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

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Joy in in living with your in laws!

How could life be better?

😱😰

If your spouse’s parents were the ones who chose you for their child’s mate, it might be easier to live with them than your spouse. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Calm

[Rain]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

“Likely”? I guess it’s “academic”.!  I was interested in the poser's experience.

But, I would think a student / parents would make that assessment as part of deciding which college to attend based on the quality of the curriculum, just like employees making the same decision over hiring policies. I wouldn’t paint students as avoiding critical or flexible thinking, whether they are required to take the course of not (it could work both ways),  or BYU as catering to students/parents who would like to avoid developing their thinking skills by making a course optional. The content looked OK to me.

 

20 hours 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?

Pretty similar to what I had.  As a type 1 diabetic, who had severe pre-eclampsia with all 3 children, I most definitely prayed about whether to have a child, another child or to stop.  It was definitely a decision with lots of thinking about.  And truly the thing I had to worry about most, even though money was tight, was my health, life and the care of my  children.

I am grateful the church leaves it up to us, and has for the 31 years I've been married, because honestly there is not a single leader I would have trusted on this. The stakes were too high. It had to come from the Lord.  Intellectually I get why healthy people may not feel as strongly about that as I do, but feeling wise I just cannot imagine not going through that spiritual process about having kids.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Rain

[rpn]

I don't think God is about the number.   I think our Heavenly Parents and Savior are about us living consistent with Their plan.  That means welcoming the children we can handle and afford and our bodies work to give

ETA:  Able to afford doesn't require each child to have their own room, extracurriculars that are expensive (although music lessons have a lifetime of benefit), or even more than more than 8 sets of clothing.   In First world countries we tend not to respect the earth either when we use more resources than sustainable.

OTOH: It's now $45 to buy 7-8 place family van.

Edited August 31, 2022 by rpn

[MustardSeed]

Money had nothing to do with the number of children I had. My choice to stop bearing children had everything to do with how much emotional bandwidth I had to attend to the children I already had. I never once considered what the church wanted. My mother however was burying children during the “my turn on earth” era.  Pressure oh my goodness!

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Money had nothing to do with the number of children I had. My choice to stop bearing children had everything to do with how much emotional bandwidth I had to attend to the children I already had. I never once considered what the church wanted. My mother however was burying children during the “my turn on earth” era.  Pressure oh my goodness!

I'm sure you mean't bearing, hopefully. 

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Money had nothing to do with the number of children I had. My choice to stop bearing children had everything to do with how much emotional bandwidth I had to attend to the children I already had. I never once considered what the church wanted. My mother however was burying children during the “my turn on earth” era.  Pressure oh my goodness!

This was me too.  Financially, I wasn't ever that concerned, but mentally and emotionally I knew that I was not meant to be a mother to a lot of children.  I would have been a horrible mother.  I have four and even that many was really hard sometimes.  

Society does not support mothers and mothering anymore.  We expect women to bear babies and then go home two days later alone--and be alone with them--for years, managing all the mothering and the household with little or no outside support.  In earlier eras the physical risks were greater, but now we are just killing mothers mentally instead of actually killing them.

(sorry, bit of a soapbox of mine)

[InCognitus]

Related to this topic, this part of Psalm 127 made me laugh when I was studying it last week:

Quote

3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
(Psalms 127:3–5)

[cherryTreez]

When we got married, I was told that the number of children was between me, my husband and the Lord. 

It ended up being my doctor saying no more pregnancies.  I was high risk with all of my pregnancies.  I spent 8 weeks on bedrest. And that was one of my easier pregnancies.  I could handle more kids. I couldn't handle another pregnancy.  

I am thankful we have the ability to not have baby after baby. My great grandmother lost 2 babies in a year, both a day after birth. She stopped naming her babies.  She had a 16 year gap between her children that lived. How horribly sad...

[Meadowchik]

17 hours ago, Chum said:

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.

The implication in the guidance is that we should look at the opportunity to bear children with gratitude and seek with first intent to have them.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Related to this topic, this part of Psalm 127 made me laugh when I was studying it last week:

Ex-Quiverfull movement members maybe don't laugh at it.

[Kenngo1969]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

That would be interesting to see, a significant number of Americans transplanting to other countries where cost of living was lower.

I don't have any numbers, and I admit to not being as good at ferreting them out as others are hereabouts, but anecdotally, I have heard that a fair number of Norteamericanos, essentially, are becoming economic refugees*, fleeing to where the cost of living is more manageable south of the border.  The problem is, of course, that wherever there is a significant uptick in demand (for housing, primarily, but also for other necessaries) that local supply cannot meet, prices go up ... so the locals resent the newcomers for that.

______________________

*The author of the piece to which I link would take serious issue with that characterization, and I don't blame him: Simply seeking a more manageable existence economically is a far cry from being forced from one's home, whether by local economic conditions, local political conditions, or by other dire conditions on the ground wherever one happened, formerly, to reside.

[Chum]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The implication in the guidance is that we should look at the opportunity to bear children with gratitude and seek with first intent to have them.

That's not an unreasonable read. I'll chew on it.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Ex-Quiverfull movement members maybe don't laugh at it.

Reminds me of something my uncle told me once: "My daughter and her husband decided they wouldn't use birth control because Heavenly Father wouldn't send them more children than they could handle. They found out pretty quickly that Heavenly Father will send you a hell of a lot of kids if you let him."

[Chum]

12 hours ago, Rain said:

Pretty similar to what I had.  As a type 1 diabetic, who had severe pre-eclampsia, with all 3 children I most definitely prayed about whether to have a child, another child or to stop.  It was definitely a decision with lots of thinking about.  And truly the thing I had to worry about most, even though money was tight, was my health, life and the care of my later children.

My wife had preeclampsia with birth 4 (twins), our first hospital birth*.  That helped lift your argument above the economic question for me, which I liked. Then I remembered we had good private insurance for that birth, which (for me) drops the equation right back into economics (as good private insurance is off the table for most).

I should clarify that pregnancy is on the very short list that qualifies for Medicaid here - but the hours/days to navigate that system is another factor that goes on the stack of resources to consider.

* #1 was at home, ~$3k total in 1990 & paid by us. #2 & #3 at a birthing center & paid by Medicaid.

[Chum]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

I understand that men can have as many children as women.

I can't say. My wife had all of ours.

[Chum]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

One of my favorite YouTube guys is Kerry Tarnow, who keeps tabs on developments in prefabricated / manufactured / modular housing industry.  He is suggesting that we may be on the cusp of a pretty serious disruption in housing.  Take a look:

The browser I use to post here blocks embedded videos. I'll assume your point and it to the reasons to be optimistic - and get caught up later.

[Stargazer]

19 hours 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. 

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/

 

I have a granddaughter who married a very nice returned missionary in the temple, and they are a very cute and delightful couple. 8 years later and they are still childless. I wonder why, but I don't feel entitled to know why, nor will I ever ask them or their parents. It is up to them, assuming that it has been a choice, and not, sadly, due to fertility issues.

But it would be nice if they could provide some great grandbabies for me!  

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, blackstrap said:

A friend of a friend got a ticket years ago in MT. He was doing 125 mph in a rain storm. Apparently that was deemed unreasonable .

I would have called it suicidal!

18 hours ago, blackstrap said:

As for 75 kids, iirc the current record is 69 kids held by some Russian lady. 27 pregnancies. YIKES !

😵

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But it would be nice if they could provide some great grandbabies for me!  

I'm doubting I'll have grandkids but who knows.  I'm mostly okay with that.  My ex was effectively a bum. Excepting nursing, most of the childcare was left to me and those memories never got replaced with nostalgia.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

I would have called it suicidal!

Assuming a clear road, it really depends on the car now. Handling is nuts-good on some models.

An aside: We had to park the 69 XL until we can get rid of it. 130 is nothing to it.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

I have to say, the overall trend since the 1960's is not too comforting. 

 

I don't think this graph is adjusted for inflation. My parents bought a three-bedroom home in 1960 for $12,000, which matches your graph. It's still in the family, but now as a single-bedroom home with some serious remodeling. On the market (Redfin.com) its value now is about $900,000, which rather exceeds your graph. But if it had been in its current condition back in 1960, it would have been worth considerably more than $12,000. I think the location is part of its current worth.

Inflation-adjusted, using the US Inflation Calculator, that initial house price of $12,000 is now worth $120,111. If you inflation adjust that $900,000 value back to 1960, you get $89,916. Which would have bought a really spiffy house back then.

FWIW, the $525,000 home price on the graph for 2022 back-inflates to $52,451 in 1960. So there seems to be a definite actual rise in home prices, and not just an inflation illusion. Which is what you're saying, of course.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Reminds me of something my uncle told me once: "My daughter and her husband decided they wouldn't use birth control because Heavenly Father wouldn't send them more children than they could handle. They found out pretty quickly that Heavenly Father will send you a hell of a lot of kids if you let him."

Amen!

When I married my late wife, she had seven children. I had two from my previous marriage, but they weren't living with me. I told her that given her already heavy responsibilities in the child department, and potentially adding my two to the circus, I was perfectly happy to let things be settled, and consider the quiver full enough of arrows. She did not agree, and even seemed a little upset with me for proposing it. So, off to the races. Our twins were born almost exactly 9 months after our wedding. At that point we thought that maybe that was enough, but no, one more came after that. Shortly thereafter she was no longer of child-bearing status, so Heavenly Father declared victory at that point.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Amen!

When I married my late wife, she had seven children. I had two from my previous marriage, but they weren't living with me. I told her that given her already heavy responsibilities in the child department, and potentially adding my two to the circus, I was perfectly happy to let things be settled, and consider the quiver full enough of arrows. She did not agree, and even seemed a little upset with me for proposing it. So, off to the races. Our twins were born almost exactly 9 months after our wedding. At that point we thought that maybe that was enough, but no, one more came after that. Shortly thereafter she was no longer of child-bearing status, so Heavenly Father declared victory at that point.

I was born with a birth defect that required me to spend a night or two in the hospital every week until I was 5 years old, so my parents decided not to have any more kids. Then my mom got pregnant with my brother, and two years after that, with my youngest brother. She didn't tell my grandmother she was pregnant until she came for a visit. Grandma, seeing her obviously with child, threw her purse on the ground and said, "Do I have to draw you a picture?" 

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was born with a birth defect that required me to spend a night or two in the hospital every week until I was 5 years old, so my parents decided not to have any more kids. Then my mom got pregnant with my brother, and two years after that, with my youngest brother. She didn't tell my grandmother she was pregnant until she came for a visit. Grandma, seeing her obviously with child, threw her purse on the ground and said, "Do I have to draw you a picture?" 

I don't know if I should laugh at that or cringe. 

But I'll wager your parents already had the picture on the wall.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

I don't know if I should laugh at that or cringe. 

But I'll wager your parents already had the picture on the wall.

That's a safe bet, as I was their fourth.