Multiply and Replenish the Earth

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

I mean that if, for instance, all of Asia decided that God told them that there are spirits waiting and that they all need to start having 17 kids, it would likely precipitate an international crisis, and I doubt that many people outside of Asia would actually believe that their belief was true or reasonable.

Fair enough.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I remember a recent Oaks talk criticizing people who wait to get married or delay having children.

I think the quote probably was critical of folks who chose not to have children for reasons he felt are selfish. In most talks I have heard or read on the subject it was human selfishness that concerned the Brethren more than there not be X number of future tithe payers in our various nurseries in Zion.

It is my opinion that there are attitudes and habits developed that are Godlike when one is in a larger family. I can see definite benefits with respect to selfishness, the ability to compromise and hard work. But I am touched with those who take a global perspective.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that much of the LDS people who believe there is a commandment to reproduce like rabbits do so for more cultural reasons than spiritual. Especially in the light that the LDS people were an agrarian people for so long. Leonard Arrington's first historical study on LDS people was a study on the Sugarbeet market in Southern Idaho, more western than eastern as the LDS did not have a veritable hegemony in SW Idaho, and how the mormons were able to conquer the market because of their large famalies. The non-LDS farming famalies did not have similar family size and had to hire migrant farmworkers for the labor intensive raising of beets.

Personally, I wanted a large family (5 or so kids) but I will be happy to settle with what appears to be my litter of 4. I like kids and my wife is not overwhelmed so it doesn't tax us financially or emotionally. I don't believe that there is this finite spititual number and we mormons need to bring them into our home to save them from eternal damnation. I do it because I have a long term American perspective and as a patriot I am trying to save social security. My wife and I were in our 30's before we had any kids and there were many questions asked about why we did not have children. It never really bothered us and I didn't think folks were judgemental about it, I think most were just interested in why we didn't have children when in their perspective having kids is what devout, as we appeared, mormons do.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I do it because I have a long term American perspective and as a patriot I am trying to save social security.

Damn straight. All these folks complaining about large Mormon/Catholic/whatever families will be mighty happy when our kids are paying for their diaper change three times daily. Without them, the government will only be able to afford two a day.

Demographics my friends, demographics.

I'm raising four future SocSec contributers myself.

You're all welcome.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I've thought "multiply and replenish" referred to two distinct (and quite different) activities. I know legalese likes to use multiple words (typically with different roots, from French, Old English, Latin, etc.) to describe the same activity ("I hereby bequeath, devise and enfeoff.."). But I like to think the author of "multiply and replenish" was being more economical here, and wanted to emphasize two quite different, but equally important, activities.

The multiply part, with which we're all familiar and find quite enjoyable, comes relatively easy. The replenish part refers, I assume, to the clean-up required of us if we've done the multiply part effectively.

As the father of six, and as one who does his part to keep the average U.S. citizen's consumption of natural resources up around 46 times that of my counterpart in Chad, I do not live lightly upon the land. But I acknowledge I should. I'm really good at multiplying, though.

[SoonerCoug]

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a large, medium or small family. I never meant to suggest that our church leaders have anything but pure motivations for encouraging massive reproduction.

I'm just curious as to why large families are encouraged by many religions (whether God is behind the commandment or not).

It's easy to imagine that a powerful king or leader would be motivated to have his people multiply so as to increase his wealth and the influence of his dominion.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by BYUruss

Wow. At this point the husband would have to literally crawl into what is now assuredly a cavern to enjoy intercourse.

Either that or she is the world kegel exercise champion.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

I've thought "multiply and replenish" referred to two distinct (and quite different) activities. I know legalese likes to use multiple words (typically with different roots, from French, Old English, Latin, etc.) to describe the same activity ("I hereby bequeath, devise and enfeoff.."). But I like to think the author of "multiply and replenish" was being more economical here, and wanted to emphasize two quite different, but equally important, activities.

The multiply part, with which we're all familiar and find quite enjoyable, comes relatively easy. The replenish part refers, I assume, to the clean-up required of us if we've done the multiply part effectively.

As the father of six, and as one who does his part to keep the average U.S. citizen's consumption of natural resources up around 46 times that of my counterpart in Chad, I do not live lightly upon the land. But I acknowledge I should. I'm really good at multiplying, though.

You are welcome here. One might even see a reference to bodacious ta-tas...sadly there are no comparisons to how the footlong hotdogs make Flanders "uhhhhh uncomfortable."

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a large, medium or small family. I never meant to suggest that our church leaders have anything but pure motivations for encouraging massive reproduction.

I'm just curious as to why large families are encouraged by many religions (whether God is behind the commandment or not).

It's easy to imagine that a powerful king or leader would be motivated to have his people multiply so as to increase his wealth and the influence of his dominion.

My opinion is that it is because large families can help to devolop Godlike attributes.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

My opinion is that it is because large families can help to devolop Godlike attributes.

I guess I'm doubting whether that's necessarily true. I'm sure it's true sometimes, but I also think small families could allow more interactions with parents, which also could help (assuming the parents are good at their job).

Big families can be good or bad, just like small families.

Is there data to suggest that fewer criminals arise from big families?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I guess I'm doubting whether that's necessarily true. I'm sure it's true sometimes, but I also think small families could allow more interactions with parents, which also could help (assuming the parents are good at their job).

Big families can be good or bad, just like small families.

Is there data to suggest that fewer criminals arise from big families (compared to noncriminals in the general population)?

My opinion is based upon nothing but my anecdotal experiences.

Finally, I am not convinced that LDS doctrine has been for large families, I think LDS culture has been. I do think that the Brethren speak out against reasons they feel are selfish that causes LDS people to not have children but it is not a function of not having X number of kids.