marrying too young...

[kccougar]

My counterpoints:
1. Although genetics is involved, living the LDS lifestyle is favorable for being active later in life. I'm one of the "old-man" Dads and camped monthly with all my boys while they were scouts and did more on the sidelines than sit in my fold-up chair. My youngest plays select softball and I work with her daily on the various drills her coaches require. My wife does horse back riding lessons with her as well.

2. And I'll be older than 48 when my youngest graduates from HS. In my view, wife and I would rather have those years on the front end while we finished our degrees and got established in our careers without kids. This allowed us to have children when we had insurance and a house, etc.

And that's why I don't understand the rush to have kids early in a marriage when one is in school and doesn't have insurance and has to resort to medicaid. If a couple is going to have four kids (for sake of argument), they can start their family in their late 20's/early 30's. Stating that they've paid that money back by being gainfully employed strikes me as rationalization. I could understand it better if it was an unplanned pregnancy but that doesn't appear to be the case with some here; they were planned. What about waiting until one has insurance to start a family so other taxpayers don't have to pay with it via medicaid? Chances are, a couple is going to end up with the same number of kids.

I agree about medicaid - see my other post. I don't see why it has to be one or the other, frankly.

[Uncle Ted]

My counterpoints:
1. Although genetics is involved, living the LDS lifestyle is favorable for being active later in life. I'm one of the "old-man" Dads and camped monthly with all my boys while they were scouts and did more on the sidelines than sit in my fold-up chair. My youngest plays select softball and I work with her daily on the various drills her coaches require. My wife does horse back riding lessons with her as well.

2. And I'll be older than 48 when my youngest graduates from HS. In my view, wife and I would rather have those years on the front end while we finished our degrees and got established in our careers without kids. This allowed us to have children when we had insurance and a house, etc.

And that's why I don't understand the rush to have kids early in a marriage when one is in school and doesn't have insurance and has to resort to medicaid. If a couple is going to have four kids (for sake of argument), they can start their family in their late 20's/early 30's. Stating that they've paid that money back by being gainfully employed strikes me as rationalization. I could understand it better if it was an unplanned pregnancy but that doesn't appear to be the case with some here; they were planned. What about waiting until one has insurance to start a family so other taxpayers don't have to pay with it via medicaid? Chances are, a couple is going to end up with the same number of kids.

It seems a lot of folks here believe that being reckless and having a baby without insurance is ok as long as your student. Of course, as long as the baby is born healthy that may work. If that baby is not born healthy I would argue that might cut the parent's college career short. Not having insurance as a student and having babies is something that I don't personally recommend to my kids.

[Harry Tic]

Threadjack alert:

"The lion's share of those births, 499, happened in Utah County, home to Utah Valley University and LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University."These are 90 percent out-of-state students having babies on our dime," said Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, referring to the LDS Church youth drawn to those schools from around the country."

I just want to go on record as saying that, now that Chris Buttars has retired, Sen. Howard Stephenson is probably the dimmest bulb in the State Legislature, which is quite a feat. Really. As in, he's a joke and absolutely no number he ever mentions should be taken seriously.

Carry on.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Threadjack alert:

"The lion's share of those births, 499, happened in Utah County, home to Utah Valley University and LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University."These are 90 percent out-of-state students having babies on our dime," said Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, referring to the LDS Church youth drawn to those schools from around the country."

I just want to go on record as saying that, now that Chris Buttars has retired, Sen. Howard Stephenson is probably the dimmest bulb in the State Legislature, which is quite a feat. Really. As in, he's a joke and absolutely no number he ever mentions should be taken seriously.

Carry on.

I concur.

[Paperback Writer]

I agree about medicaid - see my other post. I don't see why it has to be one or the other, frankly.

Forget medicaid then. Assuming a couple is the same age and is going to have 4-5 children over 12 years. What door would you choose and why?
1) Age 20-32
2) Age 23-35
3) Age 26-38

I ask this because Mormon culture appears to promote having children at a young age. I think it's because that's the only way a family is going to have 8+ children. But I think that ship has sailed; far fewer large LDS families. I don't know how much planning is involved. Maybe these folks start out wanting 8+ children and get half-way there and re-evaluate (or come to their senses). But my point is, if a couple knows they are going to have 3-5 children they can start at 26 and still reach that family size. Why the rush? So they can get out of their fold-up chairs more often on the soccer sideline? Have more empty nest years? If family size remains the same, I want those years without kids up front while completing school and starting a career. I'll figure a way to somehow get out of that fold-up chair on the sidelines. Age is somewhat relative anyway.

[kccougar]

Personally, I'll take Option 2.

[byu71]

I ask this because Mormon culture appears to promote having children at a young age.

I think it is for the same reason many of the cultural things, that have in the past and some that are being taught now are to lock members in before they get a chance to "explore". I used to tell myself that can't be. If I believe that then I believe men are running the church not God. Well, I have come to the realization as God's children we are a pretty weak lot. Why wouldn't it be that God inspires the manipulation of his children to do the right thing.

His more reasoning children recognize the blessings of doing without being manipulated into it, but those are the minority not the majority. Thus we have a group that claim every young man a missionary is a commandment and even though the brethern know that is bull, they aren't going to stop letting people think that. Same with diet coke and in the past birth control, getting married early and having kids as fast as you can.

[Uncle Ted]

Forget medicaid then. Assuming a couple is the same age and is going to have 4-5 children over 12 years. What door would you choose and why?
1) Age 20-32
2) Age 23-35
3) Age 26-38

I ask this because Mormon culture appears to promote having children at a young age. I think it's because that's the only way a family is going to have 8+ children. But I think that ship has sailed; far fewer large LDS families. I don't know how much planning is involved. Maybe these folks start out wanting 8+ children and get half-way there and re-evaluate (or come to their senses). But my point is, if a couple knows they are going to have 3-5 children they can start at 26 and still reach that family size. Why the rush? So they can get out of their fold-up chairs more often on the soccer sideline? Have more empty nest years? If family size remains the same, I want those years without kids up front while completing school and starting a career. I'll figure a way to somehow get out of that fold-up chair on the sidelines. Age is somewhat relative anyway.

Option (4) 23 - 39 for me.

Yes, what's wrong with spreading kids out a bit? I was nearly 40 when we had our youngest. Besides if all the kids leave the nest too soon the church will start bugging me about going on a mission or something.

[New Mexican Disaster]

The point has been made here above, but i think it is worth noting that medicaid is funded with taxes, including those paid by people who qualify for benefits. We had our eldest baby while we both worked and have since paid back the system well in excess of what was used. I don't really see what the hubbub is about.

However, I do find the number of people at church that complain almost ceaselessly about the receipt of public benefits by anyone to be comical, especially in light of the situation where I most have had babies on medicaid. I don't begrudge them that, but i do begrudge the fact that they do not want to offer a hand up to anyone else.

[byu71]

The point has been made here above, but i think it is worth noting that medicaid is funded with taxes, including those paid by people who qualify for benefits. We had our eldest baby while we both worked and have since paid back the system well in excess of what was used. I don't really see what the hubbub is about.

However, I do find the number of people at church that complain almost ceaselessly about the receipt of public benefits by anyone to be comical, especially in light of the situation where I most have had babies on medicaid. I don't begrudge them that, but i do begrudge the fact that they do not want to offer a hand up to anyone else.

I have the same problem with members who look down on those who don't have a lot of kids. They mainly site, these folks aren't following the Lord's plan. Then some of these same people bitch and moan about class size in Utah.

How do they reconcile having large families. Say it is the Lord's plan and yet the Lord has his churches pay nothing in property taxes to support the large families they promote.

Note: This is no way shape or form a criticism of those who have large families. If you can do it and want to, that is great.

Along with the blessings of a large family come sacrifices as those who have large families can attest. One sacrifice might be large class size.

[venkman]

I was 27 when my oldest was born. We waited four years after marriage. Honestly, I wish we would have started earlier.

[Paperback Writer]

I was 27 when my oldest was born. We waited four years after marriage. Honestly, I wish we would have started earlier.

I was 29 when I became a family man after 4 years of marriage. No real regrets about not starting earlier. By then my wife and I had both earned our degrees and started our careers. Were able to purchase/build a home before the baby arrived. And we're very sure we ended up with the same number of kids that we would have had if we would have started having kids while still in school. Not so sure we could state the same with both of us graduating and starting careers.

[myboynoah]

Wow. That was funny.

I can assure you that students having kids at BYU is in no way unique to Utah students.

Well, he did qualify it by saying "almost all."

But let me counter with my own anecdotal evidence showing that "almost all" the married students I knew at BYU that had children were from outside of Utah. We didn't bother with the silly "must be a girl from" follow ups.

[myboynoah]

Yale ranks eighth in husband-seeking

[ERCougar]

Forget medicaid then. Assuming a couple is the same age and is going to have 4-5 children over 12 years. What door would you choose and why?
1) Age 20-32
2) Age 23-35
3) Age 26-38

I ask this because Mormon culture appears to promote having children at a young age. I think it's because that's the only way a family is going to have 8+ children. But I think that ship has sailed; far fewer large LDS families. I don't know how much planning is involved. Maybe these folks start out wanting 8+ children and get half-way there and re-evaluate (or come to their senses). But my point is, if a couple knows they are going to have 3-5 children they can start at 26 and still reach that family size. Why the rush? So they can get out of their fold-up chairs more often on the soccer sideline? Have more empty nest years? If family size remains the same, I want those years without kids up front while completing school and starting a career. I'll figure a way to somehow get out of that fold-up chair on the sidelines. Age is somewhat relative anyway.

It's not "Mormon culture"--there are plenty of statements over the pulpit on this. They've softened a bit (well, most--I can't really speak for random SP/Bishop) from the "Birth Control is a tool of the devil" stance (yet another reason why I have a hard time trusting much modern council over the pulpit), but the message is still there and strong (P's referral to this month's Ensign). Anyway, I agree with you as to the motives--they want big families, which is easily the most cost-effective means to growth. It may not be quite so cynical as that as I think they feel like big families have worked for many of them (except most of the Apostles, mind you...), so they'll work for you too. But really, in the end, it's about growth.

Just on a side note--I have a friend who's single and in her late 30s. Active, but on her own terms--isn't endowed, has some somewhat unorthodox beliefs. About a year ago, she decided to get pregnant through artificial insemination. Her bishop called her in when he noticed she was pregnant. She told him that all was good--no sex, just insemination--to which he responded that the church didn't approve of that and that she may be subject to a disciplinary court. She laughed and walked out. I think she's kind of hoping he'll call one.

Some day, the church will learn to stay out of these issues. It never ends well. Or with them being right, at all.