Family size

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Levin

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, b/c this is crazy talk.

No, not for the sake of arguing, but I am interested in the topic, so I continue to ask questions. I genuinely don't see how your life is better used by having more children. Perhaps it could be for some.

If most Mormons believe this (do you? I still don't even know as no one has responded to that portion of the inquiry)--why have sizes of families among Mormons shrunk?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

No, not for the sake of arguing, but I am interested in the topic, so I continue to ask questions. I genuinely don't see how your life is better used by having more children. Perhaps it could be for some.

If most Mormons believe this (do you? I still don't even know as no one has responded to that portion of the inquiry)--why have sizes of families among Mormons shrunk?

i don't believe more is always better but neither is less always best.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

No, not for the sake of arguing, but I am interested in the topic, so I continue to ask questions. I genuinely don't see how your life is better used by having more children. Perhaps it could be for some.

If most Mormons believe this (do you? I still don't even know as no one has responded to that portion of the inquiry)--why have sizes of families among Mormons shrunk?

duh. because they don't believe.

In many ways, Mormons are marching towards just being a non-peculiar people with non-peculiar beliefs.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

duh. because they don't believe.

In many ways, Mormons are marching towards just being a non-peculiar people with non-peculiar beliefs.

We no longer are distinct. Do you believe in the three hour track?

We no longer have prophets in the truest sense, just administrative gatekeepers. Visions and miracles have ceased.

Where are JS's visions, those that proclaim to have touched the hands of Christ, or those who wrestle with the great questions?

We have become Borg, IBM and our distinctions are no more, lest you wear a white shirt.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We no longer are distinct. Do you believe in the three hour track?

We no longer have prophets in the truest sense, just administrative gatekeepers. Visions and miracles have ceased.

Where JS's visions, those that proclaim to have touched the hands of Christ, or those who wrestle with the great questions?

We have become Borg, IBM and our distinctions are no more, lest you wear a white shirt.

you may be right, or not. But if you are, it doesn't mean that it will always be so.

For some men, the future is not written yet.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you may be right, or not. But if you are, it doesn't mean that it will always be so.

For some men, the future is not written yet.

Ambivalence?

From where will the power come to be invested again? When will visions return?

The passion of Mormonism is sleeping, hopefully not dead.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

duh. because they don't believe.

In many ways, Mormons are marching towards just being a non-peculiar people with non-peculiar beliefs.

just keeping ever so slightly above average in child-bearing, I would guess--but tracking the trends just the same.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

No, not for the sake of arguing, but I am interested in the topic, so I continue to ask questions. I genuinely don't see how your life is better used by having more children. Perhaps it could be for some.

If most Mormons believe this (do you? I still don't even know as no one has responded to that portion of the inquiry)--why have sizes of families among Mormons shrunk?

If a person has the opportunity, and has the choice whether to have children or not, in 99.999999999999999% of cases that person's life will be better used by rearing children than doing something else. There are very few people who will serve people better absent children. Mother Teresa? Perhaps. But it was her nunnery, and not her service, that precluded her from having children.

As Waters said, the great mass of professional humanity is fungible. A farmer, lawyer, doctor, is a farmer, lawyer, doctor. I'd make an exception for artists defined broadly, although having children arguably makes artists better by expanding the range of experience to express in their chosen art form. But a lawyer sitting at her desk wondering if she can serve humanity more by not having kids? Ridiculous. A legacy of a compassionate, honest citizens is rich indeed. And the whole premise of your argument is wrong: except for the very, very few (Mother Teresa), child-rearing and service outside the family are not mutually exclusive. There's a season for all things. But if you have to choose, don't miss the Spring.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Levin

If a person has the opportunity, and has the choice whether to have children or not, in 99.999999999999999% of cases that person's life will be better used by rearing children than doing something else. There are very few people who will serve people better absent children. Mother Teresa? Perhaps. But it was her nunnery, and not her service, that precluded her from having children.

As Waters said, the great mass of professional humanity is fungible. A farmer, lawyer, doctor, is a farmer, lawyer, doctor. I'd make an exception for artists defined broadly, although having children arguably makes artists better by expanding the range of experience to express in their chosen art form. But a lawyer sitting at her desk wondering if she can serve humanity more by not having kids? Ridiculous. A legacy of a compassionate, honest citizens is rich indeed. And the whole premise of your argument is wrong: except for the very, very few (Mother Teresa), child-rearing and service outside the family are not mutually exclusive. There's a season for all things. But if you have to choose, don't miss the Spring.

the premise of my argument is wrong? I'm not even making an argument. As I said, I'm asking questions. If you think life is better for having children, great, but how many does one have? Is one child enough? Or must a person have as many as possible? I understand this answer might be different for different circumstances, but I imagine the criteria would be similar.

I'm asking a broader question here, which is how and why does one choose to limit family size? In both the larger social context and in the Mormon cultural context.

I'm not particulary sure why you're sniping at me here, a mere lawyer sitting at her desk. . .

[Levin]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

the premise of my argument is wrong? I'm not even making an argument. As I said, I'm asking questions. If you think life is better for having children, great, but how many does one have? Is one child enough? Or must a person have as many as possible? I understand this answer might be different for different circumstances, but I imagine the criteria would be similar.

I'm asking a broader question here, which is how and why does one choose to limit family size? In both the larger social context and in the Mormon cultural context.

I'm not particulary sure why you're sniping at me here, a mere lawyer sitting at her desk. . .

Sorry for the sniping. But you asked whether a person could serve humanity more by not having children, and I found the question entirely facetious, unless you're Mother Teresa, and in the photos I've seen, Mother T didn't have red hair.

Family size is a difficult question. We just had our third, and it has hit us like a freight train, and we're splayed on the tracks trying to pick ourselves up and gather our belongings. the number of children we want has decreased with each new arrival. It makes us feel like selfish, bad people. But what is best for the family? Maybe for us, it's fewer children. But does that mean we just can't hack it and b/c we're selfish and can't hack it (or don't like messes or want more date nights or can't take any heartache when children suffer or want them out of the house sooner or can't take the man poop anymore from a three-year old who refuses to be potty trained) does that make us lesser beings?

Our neighbor across the street feels no such angst. She just had her second, and while she stays home for 12 weeks of maternity leave, she continues to send her two-year old to all-day (8 am to 6 pm) daycare. There are reasons to do this, but we couldn't. Maybe if we let go of the angst we'd be able to handle having more kids.