The effort to brainwash against making babies.

[Benjamin_LK]

While we're thinking of the societal pressures, let's not forget about economic pressures as well. Families just plain aren't going to have a large family if they aren't doing well financially.

Part of the financial pressures involve personal choice too. I look around at society at large right now and think, wow, society at large has really changed what it has defined as "needs" for children. In my family growing up, I wasn't a member of the church until my teens, and even then, we had five kids, the three boys in one room, the three girls in another. Yes, kids shared rooms, in a non-LDS family back in the 1980s and early 1990s, before having a room to yourself, well, you had to be the younger kids, and have the older ones outgrow living at home. My family also didn't have a video game console growing up either. That being said, we still had fun as kids, playing sports, camping, building forts outside, and a whole lot of fun stuff, I look at society now and think, "Wow, kids these days have "needs" I would call a luxury now. FWIW, my wife and myself wouldn't mind having a family with similar conditions for the children. Again, there's a lot of decisions to be made, but I think most people could be surprised at what could be possible in terms of spending on the kids, yet still raising them fairly happy.

[Benjamin_LK]

While we're thinking of the societal pressures, let's not forget about economic pressures as well. Families just plain aren't going to have a large family if they aren't doing well financially.

It depends on what one considers necessities and what one considers priorities. Better to have six children in a four bedroom house in which every room has two people than have three kids in which each has their own room. In the end the children will appreciate their additional three siblings than having that big bedroom when growing up.

And if the pension systems collapse then the parents will be in far better shape. At least then they aren't such a burden on just a few kids.

Then again if someone has no kids then there is no guarantee they won't be put to sleep by the government once they are unable to do their fair share of work.

I agree on the kids sharing the bedroom part. In fact, that's part of my story as my post above this one points out.

[Rose Garden]

While we're thinking of the societal pressures, let's not forget about economic pressures as well. Families just plain aren't going to have a large family if they aren't doing well financially.

Part of the financial pressures involve personal choice too. I look around at society at large right now and think, wow, society at large has really changed what it has defined as "needs" for children. In my family growing up, I wasn't a member of the church until my teens, and even then, we had five kids, the three boys in one room, the three girls in another. Yes, kids shared rooms, in a non-LDS family back in the 1980s and early 1990s, before having a room to yourself, well, you had to be the younger kids, and have the older ones outgrow living at home. My family also didn't have a video game console growing up either. That being said, we still had fun as kids, playing sports, camping, building forts outside, and a whole lot of fun stuff, I look at society now and think, "Wow, kids these days have "needs" I would call a luxury now. FWIW, my wife and myself wouldn't mind having a family with similar conditions for the children. Again, there's a lot of decisions to be made, but I think most people could be surprised at what could be possible in terms of spending on the kids, yet still raising them fairly happy.

My kids prefer to share their room. We have five kids in a three bedroom apartment. I have the two littlest in the master bedroom and the three others in one other bedroom. Kicking the little ones out of our room is just sad because they hate it and separating the three oldest is stressful because they hate it--at least the one who's stuck sleeping alone hates it. So we have a master bedroom, a bedroom, and a playroom. It works great.

[JohnnyL]

I have said before that one of the main goals of the "green" agenda is to stop people from having babies, as they represent a threat to the earth, in their opinion. If you align yourself with a party or organization that is complicit with that agenda, I would double check your answers to the temple recommend questions, and make changes so as to no longer be affiliated.

By principle, that would also make no Republicans or Democrats...

[Chu]

Yes, there's an element of personal choice, but what I was trying to talk about is families in real poverty, where they are limited by how many children they can afford to feed/take care of properly/etc. It's so easy to blame small families on the parents being lazy and wanting "luxuries," but we shouldn't be so quick to judge. There are several things that go toward deciding the number of children to have, and this is why I think Handbook 2 includes this segment:

The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

[vaquero]

I have said before that one of the main goals of the "green" agenda is to stop people from having babies, as they represent a threat to the earth, in their opinion.

You are absolutely correct on this point. Unfortunately, their efforts are so pervasive that they have tainted the Church.

A couple of years ago, prior to the Copenhagen conference on global warming, there was an orchestrated effort to draw attention to it with a dimming of lights worldwide--the Eiffel Tower, Parliament, major buildings in cities worldwide, etc. In connection with that event, the Temple department sent a memo out instructing temples to likewise dim their lights.

Again, if the church can make a symbolic gesture to dim the lights, yet encourage their members to be both energy efficient and have kids, well, wouldn't that be a plus?

What was the "symbolic gesture" inherent in the dimming of lights? I submit it was far from encouraging efficient energy use. Consider the words of the event's organizers.

The World Wildlife Fund was the organizer of the event. According to their website, the purpose was one of

"sending a message that the US must act now to slow climate change. This
is a critical year in the future of our planet as Congress takes a
serious look at climate legislation and international agreements
are set to be negotiated in Copenhagen in December 2009."
http://www.worldwildlife.org/sites/earthhour/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does the Church acquiesce in the notion that strong government action is needed? Is the Church tacitly sending a message that there is a serious issue of man-caused, global warming? If not, why did it participate in the politically orchestrated event?

As it relates to this thread, the WWF has been at the forefront of the population control movement--which is inextricably linked with the global warming movement. WWF's Director of Conservation stated,

"Malthus has been vindicated, reality is finally catching up with
Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess,
and there’s no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing
population. Our philosophy is: back to the village."

WWF's UK director, Sir Peter Scott, has argued,

"If we look at things causally, the bigger problem in the world
is population. We must set a ceiling to human numbers. All
development aid should be made dependent on the existence of
strong family planning programs."

Significantly, the Temple Department has not participated in Earth Day events subsequent to 2009. I would imagine that someone was called onto the carpet for the 2009 mandate which, again, was about far more than simple good stewardship and wise use of resources.

[Fiannan]

I would say that the Church dimming the lights was more a sign of naivity than wanting to connect to the goals of the environmental extremists. I would liken it to seeing rainbow banners during the Winter Olympics in Utah. I doubt the organizers who put these up were aware of the connection to the gay rights movement at that time.

[vaquero]

I would say that the Church dimming the lights was more a sign of naivity than wanting to connect to the goals of the environmental extremists.

Agreed, as suggested by no further participation in earth day since the unfortunate event in 2009.

[AGStacker]

The idea of delaying bringing children to this world after marriage to "enjoy life" has, unfortunately, wedged itself into the minds of many Latter-Day Saints. Many of my friends have this mentality and it is sad to see that they are delaying such an important work. The Lord will bless you if you put faith in Him and His revealed word. When my wife and I got engaged, I was unemployed. I desperately tried to find work, but it seemed like no company wanted me. We wanted a job so that we could have insurance because we knew that as soon as we were married we would begin trying to have children. I finally got work and started the first business day after we got married. The Lord could have given me the job a month before the marriage, but he didn't. I like to think that He was testing us to see if we would really put His Gospel before everything else. Several months have passed since then and our little Michael Enoch will be here in April. Words cannot express the wonderful feeling of knowing that I am now a father and will have the responsibility of helping my wife raise our child in a couple of months. It is a very humbling thought. I feel sorry for my married friends that are delaying this because they are really missing out on a whole bunch of blessings.

My wife and I waited exactly 1 year even though I told her we could start on our wedding day. In fact, the one and only time she could have gotten pregnant, baby roulette, she did! Haha!

Even though I told her we could conceive right away I still felt inadequate because her and I started off with too much debt but we've been diligent and blessed in paying most of it off. We also were lucky to buy a home in November 2011 when home prices bottomed.(for now) Our baby will be here in August.

I had a dream that I was with someone who reminded/looked like my younger brother yet knew the person to be my son. We were walking and talking at night with a starry, starry sky. So I say it is a boy. I can't wait for the feeling of being a father. :ymparty:

[Benjamin_LK]

Yes, there's an element of personal choice, but what I was trying to talk about is families in real poverty, where they are limited by how many children they can afford to feed/take care of properly/etc. It's so easy to blame small families on the parents being lazy and wanting "luxuries," but we shouldn't be so quick to judge. There are several things that go toward deciding the number of children to have, and this is why I think Handbook 2 includes this segment:

The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Again, there's no denying that real poverty can happen. I myself am married, and in the lower middle class, but I am interested in discussing ways to be effective, and some ideas that some people may have. I am no fan of going beyond my means, but I am interested in knowing ways where despite the fact that my income (as a retail employee) can still be spent well and useful for providing a good upbringing for my kids. Yes, it's not an ideal situation my wife and myself live in, and my work is now well below what my education technically can offer me, but I am here to discuss and figure things out a little. I don't think every kid needs: Their own bedroom, their own cell phone, their own TV or computer in their own bedroom, and so on. There is a wide ranging possibility of various decisions, and conditions like infertility that couples can experience, but I am talking about some things that people can do despite not being super-rich to still support children, if they so choose.

[Benjamin_LK]

I would say that the Church dimming the lights was more a sign of naivity than wanting to connect to the goals of the environmental extremists. I would liken it to seeing rainbow banners during the Winter Olympics in Utah. I doubt the organizers who put these up were aware of the connection to the gay rights movement at that time.

There was also the case of the 2008 "Green Meetinghouse", which despite paranoia to the contrary, never ended up amounting to all churches being applied to, sadly enough, again, the bishop of the Ward mentioned that having such a meetinghouse would be a good idea, for the building being able to potentially have the capacity to operate despite power grid failures, or also perhaps a template to provide a means for meetinghouses to operate in third-world countries. Again, while there is hype out there, don't let it get too attached to the fear of the Global Warming Armageddon, but take some thought about other possibilities too.

As for the other event I remember sparking some fear was when Al Gore met with church leaders right before what I believe was the 2008 October General Conference, not a word mentioned clearly about Climate Change. Again, I feel some people get too hyped up about some occurrences. I am pretty sure the Elders of the Church are more concerned with the things of the Spirit, because only the power of God is the real source of what spares us against the awful calamities (storms, earthquakes, volcanoes,nuclear holocaust) that precede the Second Coming), much less gives us the strength and power to keep following the Church through all that will happen, moreso than conservation practices alone.

[Fiannan]

You know, if Bandura's social learning theory is as powerful as the link I posted suggests then it is imperative that LDS support each other in the living above the norm and raising traditional families.

[Chu]

Again, there's no denying that real poverty can happen. I myself am married, and in the lower middle class, but I am interested in discussing ways to be effective, and some ideas that some people may have. I am no fan of going beyond my means, but I am interested in knowing ways where despite the fact that my income (as a retail employee) can still be spent well and useful for providing a good upbringing for my kids. Yes, it's not an ideal situation my wife and myself live in, and my work is now well below what my education technically can offer me, but I am here to discuss and figure things out a little. I don't think every kid needs: Their own bedroom, their own cell phone, their own TV or computer in their own bedroom, and so on. There is a wide ranging possibility of various decisions, and conditions like infertility that couples can experience, but I am talking about some things that people can do despite not being super-rich to still support children, if they so choose.

I don't disagree with that, but we need to be careful. When our thinking turns outward and decides that those families who don't have a large number of children are lazy, unrighteous/apostate, or only wanting luxuries, that's when we fall into the trap of pride and go against Church teachings.

[Benjamin_LK]

Again, there's no denying that real poverty can happen. I myself am married, and in the lower middle class, but I am interested in discussing ways to be effective, and some ideas that some people may have. I am no fan of going beyond my means, but I am interested in knowing ways where despite the fact that my income (as a retail employee) can still be spent well and useful for providing a good upbringing for my kids. Yes, it's not an ideal situation my wife and myself live in, and my work is now well below what my education technically can offer me, but I am here to discuss and figure things out a little. I don't think every kid needs: Their own bedroom, their own cell phone, their own TV or computer in their own bedroom, and so on. There is a wide ranging possibility of various decisions, and conditions like infertility that couples can experience, but I am talking about some things that people can do despite not being super-rich to still support children, if they so choose.

I don't disagree with that, but we need to be careful. When our thinking turns outward and decides that those families who don't have a large number of children are lazy, unrighteous/apostate, or only wanting luxuries, that's when we fall into the trap of pride and go against Church teachings.

Again, I make no such assumption. I never said that. I understand exceptions quite well, it's a matter of one 1) The parents' business, and 2) Their faith.

Any tolerable person wouldn't mind or see my families decisions and interests as detracting from their own. Again, I have no apologies for my own observation, that it really is often portrayed as comparably luxurious to keep kids happy. I don't know why anyone needs to take offense at finding a cheaper, yet effective way, to say get some toys for the kids, or have the kids share a room, is asking everyone else to have a ton of them.

[Chu]

My comment wasn't aimed at you specifically (and I've never taken offense at anything you've said, I'm not sure why you're saying that), but was just a general warning against concluding that parents with small families are unrighteous or don't have enough/any faith.

[bbsion]

I grew up with a lot of brothers and sisters. As a result, I shared a room the majority of my childhood with my younger brother and my brother just older than me. Because of that and many other circumstances they are my best friends as well as my brothers. We didnt have a lot of money growing up but we were happy. I am so glad I have more memories with my brothers and sisters than with worldly toys.

Because of this I want a lot of kids. Me and my wife were married a little over 4 years ago when I was 21 and working at McDonalds. She was pregnant 2 weeks afterward. We have a 3 year old girl and a little boy just over 1. We are planning to try for another baby this summer. I have always told myself I would not let money tell me how many kids I was going to have... but I gotta tell ya, lately I feel my faith has been shaken. I am scared to try for a 3rd kid and that is because I dont make a lot of money.

Still, the mindset of a lot of LDS members my age is the same. Get a degree and a career before you start having kids. This can take years. I simply disagree with this. A lot of my friends are married (and have been for a few years) and do not have kids and they are from 25 to 30. Children are a blessing, not a burden.

[Benjamin_LK]

My comment wasn't aimed at you specifically (and I've never taken offense at anything you've said, I'm not sure why you're saying that), but was just a general warning against concluding that parents with small families are unrighteous or don't have enough/any faith.

Fair enough

[Fiannan]

Still, the mindset of a lot of LDS members my age is the same. Get a degree and a career before you start having kids. This can take years. I simply disagree with this. A lot of my friends are married (and have been for a few years) and do not have kids and they are from 25 to 30. Children are a blessing, not a burden.

Of course the LDS ideal of the woman having a degree but staying at home while the kids are young will remain for a long time. Males will be expected to be the principle money-earners. This being the case we need to get past the societal norm in LDS culture that looks down on people unless they marry those of their own age range.

I would propose the new ideal would be for males in their late 20s who are on their way to establishing themselves strive to marry women who are still in college, maybe 21 or 22. The age difference of 7 years should be the new ideal. It allows a man some time to get going and keeps in mind a woman's biological clock.

I still foresee the Church in 20 years having a huge number of women in heir 40s without kids. This will be because many young men will never have jobs that young women in the Church expect so they may never marry, or they may seek wives in the outside world where women are more likely to work as well. And I still expect that most LDS girls are so caught up in following the norm (check Bandura's Social Learning Theory) that even when they are still single at 28 or 30, and a single LDS male in his 40s or 50s takes notice, she will opt to ignore his attraction. And I doubt the Church will change its policy on single women being artificially inseminated for at least another 20 years so be prepared for a huge decrease in young members as well as a decline in missionaries after this artificial bump caused by the new announcement regarding female missionaries subsides.

[Benjamin_LK]

Still, the mindset of a lot of LDS members my age is the same. Get a degree and a career before you start having kids. This can take years. I simply disagree with this. A lot of my friends are married (and have been for a few years) and do not have kids and they are from 25 to 30. Children are a blessing, not a burden.

Of course the LDS ideal of the woman having a degree but staying at home while the kids are young will remain for a long time. Males will be expected to be the principle money-earners. This being the case we need to get past the societal norm in LDS culture that looks down on people unless they marry those of their own age range.

I would propose the new ideal would be for males in their late 20s who are on their way to establishing themselves strive to marry women who are still in college, maybe 21 or 22. The age difference of 7 years should be the new ideal. It allows a man some time to get going and keeps in mind a woman's biological clock.

I still foresee the Church in 20 years having a huge number of women in heir 40s without kids. This will be because many young men will never have jobs that young women in the Church expect so they may never marry, or they may seek wives in the outside world where women are more likely to work as well. And I still expect that most LDS girls are so caught up in following the norm (check Bandura's Social Learning Theory) that even when they are still single at 28 or 30, and a single LDS male in his 40s or 50s takes notice, she will opt to ignore his attraction. And I doubt the Church will change its policy on single women being artificially inseminated for at least another 20 years so be prepared for a huge decrease in young members as well as a decline in missionaries after this artificial bump caused by the new announcement regarding female missionaries subsides.

When I first married, my wife was the principle worker in the relationship. However, I will say that I pushed, and she pushed, for me to really change that around, and we did. I think the problem there was the fact that I was employed to something that was certainly less than ideal or desirable given my educational accomplishments, but believe me, it's doable. It's also perhaps more common than you may think in the church where for some period of time, the woman is earning more than the man for a while. My wife and I decided to discard the artificial, cultural, morally-empty red tape regarding povertyand age and move on, just get married, and start having the children responsibly.

As far as the church goes, well, we on average breed a little more than those who aren't of us, so while the rest of society depopulates, we just won't depopulate as fast.

[Fiannan]

A very informative interview exposing the agenda of the population control movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz3ZJAxf ... Lg&index=4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;