JoCa

Maybe Bro Oaks is concerned that we may opt to have few or no children?

It is my belief and concern that we live in a precarious and dangerous time.  Perhaps I view things differently but I do not believe G-d has ever destroyed any human society – even the society during the flood of Noah.  I believe, rather that G-d protects and maintains mankind in order to preserve us during our fragile mortality.  I believe that from time to time an entire social structure becomes so corrupt that G-d can no longer protect such society – without G-d’s protection Satan will destroy any human society by whatever means available and allowed.
One aspect of humanity that G-d protects and preserves is the family.  I believe that the “Proclamation to the World” is a prophetic warning to any society (or individual) that reject support of the family in favor for something (anything) else.  It appears to me that as long as a society will allow a few righteous among them – that society can be preserved but when they are ripe – meaning that they will not tolerate righteous individuals – G-d will no longer protect them from total destruction and they will experience what it is like to be under Satan’s power.
 
The Traveler

I second this.

The progressive game is one of incrementalism, and the tactics used by Mormon progressives are no different—they change things by degrees, gaslighting us into thinking that if we disagree with them it’s because we’re moving rightwards; rather than acknowledging that it is they who are moving leftwards.
The value of the POTF isn’t necessarily tell us anything we didn’t know—but it reminds us of how long we’ve known it; and it does serve as a sort of doctrinal hitching post.  It’s not canon, but it’s very nearly so and it serves the same purpose:  as long as we’re visibly tied to it, it becomes clear to outsiders that our doctrine on chastity isn’t going to change. 
Thats why our libertine wing hates it so much.

Given that there are members all over the place who think "it's only a matter of time" before the Church allows same-sex couples to be sealed in the temple, I'd say we very much need it.  If the world is fighting against families, the Church must defend them, and it must start with the membership.

To echo yours and @LiterateParakeet points this statement in the proclamation says it all:
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
The family is what the gospel is all about and Satan knows it. I think there is also danger within the Church of desensitization of the younger people when it comes to the world's idea that family can be what ever you want it to be.

Exactly what Elder Oaks stated, which, it seems in many ways deal directly with the Law of Chastity and the disintegration of the family unit.  As he said, at the time (and maybe to many today, especially the faithful saints) it seemed obvious in regards to the family, so why should they make a statement in that regard.  However, they felt that they needed to and hence the prayed and got inspiration in regards to the Proclamation of the Family.
Today, the hazards that desire the destruction of the family have increased and grown to where, outside of strong Christian homes (which in my category also includes strong LDS homes)m there is a great confusion regarding the morality of the Lord vs. that of the world.  The world says that co-habitation before marriage is not only okay, but the standard thing for young people to do these days.  We know it is wrong, and the proclamation of the family reinforces this in case we ever get to be confused.
I believe it is things like that.

Disagree. I see lots of people living on one income including me (and we live in a good school district). It's all about being smart (even millionaires have gone bankrupt). On the other hand, I also see moms working ... to pay for fancy trips and bigger houses. Oh, and depending on what type of engineering he's planning on, one income should be plenty!

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.

Wow. I mean, just wow. "Not to be judgmental or anything, but you suck." JoCa, congratulations! You've set the standard.

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.

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.

That's not what they're saying.  This is what they are saying:
I am what people would call a "career woman".  I pursued a Master's degree and have a great job.  But I am under no illusion that it is my primary responsibility or my equal responsibility to provide for my family.  That's not my job.  That's my husband's job.  My job is to manage the household and rear the children.  So, even as I make pretty good money doing what I do, it comes second only to my primary responsibilities as a wife and mother so that when I gave birth to my children, I stayed home and took care of them while my husband brought home the bacon.
But, that said, I don't like to cook, I don't like to clean the house, I don't like to iron clothes... I'd rather go do what I'm super good at - designing systems.  So, I got myself a contract job with super flexible hours that I can do at home.  I go make money designing systems while somebody else is cleaning the house, ironing the clothes, cooking the food that I pay for with my earnings.   I can spend my time and energy focused on nurturing the children and being a help meet to my husband.
As you can see, my husband doesn't expect me to bring home any part of the bacon and I don't expect my husband to manage the household.  Of course, as part of managing the household, I can assign him specific tasks like taking out the trash or washing the car, or mopping the kitchen floor, etc., but that's not his primary responsibility.  He was simply helping me.  And at the same time, when he got laid off from his job, I took on more hours at my job while he took care of the children to keep our family afloat, but that's not my primary responsibility.  I was simply helping him.
Thats what "SOME PEOPLE" were trying to tell you.  Your idea of the bacon being your responsibility too is not a good one.  Males have specific strengths different from females and the traditional roles of the man being entrusted with the bacon and the woman being entrusted with the household is the ideal situation that magnifies those strengths in tandem for a successful home.  Going into a marriage telling a man he is not solely responsible for the bacon is making the man weak.  Of course, this doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue a career.  Of course you should!  But you should be going into that career knowing exactly what your responsibilities are.  This understanding will help you, not only in deciding whether you should move or he should move, more importantly, it will help you decide whether you and your boyfriend are ready for marriage.
Hope this helps.

There are women Sunday school teachers too.
 The governing of the priesthood bodies and auxiliary bodies are ordained as specific to gender whereas the service under those presidencies lies upon the ward members that God calls.
I was a primary teacher with my wife.  I know that there are exceptions but I always see men assigned to primary with a spouse.  I know that is not mandated though.

Not wanting to jump all over you too much; but would you say that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury aren’t equal partners? 
I wouldn’t. 
Equality of rank does not denote identity of responsibilities.  My experience is that if a person consistently demands that their spouse do at least 50% of *everything*, they’re eventually going to be very disappointed.  People are going to gravitate towards whatever they’re good at and, almost subconsciously, assume the lion’s share of responsibility in that field; and it tends to be a more efficient arrangement.  In fact, an economics survey course will probably discuss this aspect of human nature.

I don’t disagree, necessarily.  But if we can’t persuade OP to go from “good” to “better” or “best” (she’s in love, after all!), maybe we can at least warn her away from “bad” and “just plain awful”.

Dead wrong.  You are arguing for the Constitution as a living document.  The 1st amendment today does not mean what it meant to the Founders.
Case in Point.
Connecticut has a State Official Religion until 1818.
Massachusetts had an Official State Religion until 1834.
People really need to read history . . .geez.  The 1st Amendment was specifically designed not so that religion would not be official state religion but so that as a whole no religion would be forced down the throats of each independent State.  
The United States was literally 13 separate nations with their own laws, their own religions, their own ideas about moral vs. immoral.  The only reason they came together was throw off the yoke of England.  
The Constitution was designed to allow the States to determine for themselves what was moral and just and the 1st amendment protects the States rights to do how they please.  Notice the first amendment does not say States shall not it says Congress shall not.
The idea that the Supreme Court should decide this issue is just ludicrous.  We are so far from anything the founders ever envisioned.  
Today the Constitution quite honestly doesn't matter-as GW put it . ..it's just a **** piece of paper.  
All of the founders were extremely religious; they would be appalled at today's justifications on what they wrote.  (Sigh) why this country is going to hell in a handbasket----no one reads, understands or cares about history.
At one point the Supreme Court justified slavery on the constitution at another point they didn't. What the Constitution really is today is a tool used by evil people to contort, twist and justify whatever evil ideology they want and then they get to say "SEEE, it is constitutional so you can't do anything about it, so there!"
Another case in point.  We actually had an amendment to the Constitution less than 100 years ago to Prohibit the sale of alcohol.  Think of that . ..just think of it, we amended the constitution to do that.  Then when evil men got wise and convinced enough people they said. "You don't need to pass an amendment, Congress has the power to pass a law". Then they got even wiser and said "Congress doesn't need to pass a law, they can give that power to a governmental agency".  Then they got even wiser and said, "guess what we don't even need Congress to pass a law, we can just have someone sue the government and then judges can create new law based on old rules that were passed".  
Based on that some logic (of passing an amendment) how many amendments would we need to the constitution to accommodate today's laws?
We are so far beyond the Constitution, please spare me the drivel about how the Constitution allows this evil.

Thus lies the problem.  I say yes, you say no.  If I have your position right, it is better that a child be raised in a homosexual household vs. foster care or an orphanage.  I say no, parents have a critical role in raising the next generation and to stick an innocent child in a bastardized evil family setting where the concept of "family" is perverted is the worse crime. I would say ophanages and adoption agenecies should only place children in stable married male/female homes. And yes there are plenty of them out there.
In addition, plenty of married male/female couples would love to adopt . . .but adoption costs are through the roof.  But I guarantee if you are a homosexual couple there will be no end to the amount of "support" one can get for raising a child in a perverted twisted household.
It is child abuse to purposefully place a child in a homosexual environment.  It is sick, it is twisted, it is evil.  How someone can not be strongly against placing an innocent baby in a home that is 100% contrary to God's laws is beyond me.  To me, it is a sign at just how slick the homosexual movement is at convincing people (including members of the Church), there is no sin in homosexuality.

A scary thought, indeed.
Watch yourselves folks.
Of course, seriously, if an apostle was reading the comments we made it shouldn't make a difference to the fact that God most certainly is. A nice reminder, if nothing else, that, at the very least, God is watching.
And, yes, I think the points he made are accurate. 1. Any test is a component, alone, of THE TEST, which is life itself, obviously. 2. One of the primary tests of this generation is the attack on traditional family and, specifically, homosexuality. That is obvious too.

Yeesh.  I know Crowder is a totally biased rabble-rousing agenda-driven entertainment source, but dang - it's hard to take some of that footage and those comments out of context.  I mean, I've hung out with some pretty militant patriot gun-nut rightwingers, but they never came close to talking about organizing/preparing for/planning for violence.  
And on the U of U campus for pete's sake.  Utah, you got a problem.

Yes. It's being perpetrated by those using violent tactics to silence anyone who disagrees with them. In other words -- Antifa.

There are certain elements of the "progressive" movement who have decided that anything which disagrees with them is "fascist" and needs to be destroyed. 

http://tribunist.com/news/harvard-study-on-police-shootings-and-race-offers-shocking-conclusion/

The issue starts with a MEDIA LIE:  Hands up, don't shoot.
The rest is a showcase of gullible black people buying into the lie because... they have been conditioned all their lives to feel victimized so they'll keep voting Democrat.  And you're supporting that system that is tantamount to ideological slavery.
Pull quote from Larry Elder:  "The Welfare System was a neutron bomb dropped in the heart of all communities especially the black community."
 

I see this as the natural result of war. And make no mistake -- we are at war (fortunately, at large, not a physical one yet).
In no way comparing Donny Boy to the great Captain Moroni...but still using the generic example: If Moroni raised the title of liberty in our day do you not think that it would have the effect of dividing the country in some measure? Would that make it the wrong choice?
The problem is that we've gone too long letting the left call the right stupid in the mainstream and just -- you know -- turned the other cheek so to speak. It's gone so far that now, at last, someone stands up and says in that mainstream, "No, you're the stupid ones" and, well...yeah...the country is divided. But it isn't Trump that's doing the dividing -- he is simply saying aloud what the one half thinks. The division is being made, and has been made, long since by the left. The left divides. Their policies divide. Their principles divide. Their morality (or lack thereof) divides. Their identity politics divide. The protests divide.
When Trump says, "Hey, you folk who are divisive are the actual problems" in so many words, and half the country says, "Yeah" and the other half says, "Nuh uh" it's not Trump's fault. (He's got plenty of faults -- don't get me wrong -- but his boldly speaking is not one of them).
Yeah...you raise the title of liberty in a day of corruption and it's going to be externally divisive...but only if the internal division already exists. (Once again...to be clear...I am not, in any way, comparing Trump to Moroni, character-wise. I am simply pointing out that the bold statements are not the divisive factor of themselves).