!! Now, if you want to argue about getting rid of some stupid laws, I'll be right there with you-I think the drug war is insane and we should do away with it. But it's not systemic racism that causes the majority of jails to be filled with blacks-they are breaking the majority of the laws.

As I have pointed out but you ignored, the majority of this violence occurs in cities that have a black mayor and a black police chief. Come back when you start showing me actual real racism. Maybe the black police chief is targeting black individuals in their cities b/c the majority of the population in those cities is black and therefor commit the majority of the crime. Pretty simple .. . I've lived in a majority black county (90% black) and it wasn't "racism" that was keeping the black man down . . .that is for sure. It was stupidity and lack of living basic commandments. When the School Superintendent is arrested on embezzling millions of dollars, they put the guy on furlough, paid for his salary for 6 months and paid for his defense! Can't get much more stupid than that. The problem ain't the white police man oppressing the black man.