JoCa

I totally agree. And I try to be careful, which is why it really frustrates me, it's why i am frustrated, ticked, etc. b/c I see the message, confused by it and what is currently being said and how it is being dealt with is not how is was said or dealt with in the past. And it's plainly not the same. The LoveLoud announcement was the trigger . . .b/c I'm said to myself wait just a second this is not in line with what I've been taught my entire life being in the Church. Just because I have criticism does not fault finding make: fault-finding -continual criticism, typically concerning trivial things. The only things I have criticized have been over consistent issues. I brought up Elder Ballard b/c yeah I have no clue as to what he is meaning or really meaning by it. I tried searching on LDS.org for a better understanding and I couldn't find it so yeah I'd I really wish he would have been more clear; he was very clear in other portions of his talk and I liked that. I totally believe they are called of God, but not everything they do or say or even every action is of God. I do my best to look at what they say and compare it to everything else and then see if it is of God or not. Yes, sexism, racism, nationalism are loaded terms. I love how Elder Cook put it . . . "Anyone who claims superiority under the Father’s plan because of characteristics like race, sex, nationality, language, or economic circumstances is morally wrong and does not understand the Lord’s true purpose for all of our Father’s children.9 Unfortunately, in our day in almost every segment of society, we see self-importance and arrogance flaunted while humility and accountability to God are denigrated. Much of society has lost its moorings and does not understand why we are on this earth. True humility, which is essential to achieve the Lord’s purpose for us, is seldom evident.10 I00% totally agree. But sexism, nationalism, racism terminology is quite different. "We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism." I guess where I'm going with this is that it's one thing to claim superiority because of race,language, culture, etc. and it's another to be in the modern term racist. There is a quite a difference in the quotes. Here is a practical example, in my life I've lived in neighborhoods where I'm the minority among other races and let me tell you it's a different culture and point blank I don't want to raise my children in that culture. I claim absolutely 0 more self-worth or more importance to God than those of other races, but I'm definitely prejudiced to living among people that look like me and share my values. I want to live in areas that share my same culture and my ethnicity. In fact if you look at demographics, the vast majority of people do the exact same thing. In modern parlance, I'm a "racist". Strife and conflict almost always occur out of differences in culture; until we have a common government under God, eliminating nationalism is like saying "world peace". Inside God's kingdom, i.e. His Church, I agree we should all be members of the Church 1st rather than of a particular nation or creed. Outside the Church . . .well that's a different story. I severely dislike (that's not a strong enough word) how Elder Ballard put it (b/c the two statements are different). I really like how Elder Cook put it. If that's apostosy . . . I don't see how matters concerning race, sex, nation (as they are hot topics these days) is a trivial matter. Maybe it is . . .

Where I go with the Church speaking out of both sides is that IMO the modern church over the last 10 years has become overly concerned with the fear of Man and the perception of the world. And let me be clear, just because I believe that does not in any way shape or form mean I'm falling away or apostate, etc. etc. etc. God is not a God of confusion . . .yet there is confusion. SSA:https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction?lang=eng http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/protestantism/mormon/mormon-homosexuality All one needs to do is just read what the Church said 15 years ago vs. today. "There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior. However, such thoughts and feelings, regardless of their causes can and should be overcome and sinful behavior should be eliminated." I 100% agree with the quoted statement. Pray tell when was the last time that was publicly stated. When? I would love to know. I say that b/c honestly I would love for someone to show me b/c it would help me out quite a bit. Today, the Church's position is it's totally cool to be homosexual as long as you don't act. The Church has websites for Overcoming Pornography, for Overcoming addiction, etc. But for overcoming homosexuality? No, not in the least bit. It's called mormonandgays (i.e. how to be mormon and homosexual at the same time). Quite honestly, I pray to God none of my children ever have this issue b/c I wouldn't want them being taught by the Church on how to get out of it in today's modern teaching-the gospel of Jesus Christ by the scriptures yes; modern day teaching no. You don't think that's confusing? The Church has changed it's position on it. In 1999 would the Church have put out a statement about LoveLoud? . . . I don't think so . . .absolutely out of the question. It would have never even considered it. The Church today is IMO very much concerned with it's "public image', and in some ways more-so than teaching pure truth. Look at mormonandgays that's about public image. The Mackinton story video, about public image. It's about PR. God to my knowledge in the scriptures was never about PR. The GC is a world-wide message; news reports pick up on it, CNBC, etc. The messages are world-wide. When an Apostle says we need to eliminate sexism and it's reported through news articles most people are not going to say "oh I'm a member of the Church it means this or it means xyz" http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/lovevslust.pdf "May I speak first for a moment of words and relate them to my theme. There is magic in words properly used. Some people use them accurately, others sloppily. Words are a means of communicating, and faulty signals give wrong impressions. Disorder and misunderstandings are the results. Words underlie our whole life and are the tools of our business, the expressions of our affections, and the records of our progress. Words cause hearts to throb and tears to flow in sympathy. Words can be sincere or hypocritical. Many of us are destitute of words and, consequently, are clumsy with our speech, which sometimes becomes but babble. It was Paul who said: “Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.” Spencer W. Kimball Right from a Prophet of God. So please excuse my frustration and dislike when the men who I sustain as Apostles do not do so. I expect men that I sustain as Apostles/Prophets of God to be clear, concise, direct. And quite honestly, I didn't get that from Elder Ballard. I get a "well what exactly do you mean?" Just because I sustain them as Apostles, Seers and Revelators doesn't mean I can't be displeased with how they are presenting the message . . .b/c quite honestly over the last several years lack of clarity and conciseness, is causing a lot more problems than not. If you are not seeing this in the Church then you aren't paying attention. Yeah, so I am getting ticked b/c the clarity I get in the modern fallen world where wickedness is more pronounced, more prevalent, more in your face than probably at any other time in history (excepting some really wicked cultures), is to "love everyone". Yeah well telling me to "love everyone" doesn't do me much good in teaching and raising my children in this fallen world. It doesn't do me much good in navigating how to keep myself from sin and on the straight and narrow to tell me "just love everyone". Great, now what.

??? I'm not nitpicking. I reject your condemnation of me; that's fine if you do condemn me . . .no skin off my back, I just reject it. I absolutely have faith in God, His Son and in fallible men who He has called. I sustain the leaders too . . .I have long ago learned in life that sustaining does not mean I have to agree with everything that is said. Nitpicking means: To be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details. What is insignificant to you might not be insignificant to me; I do not, have not listened to conference with the intent to find fault. I listen with the intent to learn what God would have me do in my life. I reject the bolded premise in your text. It wasn't that long ago that Elder Packer said something verbally in GC regarding homosexuality and yet that sentence was not present in the printed edition. Certainly if an Apostle went way, way of the rails they would correct. But I do not believe in the least bit that every Apostle's talk is scrubbed or approved by the First Presidency-that is attributing a level of oversight and overreach that I think is highly unlikely. And having been involved in leadership positions in organizations, it is attributing such a childish notion to leadership that I wholly reject it. And absolutely no, I do not believe in the least bit that every word or every phrase spoken in GC is the mind, and the Will of God. The Church itself says this . ..we've had plenty of talks about the fallibility and mistakes that leaders make over the past several Conferences. I go back to again what are the levels of Authority for judging the correctness of ones words- whether they be a Prophet,Apostle,Stake President, Bishop, lay person, etc. . #1) Canonized Scriptures #2) Joint Proclamations made by the 1st Presidency and the 12, #3) Proclamations made by the 1st Presidency #4) words of the Prophet #5) words of the Apostles #6) words by other GAs #7) a preference for modern over ancient. When someone in GC speaks, I am to judge their words based on known doctrine and scriptures . . .if it doesn't align with that then I am to do some serious thinking. Three talks impacted me . . .I loved Elder Oaks, and the 70 talk about hard things. I severely disliked this phrasing in Elder Ballards talk .. . I liked the overall message. The rest were good. I dislike the terminology that Elder Ballard used . . .I really do. I don't think he is less of an Apostle at all. But we are commanded to take the words of the GC, study them out, test them. I do not see how I can apply any modern usage to the term that Elder Ballard used. When he says we should eliminate prejudice I can agree, when he says including "sexism" . . .I honestly have no clue what he is talking about. In today's modern usage, simply holding the door open for a woman by a male is sexism and chauvinistic. Simply believing that a man's place is in the workforce and a woman's place is in the home is sexism (i.e. The Proclamation on the Family). Using the term "mankind" is sexism, etc. etc. etc. Is is seriously advocating that we should eliminate these things? If he is that I'll just say he is dead wrong and I totally disagree. If he is saying that we shouldn't look down upon another because of their sex then I agree. If he is saying that men shouldn't catcall women-totally agree. But that is more a cultural thing vs. sexism. I got plenty of cat-calls as a missionary in a foreign land, but never in the US. If he is saying men shouldn't be making rude comments about the physical nature of women, I totally agree. But that to me isn't sexism that's being a jerk and not being a gentleman. And at one point I worked as a waiter . .. I got plenty of rude comments from women. Did I make like a victim and say "oh that's so sexist!!!" No, I just said, they were being jerks . . .but in general they tipped better so I didn't mind it too much!!! If he is referring to things like the "gender pay gap" . .. it's totally false. The free market eliminates it. Men, women, black, white it doesn't matter, the employers objective is to pay as little as possible to get the job done and the employees objective is to get as much money to do the job. If you are paid less than you think you are worth, it's pretty simple go get a competing offer! It's happened plenty of times in my life and I'm sure it will happen again. But I don't claim "sexism!" no, I just go get a better offer. Simple solution rather than playing the victim. Funny how the feminists never make claims about how there is "sexism" in the logging industry or in the construction industry. Because those are jobs that aren't prestigious jobs . .. but they will nash their teeth about STEM fields . ..why b/c it's a prestigious job. So when an Apostle starts talking about "sexism, racism, nationalism", he is starting to wade into some really loaded areas where there are a lot of different opinions and a lot of different meanings. And in general how those terms are used by modern culture, they are completely loaded terms used by the Left. So yeah, I severely disagree with the usage of the terms without defining what he means by using those terms. Because I honestly don't know how he is using those terms. There is IMO an easier way of saying the above paragraphs without saying "sexism", it's saying men should be gentlemen and women should be ladies. The old-school values of being a gentleman and being a lady eliminates any of the crass, rude behavior towards women and men. Sexism is a catch-all phrase in today's society for anything that could possibly be construed as treating men and women differently and that's why I dislike his terms. To me, it means don't be a jerk, be a gentleman . . . but to another sexism means something completely different as in the Church is sexist (and according to modern usage it is!!).

Bingo.

Well and this is where I again go back to definitions. The very definition of words is changing. Homosexuality and SSA means sex . . .it means sexual desire, period. And in no uncertain terms Christ commands us not to lust (i.e. have sexual desire) for anyone who is not our opposite sex spouse. Period, end of story. Acknowledging the good looking gal at work is not sexual attraction, acknowledging that Patrick Swazey (in his prime) is a good looking guy is not homosexual. But yet we have a generation being raised to think that oh my goodness if the thought even crosses their brain that someone of the same sex is beautiful . . . they are homosexual! And it doesn't have anything to do with it. Studies have been done to show that beauty or what most people consider beauty is due to ratios, geometries and symmetry. We naturally recognize patterns and things that have proportions . . .the Golden Ratio. https://www.goldennumber.net/face/ One does not need to be homosexual to recognize beauty in the same sex or in the opposite sex. It is just simply a recognition of beauty. The problem that religion has created over the past 20 years is that in order to not offend we can't talk about the actual problem . . .which is homosexual lust, i.e. sexual desire for someone of the same sex. Identifying as homosexual, whether one intends to or not, means that individual has sexual lust for someone of the same sex-that is sinful. And lust most certainly can be controlled and banished . . .married individuals are expected to banish lust for anyone not their spouse. And just so that it's clear at how much ground the Church has given up on this. When was the last time you heard anyone in the Church say publicly that homosexual desire, i.e. lust, is sinful? I'd love to have a quote, I really would.

And it is one reason why The Proclamation is so important. It was signed by 12 Apostles and the 1st Presidency, i.e. they were all in complete agreement with each other on this issue. I highly doubt that each member of the 12 is in complete agreement with each talk given by a fellow Apostle in GC. I'm fairly certain they have plenty of disagreements . . .if they didn't there would be no need for 12 . .. however just like any good organization you never air disagreements in public. When they act in unison on something that should hold a lot of weight.

I understand the new doctrine on this from the Church . . .but it is cognitive dissonance. If I have a thought that I want to kill people, I might say that fleeting thought isn't a sin . . .only if I dwell on it. I completely agree. Having fleeting thoughts about ssa would not be a sin . . .but dwelling on it would be. How in the world can someone identify as homosexual and then make the claim they don't dwell on those thoughts. . . .it's incongruous and cognitive dissonance. That would be like identifying that I have consistently have murderous thoughts but don't worry I'm not dwelling on them so I'm not sinning . . . riiiiight play it again Sam!

I do agree but then Elder Ballard states in his talk "We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism," Okkie dokkie . . .I think I get what you are going for but my definition of racism, sexism and nationalism is way, way different than plenty of others. For the Kate Kellies of the world, the Church is sexist by not allowing women to hold the Priesthood or to be Bishops. My definition of sexism is saying in the eyes of God one sex is more valuable than another. The world's definition of sexism is anything that in any way, shape or form treats men and women differently. In fact a google search on LDS.org for sexism and nationalism turn up almost 0 results. Sexism returns: "Considerable controversy has been aroused of late around such terms as sexism, feminism, and machismo, as if there is something wrong with being too male, too female, or too virtuous. President Spencer W. Kimball said, “I sincerely hope that our Latter-day Saint girls and women, and men and boys, will drink deeply of the water of life and conform their lives to the beautiful and comprehensive roles the Lord assigned to them” So is Elder Ballard directly contradicting a Prophet of God only 3-4 prophets ago? Nationalism. My definition of nationalism is blind obedience to a country. Kimball and ET spoke at length about the US, it's government, etc. and how it is inspired by God above all other nations. To the left eliminating prejudice in nationalism simply means a one-world government. So as much as I liked Elder Oaks talk, I dislike Elder Ballard's. To simply throw a line out about "racism, sexism, nationalism" without actually defining what you mean is quite meaningless . .. especially when teachings of the Church over decades directly contradict the modern day usage meaning of those words. Which again goes back to what I've said before . . .the Church is speaking out of both sides of its mouth and leaves things unclear. One Apostle proclaims The Proclamation is divine another Apostle proclaims sexism is bad . .yet clearly the Church does not have pure equality (the worlds definition) for men and women. The only thing I can conclude from this is thatdefinition of sexism, racism, nationalism is different than the world's definition . . .otherwise Elder Oaks talk and Ballard's are incongruous. I find it a little disingenuous in Elder Ballard's talk when the 4th link on LDS.org searching for sexism is http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith-coalition-president-congress-biased-religious-liberty-report What we find even more disturbing is that, in a statement included in the report, Commission Chairman Martin Castro writes:“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.” Okay . ..where is Elder Ballard trying to go with that statement . . . . 'cuz that statement (taking the world's definition) sure doesn't have a whole lot of doctrinal backdrop (sexism returns a grand total of 4 results in LDS.org). And in the context of nationalism a search reveals either historical discussion or the fact that the only way that nationalism will be eliminated is in the Kingdom of God. Inside the Church, I totally agree Church is above nation . . .outside the Church totally different story. So I'm not sure exactly where he was going with that.

I'd say that's not b/c of dual incomes but because of efficiency improvements; in fact I'd say it goes directly against what you are saying. I think if you want to live the 1960s standard of living you could do so much, much cheaper today than you could in 1960s. No internet, no cable, no cell phone bill just basic land line. Those three things could cost you easily 200-300/month today. A basic land line would be 20-30/month. A good rule of thumb for housing costs would be somewhere around 100/sqft, for a 1200sqft home that is 120k, given today's interest rates easily doable on 50-60k. You can get a decent used car for 3-5k that will last you 10+ years if you take care of it. No dishwasher, no dryer, wash clothes by hand . . those things aren't necessities . .. they are conveniences and you pay for them. No, I don't know their circumstance . . .but having recently been involved in a bishop's storehouse case I can tell you more likely than not (not in all cases there are always exceptions) people can live on one income . .. they just don't have the discipline to do so . .. modern conveniences outweigh frugality. This individual was spending at least $80/month eating out at lunch every day. I probably make 3x as much as this individual and I don't come close to spending that much eating out. In the 1950s-1960s people didn't eat out, the wives cooked meals they brought the meals to lunch and saved themselves a bunch of money. It's much easier to simply go to MacDonald's rather than the wife take the time to prepare and cook a meal . . .it's just easier to do so. In general people are lazy and given a choice they will take the easiest way out, even if in the long term it is detrimental.

Amen and ditto on the other stuff to.

The biggest thing is housing; other than that I really can't see anything that is inflated b/c of two-income family. What it really boils down to is serving Mammon over God, nothing else. Simply two generations ago a 1500 sqft was a big home; parents raised 4,5,6 kids in a 1500sqft home. Today 3500sqft isn't big enough for 2 kids. It comes down to priorities and recognition of what the most important things in life are. Yeah, I'd love to live in a big house, but not at the sacrifice of my wife being in the workforce. Plain and simple it is materialism.

I think that's the point . . .it's going to be hard to change in the hereafter without a physical body . . . God is merciful but he is also just and those who could have had children but chose not to for convenience sake or b/c they felt it "wasn't right for them" they will have to answer to God for it-of that I'm convinced. And I'm convinced there will be much, much sorrow for them in this life and in the next life for choosing this path. Just google Fey Weldon. What happens when you get old? 30s it's great, you have social friends, work friends, there are plenty of avenues to get social interaction. What happens when you are 70,80,90? Most of your friends will be dead, or have major medical problems, they won't want to talk to you b/c they'd rather be spending time with their kids before they kick the can. So spent 60 years of a life only to live the last 20-30 in solitude. ..no thank you! I truly feel sorry for them, to be in a retirement home with no one that really cares about you. Besides the personal social costs, I also think it's quite selfish; it used to be that family takes care of you when you are old. That was just expected, part of the duty of the eldest son was to care for the parents. With no children that can take care of the parents, the social costs of taking care of you when you get old falls to the rest of society. To be able to communicate with and spend time with my dad in the twilight of his years is a wonderful experience and it's the same for him and I hope it will be the same for me when I get to his stage. Unfortunately, most people that are like this (and a good portion of them end up being women), bemoan their situation after it is way, way too late. 32 is getting up there to have kids, only 3 more years in a low-risk pregnancy above 35 risks increase dramatically and then you get serious birth defects like down syndrome, etc. But we reap what we sow in this life.

I would concur with a lot of statements. 1st worry about getting married. More likely than not however, not wanting children will definitely put the brakes on most relationships-especially within the Church. You are going to be hard-pressed to find a young man who is totally cool with not having kids. I'd advise my son to run from any woman who says they don't want to have kids. I understand that today's modern culture has put a major, major damping on woman and their traditional role. You are and have been taught in popular media that not having kids is a good thing. It is no wonder to me why you have these thoughts and desires. As was explained in Conference yesterday there is a difference between salvation and exaltation. Salvation is gained by simply becoming a member of the Church going to the temple and living the commandments, and that includes that one is able to enter into the Celestial Kingdom and live with God. Exaltation however, is different it is living the life that God lives and that can only be accomplished through marriage and then ultimately through children. Quite honestly, there are so many lessons that God wants each of us to learn that can only learn through raising children. They can not be learned any other way-it's just impossible. In a sense by not wanting to have children you are in a very literal sense damning yourself (as in to dam up your progress). Because we know that the same person we are when we die will be the same person when we are resurrected, I find it very hard to believe that one will all the sudden want to have kids in the hereafter if one actively forfeits that ability in this life. "I've been waiting and hoping for them to change since I was 10 and first realized I didn't want kids. I just can't picture them in my future." That is you problem, waiting and hoping is different than changing. You are expecting some external force to come into your life and change your desires. Sometimes that happens, but most of the time, in fact the majority of the time God expects differently. "26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given." God expects us to actively change our behavior and our patterns of thought. This is completely possible, it happens all the time, it is hard but it happens. People change from desiring sin to not desiring sin .. . .how do they do it, by acting. If you really want to change this pattern of thought-you will. Frankly, the only thing holding you back is a lack of desire. There is something (maybe in your past through abuse, or something that you saw done or peer pressure, etc.), that is holding you back from actively making the change to desire to have kids. Figure out where that is coming from, resolve it and move forward with a desire and an act of will to change your very thought patterns. It can happen.

It's not just about ssm or law of chastity. The Proclamation, in fact I'd say the meat of it outlines proper roles and responsibilities for husbands and wives. It outlines the God ordained model of how a family should look and the duties inside it. How many members of the Church subscribe to the belief that it's okay for mothers to work? That men and women are interchangeable in their prospective roles? If we think of the Proclamation as just about SSM and law of chastity we are missing a large, large portion of it. I remember when it came out . . .pretty much everyone in the Church said something like "well duh, this is quite obvious why would the Church need to put this out . . .it's just basic common sense" 20 years later and within the Church how many disputations are there on the implementation of it? How many members say . . .well that's good but this part here doesn't really apply to me?? Definitely way more than there were 20 years ago when it was common sense. Oh and my second favorite talk was by Elder Stanley G. Ellis awesome, awesome talk.

I loved that quote . . . it's quite good. Having a sense of humor when discussing weighty matters is important.

If that were the case, then why is it that adopted children when they get older want to find their biological parents. If the children were just as much the adopted parents children as biological children then they would never have a desire to find their biological parents. So it's totally okay for a child to recognize their own desires to find/meet/know their biological parents . . .but for a parent to recognize that adopted is different than biological is horrible?? You can't make adopted be biological . . you just can't. You can make adopted family, you can make them part of the eternal covenant, but they are not, never will be, can't be, biological-that's a fact. Adoption is a great solution and shows God's mercy in a fallen world-it allows those couples who have made serious mistakes to be able to have another family raise their child in a better situation, it allows those who can't have children (or who want more) the blessings of raising children and (if they are sealed in the temple) the opportunity to be sealed in an eternal family together. The child's DNA, the way their brain is formed, everything about their creation of their body is different. This isn't a bad thing, it's just a recognition of facts. The best solution is very every child to be raised by biological parents, that unfortunately sometimes is not possible and adoption is a great solution to this fallen world problem.

FP, you are setting up a straw man and you know it. This is not what I've said, never has been what I've said, never will be what I say. If this is your standard of what it means to have children then we should have the government come in round up all children who are not in a God-fearing covenant and give the children to them . . . man you are just being dense. You are only hearing what you want to hear. Get off you dang high-horse.

If that is the case then every child should be adopted. This is obviously false, therefore the above statement is false.

I don't agree with this, https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/mothers-employment-outside-the-home?lang=eng This is still the current manual that is being taught on it https://www.lds.org/languages/eng/lib/seminaries-and-institutes/institute Religion 235. I think the members of the Church aren't willing to heed the words of the Prophets more than anything else.

Pot calling the kettle black much?? I wasn't the one who was originally being disrespectful. You were the one who initially said I didn't have a clue (i.e. you were being disrespectful to me). I understand you don't care about the studies or facts b/c you are emotionally invested in believing what you want to believe. You can't disprove what I've said, you have nothing to back up what you have said except emotion-you don't have any logic only emotion so you claim I'm being disrespectful and then close down the argument. Actually no, these same studies do not say that at all (about homosexuality). And this quote if anything destroys homosexuality and transgenderism "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)." Homosexuality ain't gonna be two biological parents. Honestly I have busted your world-view, you have gotten "triggered" and have now shut-down. I have in not one instance said adoption is bad, evil, a horrible thing, not in the least; only that it is not the same as having biological children and that ideally all children would be raised by their biological parents. I've said adoption is a great thing for bad situations that happen in life. But for this I'm disrespectful?? Okkie dokkie. Just for clarification when I said: ".wow this current generation is screwed up . . .wow." It was a general observation, more dealing with just the difference in values about not heeding The Proclamation on the Family. It was not connected to adoption . . .I can see how someone might think it was connected to it-but it wasn't. I could have been better about clarifying that initially.

Or you can't argue with facts . . .see the studies above by researchers :-). Here I'll quote again for you: 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). anything else is sub-optimal . . .it might be necessary, but it is sub-optimal.

Actually, I do. You certainly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about . . .or did you not read the studies? Again facts don't care about your feelings.

But it's not "nearly" .. .it's completely doable. You scrimp, you save, you scrimp you save. You don't eat out . . .your wife makes meals for you-you take them to work and eat the leftovers from the day before, you rent the crappiest places possible. You save, save, save. You work, work, work. You don't buy the new car, you buy the cheap beater that just gets you from point A to point B. And over a period of years, you live very cheaply-but that's how every generation starts out. And then by the time you've been working 10-15 years you look back and you recognize wow I've really accumulated some wealth. You don't buy the 200k place, you buy the 100k place, pay it off, your frugal, etc. Kids are not that expensive, they are actually quite cheap. The most expensive period is until they are potty trained (and that's maybe 50/month extra for diapers). In fact, I'd say for most families any advantages of dual income quickly disappear as soon as day-care costs are factored in.

Totally false. You set mammon above God. I've survived in one of the highest cost of living cities in the US on a single income. Making half the median income. Did it with a wife, with 2 kids, during the housing bubble. I saved enough to buy a house . . .in cash.

So we can in essence pick and choose what we should obey . . .got it. It's amazing, The Proclamation was declared again by Elder Oaks today . . .but people want to ignore it and make an exception. There have always been examples of woman needing to work due to some major problem, it still doesn't take away from the ideal. Here you have a couple, who are in the prime of their life-no major (that we know of) things would prevent then from fulfilling modern day prophet wisdom, but actively choose not to because it's "not right for them". Okay . . .if that's not disregarding prophetic counsel and advice, I don't know what is.