"The End of High Fertility is Near"

[Michelle]

Which is also the EXACT wording in regards to surgical sterilization - "The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control." Note, it does not say it is a sin. It does not say it is always wrong. EXACT same wording. That's what I meant by you can't have it both ways, which should have been obvious. It does not say sterilization is a sin any more than it says artificial insemination is a sin.

The Church is giving suggestions. Perhaps getting snipped is not a sin but something the Church might say you should avoid.
That's what I'm saying. The Church's suggestions for sterilization are the EXACT same suggestions for artificial insemination (except in the case of singe women getting inseminated - they will be brought up for Church discipline). The Church doesn't say either sterilization or artificial insemination (for married couples using the husband's sperm) is a sin - and they say BOTH are to be avoided.

Lots of couples change their mind - sterilization takes the choice away.
Not always. We know two couples who changed their minds a few years after the husband had had a vasectomy. They both went back in and had it reversed and they had additional children. The reversal doesn't always work, however, so it is definitely a risk and one that should be considered very thoroughly by husband and wife.

Also, a man might lose his wife in an accident, due to disease or she might leave him. If he is sterile his choices, and those of a woman who might fall in love with him later, are limited.
That is why I do not believe a man should ever have a vasectomy. If a couple has decided that, for whatever reason(s) they need to be done having children, the wife should have a tubal ligation rather than the husband having a vasectomy. The wife is the one who goes through all the physical experiences of pregnancy, birth, nursing, etc. so if her body cannot do that anymore, and especially if it would literally kill her to do so (making her existing children motherless - a wicked and cruel thing for anyone to suggest is a "good" thing), then she should go through the sterilization, not the husband, IMO.

I suppose if one's priority is to create families then any sort of sterilization, if one is healthy, is avoidance.
Agreed.

It's much easier for a man to get a vasectomy than it is a woman to get her tubes tied. Its a few weeks recovery and a long weekend for him.
Oh and if he can't have more kids if I die, it's an added bonus.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

'Oh and if he can't have more kids if I die, it's an added bonus."

This statement in particular caused a jolt to go through me. I don't think we are going to find common ground if those are your feelings.

[LadyT]

The Church is giving suggestions. Perhaps getting snipped is not a sin but something the Church might say you should avoid.
That's what I'm saying. The Church's suggestions for sterilization are the EXACT same suggestions for artificial insemination (except in the case of singe women getting inseminated - they will be brought up for Church discipline). The Church doesn't say either sterilization or artificial insemination (for married couples using the husband's sperm) is a sin - and they say BOTH are to be avoided.

Lots of couples change their mind - sterilization takes the choice away.
Not always. We know two couples who changed their minds a few years after the husband had had a vasectomy. They both went back in and had it reversed and they had additional children. The reversal doesn't always work, however, so it is definitely a risk and one that should be considered very thoroughly by husband and wife.

Also, a man might lose his wife in an accident, due to disease or she might leave him. If he is sterile his choices, and those of a woman who might fall in love with him later, are limited.
That is why I do not believe a man should ever have a vasectomy. If a couple has decided that, for whatever reason(s) they need to be done having children, the wife should have a tubal ligation rather than the husband having a vasectomy. The wife is the one who goes through all the physical experiences of pregnancy, birth, nursing, etc. so if her body cannot do that anymore, and especially if it would literally kill her to do so (making her existing children motherless - a wicked and cruel thing for anyone to suggest is a "good" thing), then she should go through the sterilization, not the husband, IMO.

I suppose if one's priority is to create families then any sort of sterilization, if one is healthy, is avoidance.
Agreed.

It's much easier for a man to get a vasectomy than it is a woman to get her tubes tied. Its a few weeks recovery and a long weekend for him.
Oh and if he can't have more kids if I die, it's an added bonus.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

'Oh and if he can't have more kids if I die, it's an added bonus."

This statement in particular caused a jolt to go through me. I don't think we are going to find common ground if those are your feelings.

He knew that when he married me. I didn't want my kids to have half siblings. We talked about it while dating. We covered lots of things. He also agreed to not be sealed to another woman if I die before him. It's my own personalil beliefs and he could have walked if he didn't like them. He agreed with me and promised me that he wouldn't.

I know many people won't agree with me. That's okay. They don't need too.

[Michelle]

It's much easier for a man to get a vasectomy than it is a woman to get her tubes tied. Its a few weeks recovery and a long weekend for him.
Oh and if he can't have more kids if I die, it's an added bonus.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

'Oh and if he can't have more kids if I die, it's an added bonus."

This statement in particular caused a jolt to go through me. I don't think we are going to find common ground if those are your feelings.

He knew that when he married me. I didn't want my kids to have half siblings. We talked about it while dating. We covered lots of things. He also agreed to not be sealed to another woman if I die before him. It's my own personalil beliefs and he could have walked if he didn't like them. He agreed with me and promised me that he wouldn't.

I know many people won't agree with me. That's okay. They don't need too.

That actually makes me feel better. I am glad he got to choose for himself.

[EmmaLee]

That's what I'm saying. The Church's suggestions for sterilization are the EXACT same suggestions for artificial insemination (except in the case of singe women getting inseminated - they will be brought up for Church discipline). The Church doesn't say either sterilization or artificial insemination (for married couples using the husband's sperm) is a sin - and they say BOTH are to be avoided.

First, have you ever heard of a woman going in for AI getting disciplined? I imagine you would read about it on the front pages of the mainstream media real fast.
Honestly, Fiannan, I don't know what church you attend, but it's vastly different than the church I attend. I do not know of any SINGLE LDS woman who has ever gotten artificial insemination. And that's what we're talking about here, as far as the Church disciplining for artifical insemination. I've said this several times already, so not sure why you keep bringing it up. It's plain and simple, but I'll do it one more time (or you can just re-read the many comments which include the CHI information). The Church strongly advises against MARRIED couples using any other sperm besides the husband's for artificial insemination. The Church will bring SINGLE women up for discipline if they are artificially inseminated. And I would hope the Church would discipline any SINGLE woman who did this, as it is directly contrary to the Family Proclamation.

And the Church does not say that using sperm other than the husband's or an egg other than the wife's is a sin either. They actually don't say a single woman is sinning, in the conventional sense of the word, only that they are subject to Church discipline. The word "sin" is not used.
Please quote me where I said any of this was a "sin". You cannot, because I have not, so please stop with these inane "sin" comments, and stop putting words in my mouth. I will repeat for about the 4th or 5th time now - the Church says BOTH artificial insemination (other than using the husband's sperm), and artificial insemination for SINGLE women, are strongly advised against - the EXACT same wording the Church uses in regards to sterilization. The Church also states that SINGLE women who get artificially inseminated will be brought up for Church discipline. THAT is what the Church says. I have never said any of this was a sin, neither has the Church. But only pure sophistry will let you slide by the obvious implications. But you know that.

[EmmaLee]

Which is also the EXACT wording in regards to surgical sterilization - "The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control." Note, it does not say it is a sin. It does not say it is always wrong. EXACT same wording. That's what I meant by you can't have it both ways, which should have been obvious. It does not say sterilization is a sin any more than it says artificial insemination is a sin.

The Church is giving suggestions. Perhaps getting snipped is not a sin but something the Church might say you should avoid.
That's what I'm saying. The Church's suggestions for sterilization are the EXACT same suggestions for artificial insemination (except in the case of singe women getting inseminated - they will be brought up for Church discipline). The Church doesn't say either sterilization or artificial insemination (for married couples using the husband's sperm) is a sin - and they say BOTH are to be avoided.

Lots of couples change their mind - sterilization takes the choice away.
Not always. We know two couples who changed their minds a few years after the husband had had a vasectomy. They both went back in and had it reversed and they had additional children. The reversal doesn't always work, however, so it is definitely a risk and one that should be considered very thoroughly by husband and wife.

Also, a man might lose his wife in an accident, due to disease or she might leave him. If he is sterile his choices, and those of a woman who might fall in love with him later, are limited.
That is why I do not believe a man should ever have a vasectomy. If a couple has decided that, for whatever reason(s) they need to be done having children, the wife should have a tubal ligation rather than the husband having a vasectomy. The wife is the one who goes through all the physical experiences of pregnancy, birth, nursing, etc. so if her body cannot do that anymore, and especially if it would literally kill her to do so (making her existing children motherless - a wicked and cruel thing for anyone to suggest is a "good" thing), then she should go through the sterilization, not the husband, IMO.

I suppose if one's priority is to create families then any sort of sterilization, if one is healthy, is avoidance.
Agreed.

It's much easier for a man to get a vasectomy than it is a woman to get her tubes tied. Its a few weeks recovery and a long weekend for him.
No, it's not. A tubal ligation today is an out-patient procedure - you go home one hour after you wake up - and recovery is 48 hours, tops (unless there are complications, which I've never heard of in the dozen or so cases I'm personally aware of).

[Fiannan]

I didn't want my kids to have half siblings.

Siblings are like being an American. You are either an American, or you aren't. No such thing as half.

[LadyT]

The Church is giving suggestions. Perhaps getting snipped is not a sin but something the Church might say you should avoid.
That's what I'm saying. The Church's suggestions for sterilization are the EXACT same suggestions for artificial insemination (except in the case of singe women getting inseminated - they will be brought up for Church discipline). The Church doesn't say either sterilization or artificial insemination (for married couples using the husband's sperm) is a sin - and they say BOTH are to be avoided.

Lots of couples change their mind - sterilization takes the choice away.
Not always. We know two couples who changed their minds a few years after the husband had had a vasectomy. They both went back in and had it reversed and they had additional children. The reversal doesn't always work, however, so it is definitely a risk and one that should be considered very thoroughly by husband and wife.

Also, a man might lose his wife in an accident, due to disease or she might leave him. If he is sterile his choices, and those of a woman who might fall in love with him later, are limited.
That is why I do not believe a man should ever have a vasectomy. If a couple has decided that, for whatever reason(s) they need to be done having children, the wife should have a tubal ligation rather than the husband having a vasectomy. The wife is the one who goes through all the physical experiences of pregnancy, birth, nursing, etc. so if her body cannot do that anymore, and especially if it would literally kill her to do so (making her existing children motherless - a wicked and cruel thing for anyone to suggest is a "good" thing), then she should go through the sterilization, not the husband, IMO.

I suppose if one's priority is to create families then any sort of sterilization, if one is healthy, is avoidance.
Agreed.

It's much easier for a man to get a vasectomy than it is a woman to get her tubes tied. Its a few weeks recovery and a long weekend for him.
No, it's not. A tubal ligation today is an out-patient procedure - you go home one hour after you wake up - and recovery is 48 hours, tops (unless there are complications, which I've never heard of in the dozen or so cases I'm personally aware of).

My ob said that I would be out for 2 weeks. I would not be able to hold my baby or my toddler during that time. I should not drive or do housework during that time. This was 2 years ago. My sil was told the same thing in December.

[LadyT]

I didn't want my kids to have half siblings.

Siblings are like being an American. You are either an American, or you aren't. No such thing as half.

disagree. My friends who had half siblings never felt like they were siblings. I have seen it with lots of kids. They talked about how lucky I was that all my siblings were my full siblings.
My niece feels like she doesn't fit in with her mom's kids or her dad's kids. She says she wishes she had a full sibling.

[EmmaLee]

It's much easier for a man to get a vasectomy than it is a woman to get her tubes tied. Its a few weeks recovery and a long weekend for him.
No, it's not. A tubal ligation today is an out-patient procedure - you go home one hour after you wake up - and recovery is 48 hours, tops (unless there are complications, which I've never heard of in the dozen or so cases I'm personally aware of).

My ob said that I would be out for 2 weeks. I would not be able to hold my baby or my toddler during that time. I should not drive or do housework during that time. This was 2 years ago. My sil was told the same thing in December.

That's wild. Your OB doesn't seem very knowledgeable on the subject. My experience is completely the opposite. We're not talking about a hysterectomy here - just a tubal, which is done via laparoscopy, is out-patient (you don't even have to go under for it, just a local), with very little recovery time. You don't even have a scar, as they go in through your belly-button - and the stitches dissolve inside of you.

Per the Johns Hopkins website - "It's usually done in the hospital or in an outpatient surgical clinic. In most cases, you will be able to go home on the day of surgery. You may have this surgery done under general anesthesia (being asleep), or local or spinal anesthesia (anesthesia that leaves you awake, but unable to feel pain).
Post surgery - Gradually resume normal activities in a few days. You may be able to return to sexual activity in about 1 week."

[mtm411]

I was told the same as Lady T. If it's done at the same time as a C-section, it's easier. It might be laproscopic surgery, but it's classified as major surgery still.

The man can go back to work the next day after a vasectomy.

It's much easier for a man to get a vasectomy than it is a woman to get her tubes tied. Its a few weeks recovery and a long weekend for him.
No, it's not. A tubal ligation today is an out-patient procedure - you go home one hour after you wake up - and recovery is 48 hours, tops (unless there are complications, which I've never heard of in the dozen or so cases I'm personally aware of).

My ob said that I would be out for 2 weeks. I would not be able to hold my baby or my toddler during that time. I should not drive or do housework during that time. This was 2 years ago. My sil was told the same thing in December.

[EmmaLee]

Except it's not classified as major surgery - it's outpatient, minor surgery. I know several women (personal friends, nieces, sisters) that have had it done, been with them after, etc. I was in more pain after getting a tooth pulled than they were after the ligation. Those who had jobs went back to work the next Monday after having it done the Friday before. Maybe there are other reasons why you and LadyT were given other information than is commonly given to women (obesity, diabetes, other personal health reasons? I don't know).

Mayo Clinic - Tubal ligation can be done:
Following a vaginal birth using a small incision under the belly button (mini-laparotomy)
During a C-section
Anytime as an outpatient procedure using a laparoscope and short-acting general anesthesia (interval tubal ligation)
You may be allowed to go home several hours after an interval tubal ligation. Having a tubal ligation immediately following childbirth doesn't usually involve a longer hospital stay.

No need to argue about it though. There are just as many risks for men who have vasectomies. But to each their own.

I was told the same as Lady T. If it's done at the same time as a C-section, it's easier. It might be laproscopic surgery, but it's classified as major surgery still.

The man can go back to work the next day after a vasectomy.

It's much easier for a man to get a vasectomy than it is a woman to get her tubes tied. Its a few weeks recovery and a long weekend for him.
No, it's not. A tubal ligation today is an out-patient procedure - you go home one hour after you wake up - and recovery is 48 hours, tops (unless there are complications, which I've never heard of in the dozen or so cases I'm personally aware of).

My ob said that I would be out for 2 weeks. I would not be able to hold my baby or my toddler during that time. I should not drive or do housework during that time. This was 2 years ago. My sil was told the same thing in December.

[mtm411]

https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/ ... -1.2687004

I am not meaning to argue, either. This article fits more in line with what I heard. My husband and I aren't super comfortable getting permanent sterilization because more reversible options work so well for us, but after birthing 6 children and what my body has been through, I would think it was his turn to go for a vasectomy. Strangely, though, Obamacare makes insurance pay 100% for tubal ligation, but you have to pay for your own vasectomy.

I am with you on not wanting your spouse to have more kids after you die. Maybe if we were younger and only had one or two together, but I have seen way too many first family kids get brushed aside in favor of the step-mother or step-father's biological offspring. Biblically, half siblings were usually at war with each other during childhood. Human nature hasn't changed that much.

[LadyT]

It's much easier for a man to get a vasectomy than it is a woman to get her tubes tied. Its a few weeks recovery and a long weekend for him.
No, it's not. A tubal ligation today is an out-patient procedure - you go home one hour after you wake up - and recovery is 48 hours, tops (unless there are complications, which I've never heard of in the dozen or so cases I'm personally aware of).

My ob said that I would be out for 2 weeks. I would not be able to hold my baby or my toddler during that time. I should not drive or do housework during that time. This was 2 years ago. My sil was told the same thing in December.

That's wild. Your OB doesn't seem very knowledgeable on the subject. My experience is completely the opposite. We're not talking about a hysterectomy here - just a tubal, which is done via laparoscopy, is out-patient (you don't even have to go under for it, just a local), with very little recovery time. You don't even have a scar, as they go in through your belly-button - and the stitches dissolve inside of you.

Per the Johns Hopkins website - "It's usually done in the hospital or in an outpatient surgical clinic. In most cases, you will be able to go home on the day of surgery. You may have this surgery done under general anesthesia (being asleep), or local or spinal anesthesia (anesthesia that leaves you awake, but unable to feel pain).
Post surgery - Gradually resume normal activities in a few days. You may be able to return to sexual activity in about 1 week."

She is a high risk ob at a very well known hospital here. I am sure she knows what she is talking about.

[EmmaLee]

"High" fertility is very common in my ward, but we live in a very young ward where most of the couples are under 40. There are many, many families in our ward who have 6+ children, so I'm wondering where those who are saying nobody is having more than 2 kids are living? Our Primary is huge, and we're needing to add on to the nursery room, as it cannot contain all the under 3's. After reading this thread, I've been trying to think of anyone (LDS) I know who has stopped having children because they wanted to spend more money on toys or expensive trips, etc. and I legit cannot think of a single couple who has done this. Most of the couples in our ward have a baby every 18 months AND go on expensive trips, lol.

I know some women who stopped having kids because their uterus's were literally, physically falling out after their last child was born. I know some women who stopped having kids because they almost bled to death during their last childbirth and had to have emergency hysterectomies. I know several women who were never able to conceive in the first place (and a few that had one, but never could have another) - tried every test, every procedure that there is available, TONS of money spent out-of-pocket - still no success. Some of them have gone on nice trips (like to Hawaii), and I'm sure some Pharisees judge them as being wicked, not knowing the personal details of their struggles, but just assuming that since they don't have any kids, and since they went to Hawaii, that MUST mean that they don't WANT kids and spent that money on a trip instead of whatever the Pharisee thinks they should have spent it on - never mind that they have spent tens of thousands on fertility treatments for many years.

Truth is, however many kids you have, someone else has more kids than you - so that person must be more righteous than you. What a strange attitude. Makes about as much sense as the people at Church who believe the earlier you get up in the morning, the more righteous you are. And the people at Church who believe it's a sin for a female to cut her hair. And the people at Church who believe it's a sin to put garments into the dryer, that they have to be air-dried. And yes, these are all real beliefs of real people that I personally know in my ward - and yes, they condemn others who do not share in these beliefs (they're all from Utah, which must be a coincidence). My goodness. And people wonder why Zion hasn't been built??

[EmmaLee]

My ob said that I would be out for 2 weeks. I would not be able to hold my baby or my toddler during that time. I should not drive or do housework during that time. This was 2 years ago. My sil was told the same thing in December.

That's wild. Your OB doesn't seem very knowledgeable on the subject. My experience is completely the opposite. We're not talking about a hysterectomy here - just a tubal, which is done via laparoscopy, is out-patient (you don't even have to go under for it, just a local), with very little recovery time. You don't even have a scar, as they go in through your belly-button - and the stitches dissolve inside of you.

Per the Johns Hopkins website - "It's usually done in the hospital or in an outpatient surgical clinic. In most cases, you will be able to go home on the day of surgery. You may have this surgery done under general anesthesia (being asleep), or local or spinal anesthesia (anesthesia that leaves you awake, but unable to feel pain).
Post surgery - Gradually resume normal activities in a few days. You may be able to return to sexual activity in about 1 week."

She is a high risk ob at a very well known hospital here. I am sure she knows what she is talking about.

TL must be different there then, so it's probably best that you didn't have one. Here in the Midwest it's an out-patient, minor surgery, with a 2-4 day recovery time.

[mtm411]

I, honestly, feel a lot of judgement for having 6. There are a lot of LDS families who think we are doing our kids a disservice. I am not sure where you live, but even our relatives in Utah are stopping at just a couple. I had a young woman come up to me as I was her Sunday School teacher and tell me that 6 was too many and that we should stop. That she was never going to be a "breeder". This was a stake president's daughter. Our youth are growing up thinking that having babies is icky and beneath them.

There was a family who visited our ward who had 10 kids, and the youth were making gross jokes about them and laughing about it. I made them stop, and we moved on- but the judgement is headed the other way. It's always been like that in the world (since the 60's at least) but the attitude has infiltrated the church.

"High" fertility is very common in my ward, but we live in a very young ward where most of the couples are under 40. There are many, many families in our ward who have 6+ children, so I'm wondering where those who are saying nobody is having more than 2 kids are living? Our Primary is huge, and we're needing to add on to the nursery room, as it cannot contain all the under 3's. After reading this thread, I've been trying to think of anyone (LDS) I know who has stopped having children because they wanted to spend more money on toys or expensive trips, etc. and I legit cannot think of a single couple who has done this. Most of the couples in our ward have a baby every 18 months AND go on expensive trips, lol.

I know some women who stopped having kids because their uterus's were literally, physically falling out after their last child was born. I know some women who stopped having kids because they almost bled to death during their last childbirth and had to have emergency hysterectomies. I know several women who were never able to conceive in the first place (and a few that had one, but never could have another) - tried every test, every procedure that there is available, TONS of money spent out-of-pocket - still no success. Some of them have gone on nice trips (like to Hawaii), and I'm sure some Pharisees judge them as being wicked, not knowing the personal details of their struggles, but just assuming that since they don't have any kids, and since they went to Hawaii, that MUST mean that they don't WANT kids and spent that money on a trip instead of whatever the Pharisee thinks they should have spent it on - never mind that they have spent tens of thousands on fertility treatments for many years.

Truth is, however many kids you have, someone else has more kids than you - so that person must be more righteous than you. What a strange attitude. Makes about as much sense as the people at Church who believe the earlier you get up in the morning, the more righteous you are. And the people at Church who believe it's a sin for a female to cut her hair. And the people at Church who believe it's a sin to put garments into the dryer, that they have to be air-dried. And yes, these are all real beliefs of real people that I personally know in my ward - and yes, they condemn others who do not share in these beliefs (they're all from Utah, which must be a coincidence). My goodness. And people wonder why Zion hasn't been built??

[John Tavner]

I, honestly, feel a lot of judgement for having 6. There are a lot of LDS families who think we are doing our kids a disservice. I am not sure where you live, but even our relatives in Utah are stopping at just a couple. I had a young woman come up to me as I was her Sunday School teacher and tell me that 6 was too many and that we should stop. That she was never going to be a "breeder". This was a stake president's daughter. Our youth are growing up thinking that having babies is icky and beneath them.

There was a family who visited our ward who had 10 kids, and the youth were making gross jokes about them and laughing about it. I made them stop, and we moved on- but the judgement is headed the other way. It's always been like that in the world (since the 60's at least) but the attitude has infiltrated the church.

"High" fertility is very common in my ward, but we live in a very young ward where most of the couples are under 40. There are many, many families in our ward who have 6+ children, so I'm wondering where those who are saying nobody is having more than 2 kids are living? Our Primary is huge, and we're needing to add on to the nursery room, as it cannot contain all the under 3's. After reading this thread, I've been trying to think of anyone (LDS) I know who has stopped having children because they wanted to spend more money on toys or expensive trips, etc. and I legit cannot think of a single couple who has done this. Most of the couples in our ward have a baby every 18 months AND go on expensive trips, lol.

I know some women who stopped having kids because their uterus's were literally, physically falling out after their last child was born. I know some women who stopped having kids because they almost bled to death during their last childbirth and had to have emergency hysterectomies. I know several women who were never able to conceive in the first place (and a few that had one, but never could have another) - tried every test, every procedure that there is available, TONS of money spent out-of-pocket - still no success. Some of them have gone on nice trips (like to Hawaii), and I'm sure some Pharisees judge them as being wicked, not knowing the personal details of their struggles, but just assuming that since they don't have any kids, and since they went to Hawaii, that MUST mean that they don't WANT kids and spent that money on a trip instead of whatever the Pharisee thinks they should have spent it on - never mind that they have spent tens of thousands on fertility treatments for many years.

Truth is, however many kids you have, someone else has more kids than you - so that person must be more righteous than you. What a strange attitude. Makes about as much sense as the people at Church who believe the earlier you get up in the morning, the more righteous you are. And the people at Church who believe it's a sin for a female to cut her hair. And the people at Church who believe it's a sin to put garments into the dryer, that they have to be air-dried. And yes, these are all real beliefs of real people that I personally know in my ward - and yes, they condemn others who do not share in these beliefs (they're all from Utah, which must be a coincidence). My goodness. And people wonder why Zion hasn't been built??

That causes me to feel sad.

[EmmaLee]

That's sad! I'm sincerely sorry you have experienced that. It must be similar to how couples who have no, or very few, children feel when others in the Church judge them for the opposite and make hurtful, cutting comments. Seems Mormons just can't stop judging and condemning each other (yet some think we're "progressing" and the endowment changes are proof of that?? ).

I live in the Midwest, but most in our ward are transplants from Utah. I don't think I've ever heard someone in our ward make fun of big families, but I've heard nasty comments the other way (ex. "She ONLY has TWO kids" said with derision and superiority, much like what we see here on the forum - therefore, since the person saying it has three kids, that person is more righteous than the person with two kids). The moms of the big families in our ward brag constantly about how many kids they have - they wear it as a badge of honor (never mind that they themselves are some of the most catty, gossiping, two-faced people I've ever known) - it's their only claim to fame, as it were. They have no confidence (true confidence, that you can only get from being close to God), and I often wonder if they honestly believe their fertility is all they need to get back to heaven. I think it's great when a loving couple has lots of children and they raise them right (to be loving people) - I give those rare people my undying respect and admiration.

I, honestly, feel a lot of judgement for having 6. There are a lot of LDS families who think we are doing our kids a disservice. I am not sure where you live, but even our relatives in Utah are stopping at just a couple. I had a young woman come up to me as I was her Sunday School teacher and tell me that 6 was too many and that we should stop. That she was never going to be a "breeder". This was a stake president's daughter. Our youth are growing up thinking that having babies is icky and beneath them.

There was a family who visited our ward who had 10 kids, and the youth were making gross jokes about them and laughing about it. I made them stop, and we moved on- but the judgement is headed the other way. It's always been like that in the world (since the 60's at least) but the attitude has infiltrated the church.

"High" fertility is very common in my ward, but we live in a very young ward where most of the couples are under 40. There are many, many families in our ward who have 6+ children, so I'm wondering where those who are saying nobody is having more than 2 kids are living? Our Primary is huge, and we're needing to add on to the nursery room, as it cannot contain all the under 3's. After reading this thread, I've been trying to think of anyone (LDS) I know who has stopped having children because they wanted to spend more money on toys or expensive trips, etc. and I legit cannot think of a single couple who has done this. Most of the couples in our ward have a baby every 18 months AND go on expensive trips, lol.

I know some women who stopped having kids because their uterus's were literally, physically falling out after their last child was born. I know some women who stopped having kids because they almost bled to death during their last childbirth and had to have emergency hysterectomies. I know several women who were never able to conceive in the first place (and a few that had one, but never could have another) - tried every test, every procedure that there is available, TONS of money spent out-of-pocket - still no success. Some of them have gone on nice trips (like to Hawaii), and I'm sure some Pharisees judge them as being wicked, not knowing the personal details of their struggles, but just assuming that since they don't have any kids, and since they went to Hawaii, that MUST mean that they don't WANT kids and spent that money on a trip instead of whatever the Pharisee thinks they should have spent it on - never mind that they have spent tens of thousands on fertility treatments for many years.

Truth is, however many kids you have, someone else has more kids than you - so that person must be more righteous than you. What a strange attitude. Makes about as much sense as the people at Church who believe the earlier you get up in the morning, the more righteous you are. And the people at Church who believe it's a sin for a female to cut her hair. And the people at Church who believe it's a sin to put garments into the dryer, that they have to be air-dried. And yes, these are all real beliefs of real people that I personally know in my ward - and yes, they condemn others who do not share in these beliefs (they're all from Utah, which must be a coincidence). My goodness. And people wonder why Zion hasn't been built??

[Trucker]

Most grief my wife and I felt from having a large family was from members in Utah. A lot of them were upset at us because they thought we must be judging them for not having large families. Huh? Yep, read that again. Outside Utah, we've gotten positive responsive because so few people are having large families anymore.

[ElizaRSkousen]

Getting a vasectomy is wrong! How have changed so much since Saturday’s Warrior? The church needs to do something ASAP to promote having kids. President Nelson had 10 kids. He knows the value of having a posterity and the true power of the priesthood. I can’t understood how someone would make someone infertile. It prevents their increase. Why expect to have increase in the eternities now if you eliminate it hear. It’s high time we start teaching the real Doctrinen of the Family again.

where does it say that vasectomy is wrong? I have never read that.

You don’t even need to read that. Anyone who understands the doctrine of the family clearly would understand that without question.

Agreed

“You do not have to be commanded in all things. Without having to have the Church deliver a statement on it, you should know what the Lord’s position is on abortion or cloning or same-gender marriage or birth control. All of those things are built in as a part of what we know and what we are.”

- Boyd k Packer
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/boyd-k-p ... character/

[EmmaLee]

Most grief my wife and I felt from having a large family was from members in Utah. A lot of them were upset at us because they thought we must be judging them for not having large families. Huh? Yep, read that again. Outside Utah, we've gotten positive responsive because so few people are having large families anymore.

I find it best to ignore the opinions of Utah members, as well.

[Fiannan]

Many women say it is not worth it to be under control of a man. Most all women want to be wives and mothers, but Feminism is in large part a rebellion against bad men who have made this choice unattractive, and many times unbearable, and also as a result of men abandoning their wives.

Actually, not entirely. I still remember the bumper sticker many feminists had in the 1970s that read, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Feminism teaches that men who voice their opinions are guilty of "manspeaking," or men who sit down and spread their legs are "manspreading," or that men who work out and are loud are displaying signs of "toxic masculinity," or that men who open doors for women are treating them as children, or men who are too forward in expressing a desire to get to know a woman are sexually harassing, or that men who like to take control (in a positive sense even) are domineering. Young men hear this growing up. Some rebel and find that women really, really, like guys who are throwbacks to the 1940s and 1950s. Sadly, they learn they can become players and use women, and some do. Men who conform to feminist ideals get friendzoned by women waiting for a player who they can tame. Passive men either get to hang out with women, along with their gay male friends, or wind up with women who might not be what they were initially hoping for in a wife.

Of course in conservative circles we add in the demonization of men who might like what women look like naked, or men who do not make a lot of money.

Oh, and the one that really cracks me up is when women accuse men of pushing unrealistic beauty standards on women. The truth is that typically men don't care about the things that women think they care about. It is women who judge other women for such thing as fashion or makeup or whatever. Women's magazines (way more destructive than porn) tell women they need to look like the airbrushed, fake, covers. And seriously, how many heterosexual men are involved in the fashion industry? Most men would be thrilled merely to have a wife who is loyal, never wore makeup, shopped for clothes at a thrift shop, and cooked hamburgers and pizza for dinner. Most men would not even care if their wives didn't shave (women probably don't in Heaven). Every woman who crossed the plains to Utah was hairy. didn't seem to freak out men. Yet I have known women who decide not to shave and it is their female friends and relatives who tell them to get with the program. Not advocating no-shave 2019, just saying men are pretty simple in their demands, women are not.

The problem is that this is going to result in a toxic culture. Women believe they are superior anyway, that they are God's gift to men, and they are, in a religious sense. Yet if the genders start focusing on what is bad about each other they they are going to magnify the shortcomings in their perceptions and mating will not result. If marriages do not result then reproduction will not result. And this is part of the agenda in the first place, isn't it?