Family size

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

No.

For the same reason that the following maxim holds true: "If you want something to get done, assign it to a busy person."

A family with 10+ kids in my ward, every fast Sunday, volunteers at a soup kitchen for the homeless. In fact, here we see in terms of raw numbers, there service is greater.

Not to mention the service that is directed towards the children themselves, by the parents.

If you took your line of thinking to its conclusion, the people best able to serve humanity would be the ones that have NO children. And I reject that on its face, because if everyone did this, humanity would end. A great service to humanity is rearing good, decent human beings who multiply your values and work.

There is a great value in this approach.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I never said anything about a legacy being a job. I agree that it passes in terms of who you are and probably is made greater in terms of how much service you give those around you. Which probably has little to do with how many children you bear.

If that's true, then, would you be more likely to be able to serve more with fewer children?

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

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

sure it does. In a hundred years, her genetic and cultural influence will be extraordinarily more than yours.

You have two kids. One is gay and other has 2 kids. Those 2 kids have 2 kids. So now you have 2 great-grandchildren. One has 1 kid, the other has 2 kids. Now you have 3 great-great grandchildren. And so on.

Well the lady with 8 kids. Each of them averages 4 kids. And each of those grandchildren averages 3 children. 96 great-grandchildren. Compared to your 2. If each of those g-grandchildren averages 2 kids, then she has 192 great-great grandchildren. You have 3.

But my, YOUR great-great grandchildren will be SO talented. They will be pure delights. But sadly, they died in a car wreck. Your line ended. The end.

Too bad I can't find the clip of the family tree in the movie idiocracy. This would illustrate your point perfectly

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Levin

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

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

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

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

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

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

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

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

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

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

duh. because they don't believe.

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

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

duh. because they don't believe.

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

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

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

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

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

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

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

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

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

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

For some men, the future is not written yet.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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

For some men, the future is not written yet.

Ambivalence?

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

The passion of Mormonism is sleeping, hopefully not dead.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

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

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

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

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