This is all that is written – - I don’t see any warnings about assumed selfishness or lack of faith.  I see this as a vote from the Brethren of their trust in members to exercise faith, to be prayerful and humble and to seek to be obedient and seek God’s will for Them, individually.  It saddens me to read  here Latter-day Saint adults who continue to judge others on such an ‘extremely intimate and private’ matter.  Thankfully I know the Lord will be my judge, and not them.  Does it ever occur to those reading (& judging) about this topic that it is a big question because of it’s personal nature?  Perhaps even if we know a ‘small’ family is our life’s experience – even if we’d welcome more if it were God’s will, we maybe ask about the differences in the family sizes in the Church to feel the reassurance of other Saints that we too, as children of God, are still just as valuable and ‘worthy’ with our ‘small’ families as the ‘traditional large’ families; and that we have a welcome place in the fold?

 I have cried many a tear because of the misunderstanding and judgments of others because of the ‘Utah Mormon Culture’ that creates the pressure to ‘keep up’ with the ideal, large Mormon family image.  I feel inadequate and fearful that even though I have been prayerful and have dealt with many personal trials in this journey of having children, that I somehow still haven’t done all I could to bring more children into this world to be obedient to the ‘multiply and replenish’ commandment.  I have asked the haunting question – will I meet children that were supposed to come to our family?  Was I wrong to honor my husband’s desire to use birth control while he got his bearings so he could guarantee that I could stay home with our children when they came?  Did it take longer for me to get pregnant the first time as punishment for waiting?  Did the birth-control ‘hurt’ my system?  Will my crippling post-partum depression, my husband’s choice to be ‘done at 2′, my grief for a brother’s death 8 weeks after delivery creating a slower recovery and another ‘depressed wife’ causing my husband to fear ever going through it again, and my historically unreliable menstrual cycle be ‘reason enough’ for only have 2?  Certainly the ‘Saturday’s Warriors’ idea that spirits are waiting around to come to ‘that family’ has done more harm than good in reassuring people of a just and omniscient God who loves us perfectly and is no respecter of persons.  Does that mean that those who have 2 children only had 2 spirits want to be with them?  Does that mean those with 2 children will be held accountable for the 6 other kids they ‘didn’t’ have?  Certainly we can all admit this is ridiculous and it ‘doesn’t work that way.’

Realistically – it takes 2 ‘yeses’ to have more children (actually 3 if you count the Lord), and only 1 ‘no’.  I  have to trust that the Lord honors our agency enough that he will be more pleased with my respecting my husband’s desires and choice than my choosing to manipulate and coerce him into having more that will require so much more from him considering my history of mental health issues after pregnancy.  I am very grateful for my two daughters and hope as I am a good steward of them here on earth that I may one day enjoy an eternal increase when my body and mind are free from the limitations I experience in mortality.  I am the oldest of 7, my husband is the 3rd of 6.  My younger sister just had her 5th baby yesterday and my other sister has 3 ages 4.5, 2, 1.  I hope to also use my divine motherly feelings towards my nieces and nephews and all the neighbor children I babysit.  I love children and I love the Lord.  One day I pray I’ll understand why I was only called to raise 2 daughters in this life.  (& Who knows – I’m 33, maybe by some miracle I’ll still be a mother to more?)

At the same time, all I want to do is go to graduate school and have a life of my own. I feel like I’m sacrificing my whole self, and I kind of want this time to hurry past so I can focus on myself again. But at the same time, I know I should be enjoying this stage because it will pass by “too quickly” according to some people.

I also get jealous of people who “get to” stop early. My friend is thirty and just got her tubes tied after her fourth kid. I thought, why does she get to stop when she can easily have two more? But I know it’s not just that I feel like I “have to,” but I do sincerely want each child that I’m going to have. And you have to trust that other people that they make their own decisions based on faith and what they want, so I don’t judge them for having less, just get a little envious that the child-bearing stage is already over for them.

So there are always the two sides of me fighting. Just now I was trying to find information on a Mormon mom who went to medical school at 47 after she had five kids, and I want to be able to do the same thing. But I want all my kids, too! I’m worried I’ll be too old. AHHHH this life! And at the same time, will I ever get a life of my own?

There are apostles who have three or fewer children. I would be hesitant to tell them that they were acting selfishly simply because they didn’t have as many as I have. No, I take that back; I wouldn’t be hesitant. A better statement would be that I would never be so presumptuous.

I also know of many people that cannot have biological children of their own and have to turn to adoption. This avenue is very expensive and emotionally draining. After adoptive parents go through this a couple of times, it’s enough. My wife and I have adopted three and it took us five years just to get our first. That was after ten years of trying to have kids on our own. So after fifteen years of marriage we were able to finally adopt our first. The other two came within the next year, which is unique. We now have our hands very full. At my age (40), I feel that our family is plenty full now.

We have a responsibility to be stewards over this planet but we also have a responsibility to fulfill the first commandment that was ever given on this earth, namely to “multiply and replenish the earth.” According to “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the First Presidency declared “that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” Our Heavenly Father would not have provided this earth with all of it natural resources as well as commanded us to multiply and replenish it if there was not the ability to provide the necessities of life for all of his children.

The Mormon people have always been a people of non-conformity and I believe they will continue to be. Just because the world is limiting the amount of children that are born to their families doesn’t mean that the members of the church should do the same. If we are doing as the Lord commands us to do, He will provide a way for us to take care of each and everyone of those children that are born into our family.

If you want to know if the leadership of the church are looking to us to continue to live the law to “multiply and replenish the earth” check out Julie B. Beck’s talk in the October 2007 General Conference, “Mothers Who Know.” (Source: http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-775-27,00.html)

Here is an expert from that talk:

“Mothers who know desire to bear children. Whereas in many cultures in the world children are “becoming less valued,”2 in the culture of the gospel we still believe in having children. Prophets, seers, and revelators who were sustained at this conference have declared that “God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”3 President Ezra Taft Benson taught that young couples should not postpone having children and that “in the eternal perspective, children—not possessions, not position, not prestige—are our greatest jewels.”4

Faithful daughters of God desire children. In the scriptures we read of Eve (see Moses 4:26), Sarah (see Genesis 17:16), Rebekah (see Genesis 24:60), and Mary (see 1 Nephi 11:13–20), who were foreordained to be mothers before children were born to them. Some women are not given the responsibility of bearing children in mortality, but just as Hannah of the Old Testament prayed fervently for her child (see 1 Samuel 1:11), the value women place on motherhood in this life and the attributes of motherhood they attain here will rise with them in the Resurrection (see D&C 130:18). Women who desire and work toward that blessing in this life are promised they will receive it for all eternity, and eternity is much, much longer than mortality. There is eternal influence and power in motherhood.”

I have 10 children and my sister has 10 children (and her husband is currently our bishop). In our ward we have families with 12, 11, and 10. The families with fewer children continue to grow each year. Sounds like our ward is the exception, though.

I honestly do not believe there is anything better than family and big families teach the family members things they couldn’t learn any other way. I’m thankful every single day that Heavenly Father has blessed me with so many kids.

Out of the 6 of us adults who are women, none of us have had kids. I have two brothers who have, and incidentally, they are number 6 and 7 of the crowd – just about the youngest of us, since the last four children are so much younger than the rest of us. One has one daughter, the other has two.

My theory is that the girls in my family spent most of their lives looking after their younger sibs and made the choice very young not to have any of their own. It will be interesting watching what happens with my three youngest sisters (the ones under 18), to see if they’re affected the same way, given that they didn’t have the same level of childcare responsiiblities.

I love my nieces, but they don’t motivate me to have children of my own. I’m another person who believes there are far more people on earth than there should be. Not that I’m planning on a rampage to correct that or anything; I just don’t want to add to the numbers.

Craig, did you got to USUHS? When I was in medical school there (93-97) my experience was that people were surprised that as a mormon I only had two kids. I frequently was asked, in all sincerity, when I was going to have more!

We stopped at two because of health reasons. And, like Kevin, I am perfectly happy with the size of my family.

As an expansion upon John Hammer’s previous comments, let me share the following opinions.

As I have gotten older, I have come to the belief, opposite that of Lorna’s, that larger families are a sin. (OK, hyperbole and overstatement recognized) I will encourage my children to keep their families small. As I learn more about the industrialization of agriculture and the globalization of food sources and the effect these things have on our environment (not to mention our own health), the more I believe that the zero population movement of the 60s and 70s had things right. Population growth is hurting the planet. It’s not the only reason we are facing our environmental problems, but it certainly contributes. As mormons, I feel that we have a responsibility to be stewards of the earth, and if we can be better stewards by limiting our family size it is something that should have our serious consideration.

Personally speaking, my husband said he would love and support however many I felt up to having.I was “done” after 5 kids but I did not make the final decision alone. After a VERY long night of prayer I had a tender experience with my Heavenly Father that assured me that if I had another child everything would work out….what I would have missed if I’d never had that last child. He is amazing. Six was right for us, two for another and ten for someone else…the point is to have Heavenly Father be part of the most important decision you as a couple will ever make and ignore all the other worldly “reasons”.

“Why are Mormon families getting smaller? Aside from heath issues – not enough faith!”

and…

“Make no mistake. The ultimate source of the decrease in family size is sin.”

sound unenlightened and intolerant.

There really is no way to gauge why or why not anyone has children. I suspect that other “real” issues are more relevant to birth rates in the Mormon church.

1. Financial- The burden of raising a family in this fast paced society puts huge strains on the any family. Many parents feel a responsibility to ensure that they can provide for the children that they bring into the world. Let us keep in mind that all of us have different definitions of “provide.” Therein lies the controversy. We should all be allowed to define the term for ourselves.

2. Physical- Many parents just are not physically able to care for large families. We all have physical bodies and they are all different. What one set of parents are able to accomplish in the home is far different than their “neighbor.” Some parents have children who have physical disabilities. This determines their abilities to care and provide for other children.

3. Emotional-Some people grow into adulthood happy and healthy. They have had parents who loved and cared for them. They have no emotional baggage. But, the church has it’s fair share of emotionally damaged adults. They may not have the patience, love, understanding and selflessness that is needed to raise a large family.

I am certain that there are other “real” issues why Mormon families are shrinking. I do not believe for one minute that “sin” or “faith” are a viable reason.

The last time I checked…those very personal decisions were between a couple and God.

So maybe it might not be that Mormon culture is changing but that we as
humans are physiologically different from 20-30 years ago, so we simply
conceive less.

doesn’t it make sense, though, that many of these mormons who grew up in big families thought, man, that was kind of tough, i’m not going to do that to my kids.

that, plus i really don’t feel like i would have the emotional resources/physical energy to keep up with more than four kids.

but that’s not a big family, is it?

The first step on this path was this:

The Great Depression

People still ignore how badly the Great Depression scared the American genius. 25% of the workforce could not find a job. That is just incredible. That doesn’t even count all the people who had to take make work and other jobs outside their profession. This was the most traumatic event to occur in our nations history since the Civil War. It took a hundred years to even begin to heal from the Civil War and yet people act like the Great Depression just went away after WWII.

One of the things people miss is that the Great Depression severely damaged the family unit. While divorce historically drops during economic downturns, during the Great Depression it skyrocketed- and that doesn’t even consider the number of husbands who simply abandoned their wives. Nor does it consider the crushing impact of a father becoming an unemployed drain on the family instead of the family support. Alcohol use increased as well.

Look at the families that were formed by the children of the Great Depression. Think of the sudden emphasis on accumulating material wealth and possessions. Consider the mother telling their daughters to grow up and marry doctors and lawyers. Those hadn’t been the cherished marriage material before the Great Depression. The 50′s have been called the return to normalcy, but it was more a warped and twisted version of normality.

Read the literature from pre-Depression eras and compare the fathers role with that of post Depression eras. Pre-Depression the father was an enormous figure in the home, he was the ruler of the house and filled a big role in children’s lives separate from his role as a provider. Post-Depression literature depicts the father as a distant figure who works at his job. His main relationship to the family is as a provider. Why?

Because during the Great Depression fathers all over the country had to focus all their energies on providing financially. Is it any wonder that their sons grew up to think that was what it meant to be a man? Or that their daughters grew up think that was what to look for in a husband? And what of the fathers who abandoned their families- what do you think the Great Depression highlighted as the worst part of not having a husband or father?

So by the 50′s and 60′s you have a host of unhappy and unfulfilled men, who have reached a dead end at their jobs, and yet their culture says that all their value comes as a provider and worker. They feel like failures. Of course many respond to that feeling by trying to make themselves feel better by putting others down. Maybe they were not enjoying the job, and maybe they couldn’t look forward to promotions and honors at work- but at least they could lord it over their wives as superior because they provided for the family while the wife didn’t bring home a paycheck.

Of course the trauma of the Great Depression had prepared men and women to actually believe that nonsense. And of course this was believed in turn by their daughters- who decided that instead of marrying a lawyer, why shouldn’t they just be a lawyer and claim the superiority of working for their own.

That when you had the counter-culture of the sixties. While those who suffered through the Great Depression knew that family was indispensable to happiness, those who lived during the prosperity of the 50′s and 60′s had no such experience to temper the cultural emphasis on material and career success as the measure of a persons worth. A desire to reject that materialism took the form of rejecting the family unit. You had the Hippies running away from homes and forming alternative replacements for families. The families they did form were not based around children as previous families had been. Now this can be overstates, as only about half of the Baby-Boomers joined in this revolt to some degree, and that means half of the Baby-boomers stayed true to the normal traditional family. This was the source of the revival of traditional ideals during the 80′s. However even this group was still effected by the scars of the Great Depression- as shown by the Yuppie culture and the emphasis on material and career success.

Modern Feminist thought is the current main idealogical vehicle for the promotion of this idea that material and career success are more important the family success. To this day the women of America are caught in a vicious culture war between two opposing ideals of womanhood. And it is vicious- a woman who decides to have a large family is subjected to disdain and disrespect by other women. I saw it happen to my mother all the time at school meetings. My mother meets with the principle and my mother is treated with condescension- but as soon as my father shows up, he his treated with respect. The worst offenders were always the female principles.

Now how do Mormons fit into this twisting of the American mind?

The culture of the Mormon church was supremely effective in countering the initial effects of the Great Depression. To some extent through the welfare services and community support. But most of all through the fact that Mormon doctrine places the father in a vital role in the family regardless of his employment. It is no accident that during the Great Depression a major shift was made to start emphasizing that Priesthood blessings should first be sought from fathers and husbands. These kinds of things continue to this day with Mormon culture that insists a father needs to be more than just a paycheck.

Therefor the women of the church was not fertile ground for the Feminist movement of the 50′s and 60′s because there was never as strong an belief among Mormons that self worth came from career success.

However, we have not been as successful in keeping our youth free of these ideas. Young men are mainly seduced by the temptation of greater material wealth to be had by having a wife work- which of course means less time for children. The Brethren have been pushing back very strongly against this in recent years.

Young women on the other hand are tempted not so much by material wealth as they are by the desire to be accepted and given approval by their fellow women/peers. I don’t know how many young women have said something to me along the lines of: “I’m not going to get married before I graduate college, I’m not going to be like my mother”. As the oldest child of a mother who married before graduating (and so wouldn’t be here if she hadn’t), I tend to find this extremely offensive. Essentially young women today are saying that they accept the world’s judgment of their mothers as less because they placed family before career. Most young women of course deny this when confronted about it. There is a very schizophrenic aspect to it. Many of them once they marry do decide to reject the worldly view and have a larger family. However, most of them will delay their marriage until their late twenties- and by doing so limit the size of their future families by default.

I think the Brethren are at a loss as to what to do about it. Historically they would depend on mothers being the influence against this. However, I think many mothers are conflicted. They have experienced first hand the ostracism that comes from other women for their decision to have a large family, and naturally would like to spare their daughters that pain.

Right now I think American culture as a whole is on the edge- trying to decide which way it is going to fall. That said, I suspect American Mormon families will probably stabilize around 4 children average for awhile. Whether this increases or falls in the next generation will depend of how willing the members of the are to repent.

Make no mistake. The ultimate source of the decrease in family size is sin. Whether the sin of material selfishness among men, or the emotional selfishness of women it’s all sin, and a refusal to obey the first commandment.

With the rise of ADD/ADHD, autism and other problems, parents have to devote more time to those children with special needs.