College Choices and Marriage

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, felicityswims said:

My significant other and I are talking seriously about marriage, but he lives about 6 hours away in a neighboring state. I go to a university in my city and am a sophomore. I have college paid for at this university and he has not yet started as he is recent RM. He's looking into BYUi and other such colleges that are states away. I also have a way to pay for my future law degree as long as I stay in my home state. I would go where he wants if it wasn't for the issue of paying for it. Should he go to the college of his choice and we wait to get married for 3+ years until I finish, or should he compromise and come to the university in my city? We're having a lot of trouble figuring it out and any outside opinions and points of view could really help. Thanks in advance.

Why not simply have him attend school in your state?

2 hours ago, felicityswims said:

As for purpose, I plan to work in family practice and adoptions. I also plan to adopt. I plan to work and provide for my family just as my husband does. It is unfair to expect him to solely provide for an entire household, in my opinion. It's not right to him or to myself. I know that the Proclamation says different, but each and every one of God's children is different and can provide in different ways. 

Actually nothing in the Proclamation says differently.  It does say that the husband is responsible for being able to provide for his family-- aka no being a lazy bum.  But it doesn't say anything against the wife also working if she so desires and the children's needs are met.

44 minutes ago, felicityswims said:

He has looked into online courses, but he's not too into them. I can't say I blame him, online isn't for everyone, you know? And thank you for saying you "applaud my ambition". I appreciate it, as it seems SOME PEOPLE think that a woman wanting a career is something to be ashamed of. 

Well if some people give you grief about that, I can shoot you GA talks which specifically say a woman getting and education and working is nothing to be ashamed of.  Education in particular is to be applauded.   

 

 

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I expect everyone to think better of adoption/adoptees, so we've both been disappointed tonight. 

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

[felicityswims]

31 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

Why does he want to go to BYUi? Or similar schools? 

Because they A) have his major (which mine does as well) and B) have a very good tuition.

[JoCa]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Well if some people give you grief about that, I can shoot you GA talks which specifically say a woman getting and education and working is nothing to be ashamed of.  Education in particular is to be applauded.   

 

 

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. …

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, felicityswims said:

Because they A) have his major (which mine does as well) and B) have a very good tuition.

Those are both points to discuss.  Unless he has an exotic major, I don't see A really applying.  B is valid, but is ( BYUI tuition * 2 ) >  ( free + his tuition somewhere in your state)?

There's obviously other issues to look at as well: location, cost of living, sanity of living, ability to transition from school to desired post school option, etc.

[JoCa]

3 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Prophets disagree with you

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.

[BeccaKirstyn]

11 minutes ago, felicityswims said:

Because they A) have his major (which mine does as well) and B) have a very good tuition.

Ah I see. Well this is how I am seeing it, with the perspective that you two will get married. Definitely don't delay marriage (if it is right) because of school. Marriage is more important. If you move to Utah, and finish school there, will you still want to continue into law school afterward if it isn't for free? If you do, then this amount of money is no longer just "your" debt, it is his as well (at least that's how I view money in a marriage once it is accumulated after the sealing, but some people view it differently--so again, just my perspective). Do you both want to take on that kind of debt, along with any other debt accumulated from both of you in undergrad (if that's happening)? If it is manageable with the careers you both will obtain, then maybe it isn't that big of a deal to move. 

But, if it is a big deal to both of you, then I would think that him moving to your state to start undergrad would probably be financially better for both of you (but you'd have to calculate that on your own, since you know the specifics of the tuition rates. Maybe do that together to see what that would look like: how much it would cost in total for you to move with him to the west coast for school for both of you, versus how much it would cost for him to do school where you are). 

I'm curious what his major is? I guess that would be a pretty big deal if that's something that can't be worked around with the university you are at. I'm specifically looking at the financial aspects of your situation. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by BeccaKirstyn

[BeccaKirstyn]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Those are both points to discuss.  Unless he has an exotic major, I don't see A really applying.  B is valid, but is ( BYUI tuition * 2 ) >  ( free + his tuition somewhere in your state)?

There's obviously other issues to look at as well: location, cost of living, sanity of living, ability to transition from school to desired post school option, etc.

Jane said it much better than I did and much more concise. 

[felicityswims]

11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Those are both points to discuss.  Unless he has an exotic major, I don't see A really applying.  B is valid, but is ( BYUI tuition * 2 ) >  ( free + his tuition somewhere in your state)?

There's obviously other issues to look at as well: location, cost of living, sanity of living, ability to transition from school to desired post school option, etc.

BYUI Tuition * 2= $14,254 

Free + his tuition - my monthly stipend of 1375 that I receive from my GI Bill = $11,072

13 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I'm curious what his major is? I guess that would be a pretty big deal if that's something that can't be worked around with the university you are at. I'm specifically looking at the financial aspects of your situation. 

 

He wants to major in Engineering. A very common major.

[JoCa]

27 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I expect everyone to think better of adoption/adoptees, so we've both been disappointed tonight. 

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.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Why not simply have him attend school in your state?

Actually nothing in the Proclamation says differently.  It does say that the husband is responsible for being able to provide for his family-- aka no being a lazy bum.  But it doesn't say anything against the wife also working if she so desires and the children's needs are met.

Well if some people give you grief about that, I can shoot you GA talks which specifically say a woman getting and education and working is nothing to be ashamed of.  Education in particular is to be applauded.   

 

 

I think one of the things we sometimes forget about in these heated stay-at-home mother talks are the macroeconomics that were in effect during the Benson and Kimball eras.  I have always found this to be interesting and to explain a lot about how the Church appears to have softened its position since the 1970s and early 1980s.

Back in the 1960s and earlier, the norm was single-income families.  This is what everyone did, and the American economy was set up for the single earner household.

As we all know, this started changing in the 1970s and 1980s, when both parents started working.

For awhile, the extra income allowed Americans to move into larger houses, have an extra car, etc.

Then, the economy adjusted.

Now, you are very likely going to struggle if you are a single income earner and trying to make ends meet.  The problem is the American economy is set up for two-income families, as reflected particularly in housing prices in good school districts.  

I think the prophets were trying to forestall this shift in economics.  Because we went to being a two-income country in the 1970s and 80s, we are now at a point where the American family has given up 40 hours a week of what was family time to work for . . . what, exactly?  It often takes 80 hours of work from both parents to accomplish what used to take 40 hours from one parent, with few benefits in return.  In a sense, we have been cheated by macroeconomics (and our collective choices as a nation).

I think the Church was trying to fight, or at least delay, this change, which has not been good for families.

More recent talks, however, address the microeconomics (whether having a working mom is right for a specific family).  And here, talks from the 90s and 2000s and 2010s are clear that, while there is certainly something to be said for choosing to be a stay-at-home mother, it may not be right for every single situation.  And, if you have to make a compromise here to make Mormonism work for your family, I think the GAs have been clear that this is OK, to prayerfully make this decision.

[JoCa]

24 minutes ago, JoCa said:

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

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.

[felicityswims]

2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I think one of the things we sometimes forget about in these heated stay-at-home mother talks are the macroeconomics that were in effect during the Benson and Kimball eras.  I have always found this to be interesting and to explain a lot about how the Church appears to have softened its position since the 1970s and early 1980s.

Back in the 1960s and earlier, the norm was single-income families.  This is what everyone did, and the American economy was set up for the single earner household.

As we all know, this started changing in the 1970s and 1980s, when both parents started working.

For awhile, the extra income allowed Americans to move into larger houses, have an extra car, etc.

Then, the economy adjusted.

Now, you are very likely going to struggle if you are a single income earner and trying to make ends meet.  The problem is the American economy is set up for two-income families, as reflected particularly in housing prices in good school districts.  

I think the prophets were trying to forestall this shift in economics.  Because we went to being a two-income country in the 1970s and 80s, we are now at a point where the American family has given up 40 hours a week of what was family time to work for . . . what, exactly?  It often takes 80 hours of work from both parents to accomplish what used to take 40 hours from one parent, with few benefits in return.  In a sense, we have been cheated by macroeconomics (and our collective choices as a nation).

I think the Church was trying to fight, or at least delay, this change, which has not been good for families.

More recent talks, however, address the microeconomics (whether having a working mom is right for a specific family).  And here, talks from the 90s and 2000s and 2010s are clear that, while there is certainly something to be said for choosing to be a stay-at-home mother, it may not be right for every single situation.  And, if you have to make a compromise here to make Mormonism work for your family, I think the GAs have been clear that this is OK, to prayerfully make this decision.

Amen! DoctorLemon, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you. At least you can see that in this day and age living on a single-income is nearly impossible, and with lot's of prayer, the mother may need to work outside of the home.

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

 . . . .

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.

[zil]

4 hours ago, felicityswims said:

I go to a university in my city and am a sophomore. I have college paid for at this university and he has not yet started as he is recent RM. He's looking into BYUi and other such colleges that are states away. I also have a way to pay for my future law degree as long as I stay in my home state. I would go where he wants if it wasn't for the issue of paying for it. Should he go to the college of his choice and we wait to get married for 3+ years until I finish, or should he compromise and come to the university in my city? We're having a lot of trouble figuring it out and any outside opinions and points of view could really help.

It should be obvious by now that "outside opinions" by mortals will not help.  This decision can only be helped properly by God.  Only He knows what the future holds for the two of you and how to make the most of that future.  If you need us to explain the math and logistics, I'm worried about your preparedness for college (I'm assuming you don't need us for that).  We cannot advise on emotional matters (only you two know your emotions - well, and God).  We cannot tell you the righteous choice - only the righteous default which should be your starting expectation (and which you should already know, unless new to the Church).

In short, I'm suggesting you quit letting strangers on the internet make things harder (and yes, I believe the things said in this thread may well have already made it harder for the Spirit to speak the truth to you, especially if the truth is opposite from your desires¹), and go straight to the source of all knowledge, with much fasting and prayer.  IMO, this is a significant opportunity for you and your boyfriend to determine if you are able to be one - a good thing to know before you get engaged.

¹ I'm not suggesting it is or isn't, only that it could be.

[JoCa]

4 minutes ago, felicityswims said:

Amen! DoctorLemon, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you. At least you can see that in this day and age living on a single-income is nearly impossible, and with lot's of prayer, the mother may need to work outside of the home.

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.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[felicityswims]

Just now, JoCa said:

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.  I saved enough to buy a house . . .in cash.

Did I or did I not say "nearly" impossible?

[JoCa]

8 minutes ago, felicityswims said:

Did I or did I not say "nearly" impossible?

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.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[BeccaKirstyn]

5 minutes ago, felicityswims said:

BYUI Tuition * 2= $14,254 

Free + his tuition - my monthly stipend of 1375 that I receive from my GI Bill = $11,072

He wants to major in Engineering. A very common major.

So it's not a huge difference, and your BYUi rate would go down after 2 years since you should most likely finish by then (assuming your credits transfer correctly--sometimes byu has issues with that). 

I think the other aspects to take into account that Jane mentioned, like cost of living, the location, career prospects in that area, etc. are important things to start weighing into your discussions. It's definitely a difficult decision. 

[The Folk Prophet]

51 minutes ago, JoCa said:

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

You have no idea what you're talking about here. 

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You have no idea what you're talking about here. 

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.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[BeccaKirstyn]

There comes a point where you have to realize you're talking to a wall, and it's best to just walk away. 

[JoCa]

4 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

There comes a point where you have to realize you're talking to a wall, and it's best to just walk away. 

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.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, JoCa said:

Actually, I do. Yyou 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.

 I'd give you the time of day on this and share my understanding and knowledge if you weren't so disrespectful and offensive on the matter. As it is I could care less about your so called facts and studies. The same sort of studies telling us now that homosexuality is wholesome and transgenderism isn't a disorder. Yeah.  Sociological 'studies' are very useful. I guess the debate is over. 

[JoCa]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 I'd give you the time of day on this and share my understanding and knowledge if you weren't so disrespectful and offensive on the matter. As it is I could care less about your so called facts and studies. The same sort of studies telling us now that homosexuality is wholesome and transgenderism isn't a disorder. Yeah.  Sociological 'studies' are very useful. I guess the debate is over. 

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.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa