College Choices and Marriage

[JoCa]

55 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

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.

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

37 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I understand you don't care about the studies or facts b/c you are emotionally invested in believing what you want to believe. 

No. I am not. I am, however, unlike you, (apparently) aware of the insensitive nature of the comments your making. You seem totally oblivious to how horribly offensive your stance is. I'm not emotional about it. You're simply wrong.

37 minutes ago, JoCa said:

You can't disprove what I've said,

Except for the studies that show that adoptive parents invest more time, money, interest, thought, intention, etc., into their choice which challenges the conventional thinking that biological is better.

37 minutes ago, JoCa said:

so you claim I'm being disrespectful and then close down the argument.  

You are being disrespectful. And I'm closing down the argument because you are jumping to conclusions about me like I have no experience in the matter (I have direct experience with the matter -- extensively), don't have anything to back up my view (if I wished to share it -- I don't care to because anyone can Google it and find all the studies to support whichever opinion they wanted), and because I think debating the matter with you is showing too much respect to something that is very, very hurtful to a great many people -- without any real "facts" to back it up at all -- typical sociological bologna that changes with the wind to suit the latest trends.

37 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Actually no, these same studies do not say that at all (about homosexuality). 

I didn't say "the same" studies. I said "the sort" of studies. Read more carefully. Sociological studies are undependable. They are not "fact" and do not "prove" things. They are highly susceptible to bias and depend much too heavily on anecdote. They are a far stretch from the honest scientific method, and people claiming that they are valid proof of fact clearly, as I have said, do not actually know what they're talking about.

As to the rest of where you continue on that subject (homosexuality), you misread me and jumped to erroneous conclusions.

37 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I have in not one instance said adoption is bad, evil, a horrible thing

I didn't say you said that.

37 minutes ago, JoCa said:

only that it is not the same as having biological children

This is true. It is not "the same".

37 minutes ago, JoCa said:

and that ideally all children would be raised by their biological parents.

This is the rubbish part. Ideally all children would be raised by God-fearing, covenant keeping faithful followers of Christ. Biological or not is entirely irrelevant.

37 minutes ago, JoCa said:

But for this I'm disrespectful??  Okkie dokkie.

I don't know about respect. (My comment about you being disrespectful is not because of your view on biology being better). Your view is extremely insensitive though, in the name of "facts" that are not factual in any way. It's actually amazing that you, or anyone, would be unable understand that.

To me the idea that some slack-jawed white-trash back-woods reveling-in-sin losers could engage in sexual relations and thereby have a more ideal situation for rearing children than a God-fearing hard-working covenant-keeping couple who work scrimp, save, pray, and sacrifice to adopt is so ludicrous that it's hardly worth discussion.

Edited October 1, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[felicityswims]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To me the idea that some slack-jawed white-trash back-woods reveling-in-sin losers could engage in sexual relations and thereby have a more ideal situation for rearing children than a God-fearing hard-working covenant-keeping couple who work scrimp, save, pray, and sacrifice to adopt is so ludicrous that it's hardly worth discussion.

2

This is the best thing I've ever read regarding "biology vs adoption." Thank you.

[Bad Karma]

7 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

When me and my wife had that choice I compromised and walked away from a full ride scholarship to marry my wife.  Haven't regretted it one bit.  Also found the difference between accredited universities, other than cost (which is very important) isn't that significant at the undergraduate level.  I don't know why people stress so much about college choices... Choice of major is far more important than where you go (at the undergraduate level at least- this is NOT true at the law school level).

If you met the right person you should marry without delay.

Yeah, me too. Mrs. Karma is just so darn cute, and the way she looked at me touched off global warming, so, right under God, I prioritized her, everything else became secondary. She's still just so darn cute. 

[Vort]

4 hours ago, felicityswims said:

You may be the least Christ-like person on this entire website.

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

[Vort]

3 hours ago, JoCa said:

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.

While I got a kick out of the OP's totally overreactive condemnation of you, I must add that you're pretty much out in left field over this whole adoption issue. Socially, legally, morally, and even eternally, adopted children are just as much children of the parents as biological (i.e. genetic) children.

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, felicityswims said:

*Note that the one other thread I've made has been resolved, I now wear my garments "day and night." So please don't bring that up.*

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.

This is what I would tell my daughters in a similar situation.

I am extremely proud of what you have accomplished and I think you have gotten to this point through study, hardwork and dedication.  I would hope that any young man you wish to marry would also recognize these wonderful qualities about you, and choose to support you just as he would want you to support him.  If he has a way to pay for a similar thing for you to do, and you wish to go where he is, you should.  If he cannot pay for this on his own, or has no way to do so, then I would hope that he loves you enough that he would put your own desires before his own.

When I and my wife were first married we had a difference of opinion.  I wanted to go to work immediately in a field that would take us out of state, while she wanted to go to the university where she was already attending.  This was not an easy choice.  I loved my wife, and as a result, I chose to support her.  I utilized the time to increase my own education while also working full time in a different field of work rather than pursuing the type of work I wished to at that time.  This meant that I was able to help her through her college, and she attained her degree debt free.  This choice to support my spouse has been beneficial throughout our married lives, even if I could not see how it would be a benefit then.  It also meant that later, I was able to still get into the career I wanted, and with the increased education I attained, made it easier to go routes I didn't think of previously, and have led to what I am doing today and where I am today.  Instead of being in the private sector, I am instead a historian, which probably would not have happened had I not made the choices I did early in my marriage.

In this instance, it sounds as if your significant other still has many options open to where to attend a university.  If he wishes to marry you, then let him use this as an opportunity to choose a university near you, and show his support of your choices as well.  How he treasures your choices before marriage will indicate how he treasures your choices AFTER marriage.  Because of your special qualities you have a unique possibility with your education, one that he should support and treasure if he supports and treasures you and what YOU want to do and be.

Finally, I would hope that you choose a spouse wisely, because I do not want to go to jail (this is if I were talking to my daughter).  If he decides to be pompous, disrespect you, or other such things, I would be forced to shoot him dead, and we know that would endanger both my eternal salvation, and send me to prison for however short the rest of my life would be.

So, it should be obvious from what I stated above, what I think you should do.  It is ultimately your choice (just like it was with my daughters) on who to marry.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones
some grammar and clarifications (more wordy)

[JoCa]

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Except for the studies that show that adoptive parents invest more time, money, interest, thought, intention, etc., into their choice which challenges the conventional thinking that biological is better.

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

[JoCa]

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To me the idea that some slack-jawed white-trash back-woods reveling-in-sin losers could engage in sexual relations and thereby have a more ideal situation for rearing children than a God-fearing hard-working covenant-keeping couple who work scrimp, save, pray, and sacrifice to adopt is so ludicrous that it's hardly worth discussion.

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.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

While I got a kick out of the OP's totally overreactive condemnation of you, I must add that you're pretty much out in left field over this whole adoption issue. Socially, legally, morally, and even eternally, adopted children are just as much children of the parents as biological (i.e. genetic) children.

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. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

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

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

[Guest MormonGator]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

While I got a kick out of the OP's totally overreactive condemnation of you, I must add that you're pretty much out in left field over this whole adoption issue. Socially, legally, morally, and even eternally, adopted children are just as much children of the parents as biological (i.e. genetic) children.

It's like listening to your nutty uncle rant at the Thanksgiving party. You sit there, nod your head and the moment he walks out of the room you say "My goodness, I'm in the same family as this guy?" 

Luckily, no one really takes what they say seriously and it holds zero influence in the outside world. 

[Just_A_Guy]

A few rants:

1). It seems reasonable to me to suggest that, all other things being equal, a child is likely to do better remaining with its biological parents; than being raised in some other home.  I do agree with @JoCa that the data generally support this; and that the policy ramifications of any other conclusion suggesting that parents and children are interchangeable can be deeply, deeply concerning.  Infants apparently *do* bond, even in utero; and the forced disruption of that bond isnt something that should be dissolved lightly.

But pointing out the preference in bio placement from the child’s standpoint, doesn’t need to impugn the adoptive parent’s ability to love the child in a way that matches or exceeds the love of a biological parent.  And I don’t know of a single adoption where “all things were equal”.  The hand-wringing about adoption versus bio children strikes me as being, in the main, a distraction from the actual issues we wind up confronting in the real world.

2.  There’s a lot of wisdom in @DoctorLemon‘s economic analysis; and raising a family on a single income now is definitely harder than it was a few decades ago. And so yeah, there will be more exceptions to the general preference than there used to be.  On the other hand—I don’t think we’re justified in immediately throwing up our hands and saying “well, it’s just plain impossible and I don’t even need to try”.  Part of the Gospel is doing hard things for the benefit of others; and I think the exceptions mentioned in POTF are intended more to apply to people who get sucker-punched with midlife surprises; not to teenagers and twenty-somethings who deliberately plan for career paths that won’t allow them to support their families.

And again, the idea that someone else can raise your kids better than you can, creates some very dangerous, Brave New World-esque policy implications.  We shouldn’t be conceding that point just because it makes some working moms feel better about themselves.

3.  One more piece of advice for @felicityswims:  I have been working in the child welfare system in various roles for three years now.  We *desperately* need more adoptive parents!  But adoptive parents need to be aware that:

a) If you’re trying to adopt a baby—especially a caucasian baby—you’re likely to be going through an agency, in which you’ll be picked by the birth mom from amongst *thousands* of other would-be adoptive families in a heartbreaking, drama-infused beauty contest that makes high school seem like a day at the library.  

b) If you adopt a child later in life, you have *no idea* what kinds of trauma that child may have gone through earlier in life and how that past may lead the child to act out months or years in the future.  I have worked with probably half-a-dozen families in the last three years who adopted kids who turned out to be sex abuse victims (DCFS often doesn’t know this at the time of the adoption, because it can take months or years of stability before sex abuse victims start disclosing); and at some point those kids then started perping on other children in the home.  This is going to sound like (and, frankly, IS) a terrible thing to say; but every addition to a family needs to be viewed as a potential threat to the other children in the family.  So, my suggestion is that once you’ve got kids; any new adopted child (at least, past toddler-age) should be at least two years younger than your youngest child.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

FP, you are setting up a straw man and you know it.

I understand that I did not compare like to like in that statement. The question, of course, is whether with two other-wise equal couples, is adoption inferior at some level to having biological children.

So...yeah...let's talk about this for real: The statement I reject as valid is that all children would ideally be raised by biological parents. Let's talk about why this is such a stupid idea.

The idea, to any reasonable thinking person, is obviously subjective. The concept of "ideal" is subjective. What is ideal? What, exactly, are you suggesting? Physically ideal? Mentally? Emotionally? Spiritually? And how do these balance out against each other?

The so-called studies you are calling "facts" that don't care about feelings are certainly not taking all these factors (and more) into account to define ideal. And their "worldly" idea of "ideal" is, certainly, not mine. Nor should it be any believing LDS person's. Because what they consider ideal is based on worldly things. Money, health, and self-satisfaction. That's about it. If you have money, good health, and think well of yourself then you're in an ideal situation according to the world. But we know better.

So what do you think "ideal" actually means in this context? Are you suggesting that someone who has been adopted has less chance of making it to the Celestial Kingdom? Because that, ultimately, is the only ideal that counts for anything in this life.

Even the idea that physical health, financial stability, or emotional and mental prowess is "ideal" is a subjective idea. Is that really what we want for our children? No trials whatsoever?

Sure, every parent, from a certain non-thinking point of view wants their child to be beautiful, rich, successful, and not face trials. But no parent really wants all that and that alone. Can you imagine? Who wants Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton for their child in real life? In reality, part of the point of life is to refine us through trial. This is BASIC to anyone who bothers to think. Everything we learn occurs through trial. A child who never faces the trial, for example, of struggling with balance and strength would never learn to walk. We want challenges in our lives.

So are you really trying to suggest that one challenge is superior to another? The challenges offered by biological parenting somehow encourage better growth towards eternity than those presented by adoptive parenting? Based on what? How could you even possibly begin to suggest to know what trials are best suited to our eternal progress? Wouldn't, reasonably, they be individual, and wouldn't, reasonably, God send spirits to situations where their trials are best suited for them -- being no respector of persons?

You think I'm just siting on some emotional high-horse, but the reality is that you read a study or two, drew a thoughtless conclusion from them, taking them as fact, and now stubbornly hold to that view without further consideration. Step back and actually think about this from an eternal perspective.

The reality is that "ideal", other than the salvation of souls, is entirely subjective and based on opinion. It is based on results, and therefor cannot be stated as an absolute without agreement, first, on what result you actually want. Personally, I don't think it is ideal to have a perfect, beautiful, rich, trial-free life for my child(ren). And so studies that suggest a biological child might have more emotional health or the like don't hold much water -- even if the studies were based on something other than anecdote.

Beyond that, those considerations are, from an eternal perspective, meaningless. The only "ideal" that counts for anything is agency, as is God-given, whereby we have the right to choose salvation and damnation, and the ideal result, of course, being that we choose salvation. So to suggest that biological parenting is superior, ultimately, must suggest that biological children have either more agency (plainly false), or are more likely to choose salvation, (also plainly false). When it all comes down to it, the difference between the two, all other things being equal, amount to -- they're equal. The adopted child has the same opportunities for salvation as the biological.

Everything about the idea that biology is better just doesn't ring true by any standard of thoughtful consideration.

Edited October 1, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[my two cents]

14 hours ago, felicityswims said:

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.

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!

[Sunday21]

23 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

When me and my wife had that choice I compromised and walked away from a full ride scholarship to marry my wife.  Haven't regretted it one bit.  Also found the difference between accredited universities, other than cost (which is very important) isn't that significant at the undergraduate level.  I don't know why people stress so much about college choices... Choice of major is far more important than where you go (at the undergraduate level at least- this is NOT true at the law school level).

If you met the right person you should marry without delay.

 So true that choice of university is not key..although can be very useful to go to school where you intend to live because this gives you contacts and a calling card. Less important once you have been working for awhile. In my country some schools give you a leg up in some industries in some parts of the country because some leaders went to that school but the local school is always a leg up. Please, please get an education that leads to a job.  Bad things happen in life. The end of days is coming so more bad things are going to happen!

[Latter-Day Marriage]

I haven't read the thread, but my 2 cents is that if you both know that God wants you to marry eachother, don't put it off and give Satan all kinds of time to mess it up.  As an RM I'm sure he is away that once somebody commits to baptism, Satan gets into gear throwing all kinds of opposition their way to stop it from happening.  Same happens with marriage.

Now, who changes their education plans to allow the two of you to be together is something you have to work out with God's help.  My wife dropped out of school altogether and moved to where I was enrolled to support me getting my degree since I would be the primary breadwinner.  I promised her that later when it was possible she could finish her degree.  She had to wait over 20 years for that to happen, but it happened.  That doesn't mean it will be the right path for the two of you, but letting money plan your future is a not something that ever made me happy.  Don't think about the financial incentives, think about what is right for your marriage, future kids etc.  Keep your eyes on the eternal.  There may be other options to consider as well, study from home, different programs, think outside the box.

[anatess2]

On 9/30/2017 at 11:27 PM, 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.

Disagree with the bolded above.

The American economy is not "set up for two-income families".  That's a silly notion.  American families simply chose to be two-income families because... muh feminism.

Feminism is cancer.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Disagree with the bolded above.

The American economy is not "set up for two-income families".  That's a silly notion.  American families simply chose to be two-income families because... muh feminism.

Feminism is cancer.

I think it's accurate.  Prices on a lot of things are inflated to what a two income family is expected to be able to afford.  You can still do it, but you'll have to make some sacrifices in your lifestyle to make ends meet. 

[zil]

33 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

You can still do it, but you'll have to make some sacrifices in your lifestyle to make ends meet. 

Hereinafter, "you" is a generic term for the reader, not necessarily a reference to "Latter-Day Marriage".

Look at the houses our parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents (depending on your age) grew up in.  The notion that each child needs their own private room, that the family needs 2-3 different rooms in which to sit and do stuff, and that we need a separate space for breakfast vs dining, and lots of bathrooms to go with all that, etc., is nothing more than marketing nonsense.  If past generations can live close together and come out fine, so can current and future generations.

If you're not willing to live within the limits of one income, own it, don't claim it's an impossibility beyond your control.  Whether you choose to live within the limits of one income, or choose two incomes so as to live in greater comfort, you will be a better human for owning and facing the truth of your choice.  (And the world will be better off if you own your choices.)

[JoCa]

38 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

I think it's accurate.  Prices on a lot of things are inflated to what a two income family is expected to be able to afford.  You can still do it, but you'll have to make some sacrifices in your lifestyle to make ends meet. 

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.

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

 (And the world will be better off if you own your choices.)

Amen and ditto on the other stuff to.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, zil said:

If you're not willing to live within the limits of one income, own it,

:: ahem :: :: cough cough :: 

I just had to cut off your credit cards, kid. You've brought the compound to bankruptcy with your champagne and caviar lifestyle. So knock it off with the "live within your means" thing. 

[zil]

21 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Yeah, I'd love to live in a big house...

Only because you're not the one cleaning it!  I detest the fact that government restricts housing sizes so that you can't build a small house in a good neighborhood - way too much groupthink and concern for what other people are doing with their money.  Sigh.  I'd like a house half the size of the finished floor of my house, but on the same size lot so that when I crank up the volume loud enough to vibrate the walls the neighbors don't hear it (and vice versa).  If there's anywhere that that's an option, it's in the middle of nowhere.  Sigh.

Edited October 2, 2017 by zil

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

I think it's accurate.  Prices on a lot of things are inflated to what a two income family is expected to be able to afford.  You can still do it, but you'll have to make some sacrifices in your lifestyle to make ends meet. 

This is just not an economic reality.  Prices are inflated according to what people will willingly pay for it.  If somebody can make it cheaper, people will not buy the expensive ones.  I mean - a large swath of Americans shop at Walmart where you can buy chicken breasts for 99 cents a pound.

And "sacrifices in your lifestyle" is,  in the USA, more of a first world problem... "I have to sacrifice and buy a 3 bedroom house instead of a McMansion".  Or. "I can't afford electricity" while setting the central A/C at 68 degrees all year long in Florida .  I can't afford healthcare for my children" when they are willing to pay healthcare insurance premiums to cover anything including birth control and the common cold, etc. etc.

Edited October 2, 2017 by anatess2