I'm not so much interested in Sex

[Pheidippides]

and the Mormon Woman as I am the very tangible procreative policy shift of the Church over the last 30 or so years.

When I was born, the very stated position was that you should not limit the size of your family. Many people (most?) took this to mean you should breed like rabbits and take a Catholic approach to prophylactics.

I have a real problem with this for many reasons. I think we can all agree that raising kids takes a lot of love. But I do not think that love is unlimited. I think that love equates to time. That is to say, what good does it do to tell your kid you love him every morning but then never spend any time with him? No, true love is spend on family vacations and roughhousing on the floor before bedtime and playing catch in the backyard early in the morning and such. And as such there's only so much to go around.

All too often large families have situations where kids - especially younger kids - have to scrap and fight and act out to get attention (a proxy for love in a pinch) because there is simply not enough space on the love/time continuum for them. Not every large family is this way, to be sure. However, many that I have seen - including the one I grew up in (seven kids) - suffer or suffered from this.

Interestingly enough, my siblings - especially the younger ones - and my parents all agree with this.

While the Church policy has shifted to a "don't ask, don't tell, don't judge" bit now, I see all too many people that still think they are obligated to have a sizable brood. I really don't have a problem with people who choose to do so with an awareness of their own abilities and time - and I know people who do it well - but I do get concerned when I see people screwing around (har!) and having kids that are neglected, all in the name of an outmoded (and, in my view, recklessly incorrect) bit of policy.

[wuapinmon]

Well I think the official policy is. "The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth has not been rescinded". But we're not going to have endless kids. I think that five is our limit for time, loven money, and a decent inheritance.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I lost this argument 4 times, so I am not the best person to ask.

The funniest line I ever heard about this topic was

"God commanded that man multiply and replenish the Earth, but he didn't expect someone to attempt it single handedly."

[Pheidippides]

Well I think the official policy is. "The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth has not been rescinded". But we're not going to have endless kids. I think that five is our limit for time, loven money, and a decent inheritance.

I would have to look at the HOI for the exact wording, but it goes something like, "the choice of how many kids to have is a private decision between a man and wife and the Lord, and we should not judge one another in this matter."

[falafel]

I would have to look at the HOI for the exact wording, but it goes something like, "the choice of how many kids to have is a private decision between a man and wife and the Lord, and we should not judge one another in this matter."

Its funny how so many of these policies are in the HOI, which the standard member doesn't have access to and may never see in their lifetime. So while its technically "policy" not to judge people for having 2 kids, no knows its policy so we just keep judging.

[beelzebabette]

I would have to look at the HOI for the exact wording, but it goes something like, "the choice of how many kids to have is a private decision between a man and wife and the Lord, and we should not judge one another in this matter."

Is this a recent change? I seem to remember someone citing the HOI in the bikini discussion on policy vs good sense discussion on CB (related to bikinis) a few weeks back.

Maybe I'm too independent-minded, but I don't understand why anyone would take any other approach but "the choice of how many kids to have is a private decision between a man and wife and the Lord, and we should not judge one another in this matter" on this topic. I've always wondered what kind of person talks to the bishop about this.

[SoonerCoug]

I think there are some cool things abou having a large family. It's easy to see how a religion would promote having large families in order to grow the religion and become more powerful. I've always wondered how blatantly religious leaders might be thinking in these terms. In our Church, I'm sure that most if not all leaders sincerely believe that God wants huge families without wondering why. I also think it's fascinating to see how many apostles have so few (3 or fewer) children, even though they're old. It suggests that half of our highest leaders either have low sperm counts or were big time rebels in their youth.

[Indy Coug]

I also think it's fascinating to see how many apostles have so few (3 or fewer) children, even though they're old.

How many?

[beelzebabette]

I think there are some cool things abou having a large family.

I liked growing up with several siblings, but I've thought ever since I hit adulthood that it'd suck to be at the tail end. I grew up with a full household and always had a playmate if I wanted one. My youngest brother would beg for one or the other us to live at my parents after returning from a mission, graduating from college, etc.

[JohnnyLingo]

I'm the oldest of nine and never felt neglected... but maybe I should talk to some of the middle kids about it.

[SoonerCoug]

How many?

Here's an old post of mine from CG:

Or we might look at the number of children each apostle has to make an educated guess as to their personal emphasis on the Church's massive reproduction tradition, which is one specific conservative Mormon principle. I think we could define 4 or more children as massive reproduction.

Gordon B. Hinckley 5 children
Thomas S. Monson 3 children (a bit of a wild card politically--very few children for his generation)
James E. Faust 5 children

Boyd K. Packer 10 children (clearly the most conservative apostle)
L. Tom Perry 4 children
Russell M. Nelson 10 children (Implied that AIDS is God's plague for homosexuals)
Dallin H. Oaks 6 children
M. Russell Ballard 7 children
Joseph B. Wirthlin 8 children
Richard G. Scott 7 children
Robert D. Hales 2 children
Jeffrey R. Holland 3 children
Henry B. Eyring 6 children
Dieter F. Uchtdorf 2 children
David A Bednar 3 children

Two of the most obviously ultraconservative apostles were the most prolific reproducers.

It's also interesting that 4 of the 5 most recently called apostles have only 2 or 3 children (which is especially significant considering their generation). At the same time, we're hearing talks from people such as Dallin H Oaks about how it's a problem that Mormons two generations younger than these apostles are delaying marriage and having fewer children.

[JohnnyLingo]

Russell M. Nelson 10 children (AIDS is God's plague for homosexuals)

He said this?

[SeattleUte]

Here's an old post of mine from CG:

Or we might look at the number of children each apostle has, to make an educated guess as to their personal emphasis on the Church's massive reproduction tradition, which is one specific conservative Mormon principle. I think we could define 4 or more children as massive reproduction.

Gordon B. Hinckley 5 children
Thomas S. Monson 3 children (a bit of a wild card politically--very few children for his generation)
James E. Faust 5 children

Boyd K. Packer 10 children (clearly the most conservative apostle)
L. Tom Perry 4 children
Russell M. Nelson 10 children (AIDS is God's plague for homosexuals)
Dallin H. Oaks 6 children
M. Russell Ballard 7 children
Joseph B. Wirthlin 8 children
Richard G. Scott 7 children
Robert D. Hales 2 children
Jeffrey R. Holland 3 children
Henry B. Eyring 6 children
Dieter F. Uchtdorf 2 children
David A Bednar 3 children

Two of the most obviously ultraconservative apostles were the most prolific reproducers.

It's also interesting that 4 of the 5 most recently called apostles have only 2 or 3 children (which is especially significant considering their generation). At the same time, we're hearing talks from people such as Dallin H Oaks about how it's a problem that Mormons two generations younger than these apostles are delaying marriage and having fewer children.

Reading this list I cannot help but wonder which ones God might decide to kill off before their 90th birthday.

[Soccermom]

Here's an old post of mine from CG:

Or we might look at the number of children each apostle has, to make an educated guess as to their personal emphasis on the Church's massive reproduction tradition, which is one specific conservative Mormon principle. I think we could define 4 or more children as massive reproduction.

Gordon B. Hinckley 5 children
Thomas S. Monson 3 children (a bit of a wild card politically--very few children for his generation)
James E. Faust 5 children

Boyd K. Packer 10 children (clearly the most conservative apostle)
L. Tom Perry 4 children
Russell M. Nelson 10 children (AIDS is God's plague for homosexuals)
Dallin H. Oaks 6 children
M. Russell Ballard 7 children
Joseph B. Wirthlin 8 children
Richard G. Scott 7 children
Robert D. Hales 2 children
Jeffrey R. Holland 3 children
Henry B. Eyring 6 children
Dieter F. Uchtdorf 2 children
David A Bednar 3 children

Two of the most obviously ultraconservative apostles were the most prolific reproducers.

It's also interesting that 4 of the 5 most recently called apostles have only 2 or 3 children (which is especially significant considering their generation). At the same time, we're hearing talks from people such as Dallin H Oaks about how it's a problem that Mormons two generations younger than these apostles are delaying marriage and having fewer children.

Interesting. If the HOI really says it is a private matter between God and the couple, why are there any talks given on this matter at all?

[SeattleUte]

and the Mormon Woman as I am the very tangible procreative policy shift of the Church over the last 30 or so years.

When I was born, the very stated position was that you should not limit the size of your family. Many people (most?) took this to mean you should breed like rabbits and take a Catholic approach to prophylactics.

I have a real problem with this for many reasons. I think we can all agree that raising kids takes a lot of love. But I do not think that love is unlimited. I think that love equates to time. That is to say, what good does it do to tell your kid you love him every morning but then never spend any time with him? No, true love is spend on family vacations and roughhousing on the floor before bedtime and playing catch in the backyard early in the morning and such. And as such there's only so much to go around.

All too often large families have situations where kids - especially younger kids - have to scrap and fight and act out to get attention (a proxy for love in a pinch) because there is simply not enough space on the love/time continuum for them. Not every large family is this way, to be sure. However, many that I have seen - including the one I grew up in (seven kids) - suffer or suffered from this.

Interestingly enough, my siblings - especially the younger ones - and my parents all agree with this.

While the Church policy has shifted to a "don't ask, don't tell, don't judge" bit now, I see all too many people that still think they are obligated to have a sizable brood. I really don't have a problem with people who choose to do so with an awareness of their own abilities and time - and I know people who do it well - but I do get concerned when I see people screwing around (har!) and having kids that are neglected, all in the name of an outmoded (and, in my view, recklessly incorrect) bit of policy.

If you take on a second mother you can leverage yourself and have more.