What is the Church's current expectation for number of children?

[Chum]

Are we still expected to produce as many children as we guess we can well care for? I'm not really sure any more. I know the last few years have reprioritized the Church's messaging but I think it's been a decade since I last heard instruction specific messaging about family size.

I'm asking because the reality of living is (still) quickly changing for us first worlders. When I joined (1993), non-fortunate people could still work and save on a couple of incomes. A decade ago, I'd peg it at 3 incomes. Now I'd peg the range at 3 -5, with housing being the primary driver of the latest uptick.

When one factors in the cost of college, the decreasing likelihood that a degree can pay itself, the decreasing ability to afford family-sized housing (inc ins) and increasing costs of minimal living - it's becoming difficult to identify anything that isn't out of reach, for most of the population.

Given the above, I'm not clear on:

1) What the Church sees as a reasonable path to sustain a larger families and

2) What is the path the Church sees for those kids in their 20s and 30s.

Our workable path is to beat out many families for the extremely rare, available, non-mansion 5 bedroom and (with all our incomes) live above a survival state. For those families we beat out, I'm not sure there is any path. What might the Church think?

Edited August 30, 2022 by Chum

[LoudmouthMormon]

[cue ominous music]

http://www.rollingalpha.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/aging-us-population.jpg

[ksfisher]

37 minutes ago, Chum said:

Are we still expected to produce as many children as we guess we can well care for? I'm not really sure any more. I know the last few years have reprioritized the Church's messaging but I think it's been a decade since I last heard instruction specific to family size.

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear (see 2.1.3). The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number101

[blackstrap]

I always thought the standard was similar to what the Montana speed limit used to be ., reasonable and prudent. 😊

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Chum said:

Are we still expected to produce as many children as we guess we can well care for? I'm not really sure any more. I know the last few years have reprioritized the Church's messaging but I think it's been a decade since I last heard instruction specific to family size.

I don't see "instruction specific to family size" in Elder Andersen's talk.  Just this: "When to have a child and how many children to have are private decisions to be made between a husband and wife and the Lord. These are sacred decisions—decisions that should be made with sincere prayer and acted on with great faith."

28 minutes ago, Chum said:

I'm asking because the reality of living is (still) quickly changing for us first worlders. When I joined (1993), non-fortunate people could still work and save on a couple of incomes. A decade ago, I'd peg it at 3 incomes. Now I'd peg the range at 3 -5, with housing being the primary driver of the latest uptick.

When one factors in the cost of college, the decreasing likelihood that a degree can pay itself, the decreasing ability to afford family-sized housing (inc ins) and increasing costs of minimal living - it's becoming difficult to identify anything that isn't out of reach, for most of the population.

Given the above, I'm not clear on:

1) What the Church sees as a reasonable path to sustain a larger families and

I think Elder Andersen touched on this in terms of prioritizing children over other things:

Quote

Many voices in the world today marginalize the importance of having children or suggest delaying or limiting children in a family. My daughters recently referred me to a blog written by a Christian mother (not of our faith) with five children. She commented: “[Growing] up in this culture, it is very hard to get a biblical perspective on motherhood. … Children rank way below college. Below world travel for sure. Below the ability to go out at night at your leisure. Below honing your body at the gym. Below any job you may have or hope to get.” She then adds: “Motherhood is not a hobby, it is a calling. You do not collect children because you find them cuter than stamps. It is not something to do if you can squeeze the time in. It is what God gave you time for."

My wife and I have been fortunate to have six children.  I am very grateful for them.  In hindsight, I would not trade them for anything.  No more education, more money, more personal time (to travel, go to the gym, etc.), a better-paying job, etc.  

I like this video:

"If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff, you won't have time for the really important things that matter to you.  Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness.  Take care of the golf balls first, the really important things.  Set your priorities, because everything else is just . . . sand." 

28 minutes ago, Chum said:

2) What is the path the Church sees for those kids in their 20s and 30s.

The same path as is set for past generations.  As Elder Andersen put it: "When to have a child and how many children to have are private decisions to be made between a husband and wife and the Lord."

28 minutes ago, Chum said:

Our workable path is to beat out many families for the extremely rare, available, non-mansion 5 bedroom and (with all our incomes) live above a survival state. For those families we beat out, I'm not sure there is any path. What might the Church think?

I think we tend to overstate, by a fair measure, the importance of a big house.  Historical trends show that square footage has been going up a lot during the same time that the number of children has been going down a lot:

Quote

New US Homes Today Are 1,000 Square Feet Larger Than in 1973 and Living Space per Person Has Nearly Doubled

By Mark J. Perry

AEIdeas

June 05, 2016

The Census Bureau recently released its annual report on “Characteristics of New Housing,” with more than 700 pages of detailed data on the characteristics of new single-family houses and multifamily buildings in 2015. Here are some interesting details of new single-family houses built last year

1. Average/Median House Size. In 2015, the average size of new houses built in the US increased to an all-time high of 2,687 square feet (see dark blue line in top chart above), and the median size new house set a new record of 2,467 square feet (see light blue line in top chart). Over the last 42 years, the average new US house has increased in size by more than 1,000 square feet, from an average size of 1,660 square feet in 1973 (earliest year available from the Census Bureau) to 2,687 square feet last year. Likewise, the median-size house has increased in size by almost 1,000 square feet, from 1,525 square feet in 1973 to 2,467 last year. In percentage terms, both the average and median size of new US houses have increased by 62% since 1973.

2. Living Space per Person. While the average size of new US houses has increased over the last 42 years, the average household size has been declining over that period, from 3.01 persons per household on average in 1973 to a new record low of 2.54 persons per household in the last three years (2013, 2014 and 2015), a reduction of almost one-half persons per household over the last 42 years (see brown line in top chart).

With the average new house in the US getting larger in size at the same time that American households are getting smaller, the square footage of living space per person in a new US house has increased from 507 to 971 square feet using the median size house, and from 551 to 1,058 square feet using the average size house. In percentage terms, that’s a 92% increase for both the median or average house size per person. Amazingly, the average amount of living space per person in a new house has nearly doubled in just the last 42 years!

The stats about "square footage of living space per person" are interesting to me, they having increased "from 507 to 971 square feet using the median size house, and from 551 to 1,058 square feet using the average size house."

We have lived in our 2,400 SF home for 17 years.  Me, my wife, and six children.  That works out to 300 square feet per person, well below the above figures.  But you know what?  It's worked out.  A bit tight here and there, but very doable.

So part of the issue here may be cultural and personal expectations.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear (see 2.1.3). The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Yes. This is our starting point on the topic. That instruction was complimented with further guidance (see Eld Maxwell's talk liked in OP) on receiving inspiration for larger families. I think it's fairly undisputed that the Church's messaging has been for us to have lager families.

That messaging is fairly absent now - but there's a lot going on. It can be reasonably assumed there hasn't been much room for it.

Revisiting your post for a moment: If I were to take that counsel in isolation (today), my default position would be have few (or no) kids, unless the Lord clearly advised me otherwise. I'm not confident that's in harmony with the Church's hopes for us.

[Chum]

10 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

I always thought the standard was similar to what the Montana speed limit used to be ., reasonable and prudent. 😊

That's the Florida speed limit now. Not complaining.

[Chum]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't see "instruction specific to family size" in Elder Andersen's talk. 

Yeah, you're right. I was thinking of rewording that to guidance, messaging or signaling. My choice of instruction is a bit too strong but there's more than zero behind those numbers he's offering.

edit: done

Edited August 30, 2022 by Chum

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

I always thought the standard was similar to what the Montana speed limit used to be ., reasonable and prudent. 😊

Remember though, that was only for daylight. The nighttime speed limit was 55. 

[Chum]

14 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

I always thought the standard was similar to what the Montana speed limit used to be ., reasonable and prudent. 😊

I think this has been the mindset, coupled with a 'the Lord will provide' kicker. Now (absent clear personal revelation) reasonable and prudent could tie family size more tightly to income.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Chum said:

Revisiting your post for a moment: If I were to take that counsel in isolation (today), my default position would be have few (or no) kids, unless the Lord clearly advised me otherwise.

As the handbook states, the number of children you have is your decision.

We have 4 children, the youngest currently 19.  This has been the right number for us.  Each has been challenging in their own way, but the joys have by far outweighed those challenges.  

11 minutes ago, Chum said:

I'm not confident that's in harmony with the Church's hopes for us.

I'm don't think the church has any "hopes" for you.

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private.

 

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It should be left between the couple and the Lord.

 

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

 

[Chum]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My wife and I have been fortunate to have six children.  I am very grateful for them.  In hindsight, I would not trade them for anything. 

I think we can broadly assume this for parents of existing children. Starting without much now (as I did and most do), would I have five today? Doubtful.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In hindsight, I would not trade them for anything.  No more education, more money, more personal time (to travel, go to the gym, etc.), a better-paying job, etc. 

To be fair, I did qualify the new couple as non-fortunate (as most young couples are).  Instead of travel, gym time, etc - replace those with the risk of children being hungry or unhoused.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Chum

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

As the handbook states, the number of children you have is your decision.

We have 4 children, the youngest currently 19.  This has been the right number for us.  Each has been challenging in their own way, but the joys have by far outweighed those challenges.  

Like me, you started in a different economic era. If you were newly married today, what do you think your path would be like?

[Chum]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm don't think the church has any "hopes" for you

Dang. This seems bleak. Just me? That could be. Asking because those vids between conference sessions see kind of loaded with hopeful messages.

Also - I already responded to those points you're requoting. Should I repost my reply?

Edited August 30, 2022 by Chum

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, Chum said:

Revisiting your post for a moment: If I were to take that counsel in isolation (today), my default position would be have few (or no) kids, unless the Lord clearly advised me otherwise. I'm not confident that's in harmony with the Church's hopes for us.

I don't think the church "hopes" anything for us in terms of family size anymore.   If they did secretly hope for large families, their hopes are of no concern or relevance on our personal and private dealings with the Lord on this matter.

Currently, the apostles are averaging around 4 kids each.    With President Nelson toping the list at 10 and Renlund at the bottom of the list with 1 child.  I see lots of 2s and 3s.  I think they would all agree that it is none of the church's business. 

A lot of charts and data in this regard, which follows trends over time here:

https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2018/05/20/family-size-and-church-leadership/

 

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Chum said:

Like me, you started in a different economic era. If you were newly married today, what do you think your path would be like?

I can't see it being any different.  We're doing ok now, but for most of the time when our children were young it was paycheck to paycheck. 

The children are worth more than the paycheck.

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, Chum said:

Dang. This seems bleak. Just me? That could be. Asking because those vids between conference sessions see kind of loaded with hopeful messages.

Also - I already responded to those points you're requoting. Should I repost my reply?

Perhaps expectations is a better word than hopes, but that was the word you used. 

[Chum]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps expectations is a better word than hopes, but that was the word you used. 

Hope is what I meant.

My point again for convenience:

38 minutes ago, Chum said:

my default position [today] would be have few (or no) kids, unless the Lord clearly advised me otherwise. I'm not confident that's in harmony with the Church's hopes for us.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Chum

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think the church "hopes" anything for us in terms of family size anymore.   If they did secretly hope for large families, their hopes are of no concern or relevance on our personal and private dealings with the Lord on this matter.

Currently, the apostles are averaging around 4 kids each.    With President Nelson toping the list at 10 and Renlund at the bottom of the list with 1 child.  I see lots of 2s and 3s.  I think they would all agree that it is none of the church's business.

I didn't realize that. In fact I hadn't even considered how many the Q12 might have had.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

What is the Church's current expectation for number of children?

When it comes to number of children, I believe the Church still encourages integers for these.

 

[The Nehor]

Large families were a benefit in a more agrarian economy where children were a net economic benefit. Large families were economically tolerable in the New Deal/Post-WWII Economic Boom. That toleration is being steadily eroded.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

When it comes to number of children, I believe the Church still encourages integers for these.

 

I am still dealing with imaginary numbers. Yet another sin I guess I have to repent of.

[Chum]

Based on a summary of what I'm reading - and with my understanding that the Lord doesn't want to do our planning for us - my 2022 starting position would be to minimize my number of kids (potentially zero) unless I got clear revelation from the Lord otherwise.

[Chum]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

When it comes to number of children, I believe the Church still encourages integers for these.

 

Real or imaginary?

edit: Oh. Nehor. Of course.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Chum

[Chum]

Just now, Chum said:

Based on a summary of what I'm reading - and with my understanding that the Lord doesn't want to do our planning for us - my 2022 starting position would be to minimize my number of kids (potentially zero) unless I got clear revelation from the Lord otherwise.

Seguing off of this: Since the death of the multi generational households of a century+ ago, I don't see how a non-fortunate couple can independently sustain themselves in a 3 income economy.

That doesn't mean I'm saying don't get married. I'm saying I don't see a path for that couple to independently support themselves.