On Latter-day Saints and Family Size

[smac97]

Deseret News (Op Ed) : Tucker Carlson wants you to have ‘Mormon levels’ of kids. Is it good advice?

Quote

On the heels of Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News, a clip from a 2021 conversation between Carlson and Charlie Kirk went viral, attracting more than 3 million views on Instagram. In the video, Kirk asks Carlson to give life advice to the young people who would later hear him speak. (Carlson was slated to deliver the keynote address at a gathering of Turning Point USA, a nonprofit that advocates for conservative politics on high school and college campuses.)

Here are excerpts:

“Get married and have a ton of kids. Get married when you’re too young, have more kids than you can afford, take a job you’re not qualified for. Live boldly. Stop getting high. Stop doing anything that blurs your vision or makes time go faster. … Wasting time is the one thing you can’t get back. … Any time I wasted is really bitter for me, ’cause it’s finite.”

He went on: “I want to experience my life as fully as I possibly can. I think that starts with having a ton of kids. Like, way more … like Mormon levels of kids. I mean that.” 

Putting aside Carlson's polemics and politics (and I ask that you all do the same), I like his advice on this point.  Get married.  Have a ton of kids.  Work hard.  "Live boldly."

The "Mormon levels of kids" is a funny line, though unfortunately less apt these days.

Quote

You may hate Tucker, or you may love him. But when it comes to his advice on building a family, the statistics are on his side.

In February 2022, economist Lyman Stone discussed the correlation between happiness and marriage and family for the Institute of Family Studies. People who get married and have families tend to be happier than those who don’t. And yet, as Stone explained, “Gallup polls and the General Social Survey alike show that fewer Americans believe marriage is key to happiness, or that it’s important for lifelong romantic partners to marry.” 

These trends, Stone wrote, are “especially galling” because they are empirically wrong.

“Indeed, married people are happier than unmarried people: across nearly five decades of surveys, data from the GSS shows that 36% of people who have ever been married (including divorced, separated, and widowed people) say they are ‘very happy’ while just 11% are ‘not too happy,’ compared to 22% and 15% for people who have never married. Despite changing public views, the truth is married people really are happier.”

"Happier than" being the key phrase.  Cumulatively, yes.  Overall, yes.  Marriage is a wonderful institution, and I highly recommend it.  It requires a lot of time and effort, and it's definitely worth it.

Quote

The research on children tends to be a bit more complicated. A global study of parents reported higher levels of happiness for parents than adults without children in countries with more child-friendly policies (and notably the United States was not among them).

It’s no secret young children can bring stress and costs, and some studies indicate children can be a blow to reported levels of happiness, especially for mothers. But other research details increasing gains in happiness among fathers and much of parental happiness depends on demographics and resources. Interestingly, the data on happiness among mothers may be skewed since larger dips appear among mothers of only one or two children, while women with three or more children have the same levels of happiness with women without children.

There’s also research suggesting having children is a long-term investment with payoffs much later in life. One study out of Hong Kong, for example, found grandparents and future grandparents are happier than non-grandparents.

Navigating the nuances of the research, Paul Bloom writes in The Atlantic that parenting ultimately may be less about the “happiness” we equate with being on a sunny beach and more about the meaning and purpose we associate more with, say, earned success.

“A study by the social psychologist Roy Baumeister and his colleagues found that the more time people spent taking care of children,” Bloom writes, “the more meaningful they said their life was — even though they reported that their life was no happier. Raising children, then, has an uncertain connection to pleasure but may connect to other aspects of a life well lived, satisfying our hunger for attachment, and for meaning and purpose.”

This may be true of social relationships in general.

I think this is a fair point.  "Happiness" is a subjective concept.  These days so many of us are distracted from pursuing what's really important, whether the distractions arise from time-consuming pastimes, or inexperience, or social influences/pressures.  The longer I go, the more I feel the resonance of the truths of the Restored Gospel, which after all center on family.

Quote

In 1938, Harvard University began one of the longest running studies on happiness in history. Researchers interviewed men at various stages in life and concluded, “Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives. ... Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes.” 

Referencing the Harvard study, happiness guru and scholar Arthur Brooks distilled “seven habits that lead to happiness in old age.” The seventh habit, Brooks writes, is “Do the work to cultivate stable, long-term relationships now. For most people, this includes a steady marriage, but other relationships with family, friends and partners can fit in this category as well. The point is to find people with whom you can grow, whom you can count on, no matter what comes your way.”

The takeaway is hold on to those we can smell. And if that smelling part strikes you as weird, well, according to research in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, the smell of babies actually triggers the brain’s reward center. And for mothers, it provides a significant hit of dopamine.

Very cool.

Thoughts?

-Smac

[bluebell]

I think people should have the number of children that they can financially and emotionally and mentally support.  I appreciate that we have many examples among the apostles of different family sizes showing that a giant family is not appropriate in all circumstances.

I also think that our world tends to be very self-centered, and that a lot of people choose not to have children for selfish reasons. I think the argument could be made that selfishness never was happiness, and that includes purposefully choosing not to have kids so that you can have a life where you can do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it.

In that vein Tucker’s advice makes sense to me.  Happiness comes from living a life that is about more than just pleasure and ease.

[Duncan]

I look at Harold B. Lee's family of two kids, Dale G. Renlund's family of one kid and Joseph F. Smith's family of 48, can anyone tell the difference between their spirituality? Have as many kids as you can handle.

[CV75]

I would think DN might want to begin distancing themselves from normalizing controversial media figures. If our own cannot make a good point, we need to do a better job of making it on its merits.

[pogi]

I think that having "tons" of kids, "getting married too young", and "having more kids than you can afford" is all really terrible advise to give as general counsel. 

Why?  Based on what?  That sounds like a recipe for disaster if everyone started implementing that advise. 

The data you present doesn't back up this advise.  

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think that having "tons" of kids, "getting married too young", and "having more kids than you can afford" is all really terrible advise to give as general counsel. 

Why?  Based on what?  That sounds like a recipe for disaster if everyone started implementing that advise. 

The data you present doesn't back up this advise.  

one thing i've learned is just because something works for me doesn't mean it will work for you, it's like here try my glasses they work for me so they will work for you

[cherryTreez]

37 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I look at Harold B. Lee's family of two kids, Dale G. Renlund's family of one kid and Joseph F. Smith's family of 48, can anyone tell the difference between their spirituality? Have as many kids as you can handle.

They may have had infertility problems. People don't like to talk about it. You never know. I had people judge me for only have 2 kids because I didn't advertise that I struggled with secondary infertility. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

across nearly five decades of surveys, data from the GSS shows that 36% of people who have ever been married (including divorced, separated, and widowed people) say they are ‘very happy’ while just 11% are ‘not too happy,’ compared to 22% and 15% for people who have never married. Despite changing public views, the truth is married people really are happier.”

Hm.  Honestly, it sounds like a more truthful take on these stats would be something more like this: "Being human sucks and is hard and most people don't like it.  If you get married, you have slightly improved chances of maybe it sucking less or being less hard or maybe liking it more, but probably not."

I mean, I'm not trying to dismantle the institution of marriage, and I'm going full-tilt in life with my sealing and trying to raise kids to be interested in having marriage as a big goal.  But I'm a massive fan of transparent, practical  honesty, and believe folks do best with the most relevant information, presented warts and all.

Do folks disagree?

[blackstrap]

Japan and Italy are discovering what happens when a nation does not have replacement levels of population growth. China is facing the results of its " one child policy " .

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Putting aside Carlson's polemics and politics (and I ask that you all do the same)

Why use him as a starting point to this discussion? Couldn't the same point been brought up without using him? He is a highly divisive figure and not really known for his honesty or kindness.

The messenger influences the message. Hence, ethos is one of the rhetorical appeals.

I mean, I know this is Godwin's law and all, but I could start a discussion on vegetarianism and animal welfare by pointing out how Hitler described the gruesome deaths of animals in slaughterhouses as a way to persuade his dining mates to adopt a vegetarian diet. Is this true? Yes. Does it begin a discussion on vegetarianism and animal welfare? Yes. Is it effective? No, not at all.

As a side note, are people of color allowed to have as many babies as they want, or is that just a Democratic ploy to replace the American electorate with leftists?

As a second side note, Tucker Carlson has a picture in his office of himself and Jerry Garcia. *sigh*

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

You can ask us to put Carlson's politics and polemics aside, but in this case, that's not entirely reasonable. Why? Tucker Carlson has a history of promoting the idea of race suicide - that is, Carlson believes that lower birthrates among white people compared to other ethnicities will result in white people simply being replaced. And this does impact his advice on (white) people having more children.

Longitudinal studies that correlate happiness with marriage rarely deal with the corresponding problem that marriage has been changing. In the 1950s, women who dropped out of high school were the most likely to get married. Now, it is women with college degrees. And women with college degrees who get married seem to be much happier than their peers with a high school diploma or less who get married. Waiting to get married correlates to greater happiness for a range of reasons including better economic situations, better interpersonal skills, and so on. Marriage trends make studies on the happiness of marriage more of a challenge than any of the stuff you provide acknowledges. I don't doubt that people who have children are happier (generally speaking) than their unmarried peers - but most of those who get married today do so at an older age (average for women is now 26 and men is 31), and usually after completing some higher education - and this is a huge shift. If we have a lot of people getting married and having children before reaching those milestones, happiness declines (as does the numbers of people successfully getting their college degrees), and divorce rates go back up.

One of the real problems I have with Carlson's remarks is that people aren't having families because they are simply wasting time. This is more or less nonsense. There are lots of real reasons why people have fewer children. The opportunity cost of children - especially for women - is much better defined. If we could find a way to limit that, we would reduce the disincentives for having children - and this means in particular, finding ways to reduce or eliminate the economic penalties that women experience by having children. For example, the cost of childcare is extremely high. Where I live (and this is not atypical for most of the US), my county average cost for infant child care is a bit over $12,000 per year (when you can find it). That comes out to being 15% of the median family income here - per child. This might not hurt so much if there was affordable family housing. Between 2010 and 2020, housing costs in my county rose 50%. Median wage jumped 6%. An estimated 60% of renters in the county pay more than 30% of their income in rent. This is even worse when we recognize that young families with young children are generally not at the top of the family income scale. It doesn't surprise me to hear that the biggest factor (by a wide margin) that prevents young people from starting a family is economic insecurity. But the cost of having a child and daycare and all that is just the tip of the iceberg. I just finished putting my second child (of three) through college at Michigan Tech. Estimated cost? $40,000. Having children isn't a short term commitment. If we want to have more children, then we need to (as a society) find ways to help deal with the costs of having children.

I would argue that one thing that would go a long ways towards encouraging more families with children would be extending the public education of our young people from K-12 to preschool-4 years of college.

We have already had a marriage shift from a foundational milestone to a capstone milestone. That boat has sailed. And it doesn't matter how much we tell people that they might be happier, we need to work to lower the real barriers that our society has created. And, let's face it, all of this is simply another risk - these studies don't say that only people with children are happy - they just say that they are a few percentage points happier than their peers. If having a child presents a risk of sinking what little economic stability you have, or ruining your career, or wrecking your plans for education, then this makes the question far more complicated. And Tucker Carlson? With the millions he was being paid every year? I think that he is missing a heavy dose of reality.

[MustardSeed]

Respectfully I don’t care what some celebrity who has no authority or expertise on a subject has to say about said subject.  
 

I think everyone should live on a lake and be a musician.  That makes me happy and should make you happy too. 🤩

 

That said I’m very happy with my average size family and my marriage. I’d recommend it for teaching selflessness if that’s the goal, most certainly. Best education I’ve personally ever received.  But it’s not for everyone.  Some people should definitely have exactly zero children. 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You can ask us to put Carlson's politics and polemics aside, but in this case, that's not entirely reasonable. Why? Tucker Carlson has a history of promoting the idea of race suicide - that is, Carlson believes that lower birthrates among white people compared to other ethnicities will result in white people simply being replaced. And this does impact his advice on (white) people having more children.

Mr. Carlson didn't say anything about race in the video.  Moreover, he seems to be concerned about the rates of abortion amongst black women (which rather contravenes your interpolation about "white" people).  

Anyhoo, the counsel remains apt.

30 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Longitudinal studies that correlate happiness with marriage rarely deal with the corresponding problem that marriage has been changing. In the 1950s, women who dropped out of high school were the most likely to get married. Now, it is women with college degrees. And women with college degrees who get married seem to be much happier than their peers with a high school diploma or less who get married. Waiting to get married correlates to greater happiness for a range of reasons including better economic situations, better interpersonal skills, and so on. Marriage trends make studies on the happiness of marriage more of a challenge than any of the stuff you provide acknowledges. I don't doubt that people who have children are happier (generally speaking) than their unmarried peers - but most of those who get married today do so at an older age (average for women is now 26 and men is 31), and usually after completing some higher education - and this is a huge shift. If we have a lot of people getting married and having children before reaching those milestones, happiness declines (as does the numbers of people successfully getting their college degrees), and divorce rates go back up.

Interesting thoughts.  I will ruminate on them.

30 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

One of the real problems I have with Carlson's remarks is that people aren't having families because they are simply wasting time. This is more or less nonsense. There are lots of real reasons why people have fewer children. The opportunity cost of children - especially for women - is much better defined. If we could find a way to limit that, we would reduce the disincentives for having children - and this means in particular, finding ways to reduce or eliminate the economic penalties that women experience by having children. For example, the cost of childcare is extremely high. Where I live (and this is not atypical for most of the US), my county average cost for infant child care is a bit over $12,000 per year (when you can find it). That comes out to being 15% of the median family income here - per child. This might not hurt so much if there was affordable family housing. Between 2010 and 2020, housing costs in my county rose 50%. Median wage jumped 6%. An estimated 60% of renters in the county pay more than 30% of their income in rent. This is even worse when we recognize that young families with young children are generally not at the top of the family income scale. It doesn't surprise me to hear that the biggest factor (by a wide margin) that prevents young people from starting a family is economic insecurity. But the cost of having a child and daycare and all that is just the tip of the iceberg. I just finished putting my second child (of three) through college at Michigan Tech. Estimated cost? $40,000. Having children isn't a short term commitment. If we want to have more children, then we need to (as a society) find ways to help deal with the costs of having children.

I agree.  

30 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would argue that one thing that would go a long ways towards encouraging more families with children would be extending the public education of our young people from K-12 to preschool-4 years of college.

Perhaps.

Another angle would be to address the extraordinary rise in costs associated with college, and also to encourage non-college careers.

30 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We have already had a marriage shift from a foundational milestone to a capstone milestone. That boat has sailed. And it doesn't matter how much we tell people that they might be happier, we need to work to lower the real barriers that our society has created. And, let's face it, all of this is simply another risk - these studies don't say that only people with children are happy - they just say that they are a few percentage points happier than their peers. If having a child presents a risk of sinking what little economic stability you have, or ruining your career, or wrecking your plans for education, then this makes the question far more complicated. And Tucker Carlson? With the millions he was being paid every year? I think that he is missing a heavy dose of reality.

Hence the reason I started this thread.  I don't have millions, but I do have the "dose of reality" that has come with raising six kids.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why use him as a starting point to this discussion?

Because the article I found quoted him, and because the quote referenced the Latter-day Saints.

I am not attributing any particular authority or wisdom to Tucker Carlson.  I think he has tapped into an idea that merits some discussion.

48 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Couldn't the same point been brought up without using him?  He is a highly divisive figure and not really known for his honesty or kindness.

I suppose so.  But I have started any number of threads discussing "divisive figure{s}" or groups:

• Sovereign Citizen (and Latter-day Saint) Killed by Police
• Minerva Teichert estate sues The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU Museum of Art
• Missionaries' "Nope" Response to Lesbian Doormat / Missionaries' "Nope" Response to Lesbian Doormat - An Afterthought
• Church Member in Rochester Going "Sam Young"
• JK Rowling steps in it (re: The Book of Mormon) 
• Dallas Jenkins Walking a Tightrope
• BYU Student Flashes Rainbow Flag at Graduation
• Dehlin v. Kwaku - An Update
• Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu - Update
• New Schisms: Denver Snuffer and Phil Davis

I don't endorse or agree with everything everyone I point to has ever said.  Who does? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Anyhoo, the counsel remains apt.

How is it appropriate to give as general advise to marry "too young", have "tons" of children, and have "more children than you can afford"?  I'm scratching my head here. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

How is it appropriate to give as general advise to marry "too young",

I think he was being slightly ironic here.  "Too young" as alleged by folks encouraging delay.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

have "tons" of children,

Same as above.  "'Tons' of children" in contravention of misanthropic and authoritarian alarmists who speaking against having large families.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

and have "more children than you can afford"? 

Same as above.  Plenty of honorable people have raised large families without all the trappings that are sacrificed in the process.  My father-in-law was one of thirteen children.  He and his siblings grew up in quite poor circumstances, but their parents loved them and taught them well.  All thirteen are married, all have only married once, and all have had children.  These folks are making the world a better place, but would not be here to be doing that if their parents had listened to wonks telling them about what they "can afford."

Some of the finest people I know have grown up in large families whose parents could not, by conventional wisdom, "afford" so many kids.

Thanks,

-Smac

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm scratching my head here. 

 

[Tacenda]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mr. Carlson didn't say anything about race in the video.  Moreover, he seems to be concerned about the rates of abortion amongst black women (which rather contravenes your interpolation about "white" people).  

Anyhoo, the counsel remains apt.

Interesting thoughts.  I will ruminate on them.

I agree.  

Perhaps.

Another angle would be to address the extraordinary rise in costs associated with college, and also to encourage non-college careers.

Hence the reason I started this thread.  I don't have millions, but I do have the "dose of reality" that has come with raising six kids.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't trust what Carlson says, there's proof that he says something is true, and behind the scene says the opposite. I will read the article though, but got that out of the way because I think whatever he says is suspect. You surely could have used another person's view, geez.

Editing, just read some of the article, I think the advice to have as many kids as possible is asking for child abuse by way of not giving enough attention to their needs, seen it over and over. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Tacenda

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think he was being slightly ironic here.  "Too young" as alleged by folks encouraging delay.

He should be more careful in his words, as usual.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"'Tons' of children" in contravention of misanthropic and authoritarian alarmists who speaking against having large families.

Same as above. 

When the data shows that happiness dips for mothers above 2 children, and that it also depends upon "resources".  I don't think it is good advice to even hint at counsel that suggests "tons" of children and "more than you can afford".   

Why not just say that the data suggest that the greatest happiness, in general, comes from no more than 2 children for mothers and where resources are available to care for your children?  That is a far cry from "have tons of children", and "more than you can afford".  Really crappy advice, even if there was some irony in it, there was also some truth to it or he wouldn't have advised it.  

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same as above.  Plenty of honorable people have raised large families without all the trappings that are sacrificed in the process.  My father-in-law was one of thirteen children.  He and his siblings grew up in quite poor circumstances, but their parents loved them and taught them well.  All thirteen are married, all have only married once, and all have had children.  These folks are making the world a better place, but would not be here to be doing that if their parents had listened to wonks telling them about what they "can afford."

Some of the finest people I know have grown up in large families whose parents could not, by conventional wisdom, "afford" so many kids.

Thanks,

-Smac

It may work for some but it is terrible as general counsel and advise. 

 

[MustardSeed]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some of the finest people I know have grown up in large families whose parents could not, by conventional wisdom, "afford" so many kids.

Of course we see this in third world countries a lot.  Happiness is not related to money.  
Family size is so personal. If this is someone’s answer to world strife I’d refute.  Nothing wrong with saying you had a great experience having a big brood. 
 

As the oldest of 6 children of a band teacher, we got a lot of comments about our big family. I remember specifically my parents replying to rude comments with “which ones do you think we should not have had?“

in the planning stage, however, I knew for sure I didn’t want six kids. I see the value. But the cost emotionally was something I was not willing to give. I feel really great about my family as it is, and I also reap the benefits of only 3- life is really really good right now for all of us due mostly to my options.  
 

if anybody were to tell me, I’m selfish for not having a big family, or that I should’ve had more children, I suppose you could imagine my response. Maybe it would be more gentle after April conference but maybe not 🙅🏽‍♀️

[Benjamin McGuire]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mr. Carlson didn't say anything about race in the video.  Moreover, he seems to be concerned about the rates of abortion amongst black women (which rather contravenes your interpolation about "white" people). 

I didn't say that he did. What I said is that he has a history in discussing this topic, and it isn't necessarily appropriate to take these comments out of that context. It isn't my interpolation. You can also look here, and here, and here, and oh, all sorts of places.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Another angle would be to address the extraordinary rise in costs associated with college, and also to encourage non-college careers.

I don't disagree with this. However, I think that this is a much more difficult thing to sell. How do we convince employers to pay more for their non-degreed employees? One fact is clear, over the past several decades, jobs requiring college degrees have stayed roughly equal with inflation. Jobs available for those without college degrees have not. And this shouldn't surprise us since the Federal minimum wage was raised to 7.25 an hour in 2009 (it hasn't changed since). The value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968 (before I was born). It really doesn't matter how we get there (I would be supportive of any effort), but something has to be done if we want to see changes in these trends.

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hence the reason I started this thread.  I don't have millions, but I do have the "dose of reality" that has come with raising six kids.

And I don't disagree with the general gist of it. My grand-baby (second one on the way) has certainly made my life more rewarding. My children make me feel like I have contributed something of worth to society. Even so, the problem is that happiness isn't a workable argument.

The thing that makes people in the US the happiest? The Survey Says being healthy. And we all know how hard it is to provide some sort of semblance of universal health care for Americans ...

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

How is it appropriate to give as general advise to marry "too young", have "tons" of children, and have "more children than you can afford"?  I'm scratching my head here. 

I read his use of those terms to be an indictment on society’s views on the subject and not legitimate council for everyone to do those literal things.

Like, “too young” as referring to how much of society thinks that getting married any time before your 30’s is getting married to young (I’m even hearing arguments from some celebrities now that people really don’t have any business being married until they’re 40).

Or, how society often defines “more children than you can afford” to be any number of children that doesn’t allow you to spend a large chunk of your resources on entertainment, vacations, and luxury items.

And, how society often defines “tons of children” as any number of children over two.  I was on an airplane flying to the UK last year and had a layover in New York City. I struck up a conversation with a couple sitting behind us on the plane as we were deplaning, and she was shocked that I had four kids. To her, four kids was a ton of kids and she audibly said that she didn’t know how we did it.

The literal interpretation of his advice is not a responsible way to approach adulthood. But I am not interpreting his words literally.  I think the message behind the words—-that society doesn’t actually know where happiness and fulfillment is to found and that doing the opposite of what “they” say has its merits—is good advice.

[Benjamin McGuire]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some of the finest people I know have grown up in large families whose parents could not, by conventional wisdom, "afford" so many kids.

My father had more kids than he could afford. That doesn't change the fact that the cost of children has been outpacing inflation by a huge margin. The cost to raise a child to age 17 in 1983? $80,000. The cost to raise a child in 2022? $310,000. The cost to raise children has outpaced inflation by 40%. And this is before we look at the fact that inflation adjusted median wages - especially for non-college graduates has tanked over the same time period. It isn't a comparison that you should be making, because it isn't particularly meaningful in context.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Of course we see this in third world countries a lot.  Happiness is not related to money.  

Extremes aside (poverty often has an adverse impact on overall quality of life and happiness), I broadly agree.  

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Family size is so personal.

So is marriage.  And yet people from all quarters of society are giving advice about these things.

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

As the oldest of 6 children of a band teacher, we got a lot of comments about our big family. I remember specifically my parents replying to rude comments with “which ones do you think we should not have had?“

Ouch!

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

in the planning stage, however, I knew for sure I didn’t want six kids. I see the value. But the cost emotionally was something I was not willing to give. I feel really great about my family as it is, and I also reap the benefits of only 3- life is really really good right now for all of us due mostly to my options.

As you said, having a family is a personal decision.  The generalized counsel of the Church is, I think, pretty good.  But the particulars ought to be left to the couple.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet people from all quarters of society are giving advice about these things.

I hope to be very careful about who I take advice from inside or outside of the church. I’m sure you are the same. Even the term “influencer” gets me guarded.

[Tacenda]

@smac97How can you put aside that it's Carlson? The article mentions him over and over. Sadly the writer of this article doesn't know the real Tucker. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKBogQyCywA