How Many Children Do the Apostles Have? A Statistical Exercise

After General Conference was over my mother (who was visiting to help out with our new baby) remarked about how most of the Apostles had only a few kids. Being a scientist and a bit compulsive about my statistics I put together a little spreadsheet with the number of children each apostle has from which I calculated the mean, median, and mode number of children. My mother was correct in that more apostles have 3 children than any other number; however, the mean (4.93) and median (4.0) are higher.

Here are the numbers (Apostles are sorted according to seniority):

Apostle       # of children Monson 3 Packer 10 Perry 3 Nelson 10 Oaks 6 Ballard 7 Scott 7 Hales 2 Holland 3 Eyring 6 Uchtdorf 2 Bednar 3 Cook 3 Christofferson 5 Andersen 4

Anyone surprised by the numbers? I was that the mode was 3 but my guess of the average was 5, which is what the mean turned out to be. We cannot really throw out Elders Packer and Nelson as outliers because the sample size is small, plus it would defeat the purpose of the analysis to remove them from the analysis just because they create a slight positive skew to the data (skewness = 0.85, kurtosis = -0.30). In any case, I think it is interesting that 9 of the 15 apostles have 5 or fewer children (most of those 9 have 2 or 3 children). The rest have 6, 7, or 10. There is a moderate correlation between number of children and age (r=0.49, p=0.06; should you feel a non-parametric correlation is more appropriate, Spearman's rho = 0.40, p = 0.14).

When I looked at the above chart, it looked like there were two clusters of apostlesXchildren based on seniority. I thus created two groups within the Apostles based on seniority; the 7 most senior (through Elder Scott) were one group and the 8 left were the other group (beginning with Elder Hales). This group split was as close to a median split as possible. A t-test revealed that there was a significant difference in the number of children between groups (mean for group 1 = 6.57, mean for group 2 = 3.5, t = 2.68, p = 0.02, Cohen's d = 1.35 - a large effect). There also is a significant difference in age between the two groups (which is not surprising; group 1 mean = 83.57, group 2 mean = 68.38, t = 4.99, p = 0.001).

Should my split of the groups be criticized based on the fact that Elder Hales only has 2 children and so placing him in group 2 might be undue manipulation of the data, here are the values with him in group 1 (group 1 mean number of children = 6.00, group 2 = 3.71, t = 1.79, p = 0.097; this is no longer significant but the sample size is also small {although, it could be viewed as large because the entire population of living apostles is 15 and I 'sampled' the entire population}. In any case, the effect size of this difference is still large - Cohen's d = 0.95). I think the split should be between Elder Scott and Elder Hales because Elder Hales is the first of the apostles called while Pres. Hinckley was the prophet (technically, Elder Hales was called to fill the vacancy in the Twelve when Pres. Hunter died; Pres. Hinckley was called to replace Pres. Hunter); in other words, Elder Scott was the last of the apostles called in the 1980s and Elder Hales was the first called in the 1990s (there was about a 6 year gap in between when they were called). Either way I split the groups, the difference in number of children is large between the more senior Apostles and the newer Apostles. There are the outliers in the groups (Pres. Monson and Elder Perry for group 1 and Elder Eyring for group 2) but overall, the groups cluster together well (see the "Within Cluster Variation" chart).

If seniority roughly equals age (remember the significant difference between the ages of the two groups), does age explain the difference in number of children? In part it does. Age explains 24% of the variance in number of children (R = 0.49, F = 4.166, p = 0.06), which is a moderate amount but it is obvious that age alone cannot account for the difference in number of children. There are other testable (e.g., number of children in their nuclear family, age at marriage, income, etc.) and untestable (e.g., personal choice and how many children the Lord let them know they could or should have) factors that might explain the difference. Frankly, it does not matter in the end. Can we really explain why people have the number of children that they have? Sometimes we can if there are fertility issues but the number of children a couple has boils down largely to personal choice. That is why I am not going to try to explain why we see these differences in the number of children between the more senior Apostles and the newer Apostles.

I hope you found this an interesting analysis - I certainly did! I think it would be interesting to expand it to include the 1st and maybe 2nd quorums of the Seventy as well but that is an analysis for a later time.

The Innocence of a Child - Part 1

"Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy" (Moroni 8:19).

Anyone who gazes lovingly at an infant sees a spark of divinity. Not all realize what they see but most recognize the innocence and goodness of infants. Some, however, do not fully understand the power of the Atonement (not that any of us "fully" do or will in this life!) and so do not understand that little children are declared innocent through the blood of the Lamb. They are clean and pure before God and absolved as we are all of Adam's transgression. Little children receive the pure mercies of God. For those of us who are older, we receive the conditional mercies of God. Some parts of the Lord's grace and mercy are unconditional such as salvation from death. On the other hand, even that is conditional because we had to keep our first estates and choose to follow God's plan of salvation and come here to earth. God's mercy is also conditional because it is based on the goodness of the Savior's life. In other words, the mercy of the atonement was conditional on the Savior offering himself as the unblemished sacrificial lamb.

There stands a great balance in heaven. When our lives are placed in the scale to each of us it is said, "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting" (Daniel 5:27). With that we are subject to the demands of justice. Each of us is weighed down with the chains of justice. Justice is not always negative; in fact, justice is what allows us eternal freedom and progression. However, none of us as imperfect humanity can satisfy the demands of justice. We all fall short. We all incur great debt, a debt that none of us can repay. We are all like the servant who owed his master the king 10,000 talents (Matt. 18:23-35). That is an enormous sum none of us can repay. As merciful as God is, He cannot deny justice. Justice is a law that cannot be broken. The debt must be repaid.

There is One who is willing to pay the price of our sins. He not only is willing but also able to pay the debt that hangs in the balance. He is able to pay the price for all of us; He can pay for all of our debts combined, and then some. In this way is the debt satisfied. He fulfills the law of mercy while paying the debt due justice. Jesus Christ was the only One who could pay the price of sin and death. He only could unlock the way to Heaven to let us in. Cecil Alexander wrote of Jesus' sacrifice for us:

There is a green hill far away,
Without a city wall,
Where the dear Lord was crucified,
Who died to save us all.

We may not know, we cannot tell,
What pains he had to bear,
But we believe it was for us
He hung and suffered there.

There was no other good enough
To pay the price of sin.
He only could unlock the gate
Of heav’n and let us in.

Oh, dearly, dearly has he loved!
And we must love him too,
And trust in his redeeming blood,
And try his works to do. (Source).

Puritanism Parallels with Mormonism: Preparation for the Restoration - Part 4

We read in the Doctrine and Covenants, "Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness" (D&C 121:34-36). Fore-ordination does not have anything to do with who will be able to return to live with Heavenly Father again, unlike the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. Fore-ordination and predestination are similar but they do differ by degrees.

The LDS doctrine of salvation is quite liberal, especially compared to the Calvinism of the Puritans - however, it's not our doctrine, it's God's. That is, Mormons did not create the doctrine, God did. We believe that all who have ever lived upon the earth will have the opportunity to receive and accept the ordinances required to return to live again with our Father in Heaven. All people will eventually have the necessary ordinances performed for them but not all will accept (or possibly even be able to accept based on their lives here) the ordinances. We believe that all children who died before the age of accountability (age 8) will return to live with God again - this is because little children are whole and incapable of committing sin (see Moroni 8:8; Mosiah 15:25) because the Savior's Atonement freed them from sin; they are declared blameless by God through the power and grace and mercy of the Atonement.

That is radically different from Puritan beliefs about children; they thought children were full of sin and mischief and evil. Children, to the Puritans, had to be "broken." LDS doctrine holds children to be inherently good. Christ also taught we should become as little children (see Matt. 18:3). While LDS doctrine about salvation is liberal - we believe that most will receive some degree of glory (they at least kept their first estate and chose in the pre-mortal realm to follow our Father's plan of salvation by coming to earth) but not all will live with God forever more - LDS doctrine is not as liberal as some other Christian faiths, such as Universalists who believe that all will be saved; God's power is so great that He will bring all humankind back to Him. On a continuum, LDS doctrine is between the Calvinists and the Universalists.

Calvinism in New England espoused "Five Points" of doctrine, similar conceptually to our thirteen Articles of Faith (i.e., these Five Points are some of the basic and distinctive Puritan doctrines just like the LDS Articles of Faith cover the basic doctrines of Mormonism). These Five Points were: "[1] the natural condition of humanity was total depravity,...[2] salvation was beyond mortal striving,...[3] grace was predestined only for a few,...[4] most mortals were condemned to suffer eternal damnation, and [5] no earthy effort could save them" (p.112). That seems to be quite a depressing set of dogma! However, the Puritans did not live depressing lives - although they were austere in many ways - but they were never sure of their salvation. Their glasses of salvation were never more than half empty. They constantly sought and desired the mercy and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, as we all should. Another quote will further establish the Puritan views of salvation. About one Puritan it is written, "Always before, when [Thomas] wept for his sins, he had kept some feeling of human merit. Now he knows he has none, that the natural man, even when seemingly a good man, is only a beautiful abomination, for the natural man has had no merit since Adam's disobedience, and Hell is his just destination" (Simpson as cited by Fischer, p.116).

But does not that passage sound a bit like King Benjamin? "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father" (Mosiah 3:19). There are similarities between Puritanism and the first part of King Benjamin's statement but there is a key difference. King Benjamin stated that we need to become as a child in order to overcome the natural man!

Children are naturally good; the natural man is a learned and developed state, not an inherent state. We learn to be natural men and women! We all give in to the natural man at some point but we all start out good and clean and pure. I do have to point out that it is only through the atonement of Christ the Lord that we become saintly, or saved and sanctified. Again, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe that people are inherently good - the Puritans did not. The Savior's Atonement freed us from the transgression of Adam. Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe that man will be punished for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (Second Article of Faith). I believe Joseph wrote that in part because it was different from the prevailing beliefs of many of the religions of his day.

Reference

Fischer, D. H. (1989). Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Puritanism Parallels with Mormonism: Preparation for the Restoration - Part 2

Because of their beliefs, many Puritans viewed themselves as standing as examples to their neighbors - they felt they should be lights unto others. Many of these Puritans viewed their towns in the flat fields of eastern England as spiritual cities upon hills or as candles on candlesticks, a view they would carry with them to the New World. That's a view that many Americans incorporated for America as a whole (based on Puritan influence). It's a view members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold of themselves and the church. We talk of raising an ensign to the nations; we have temples which are lights upon hills to all around. We believe our lives should be as lights unto others. Being a light unto others is not done in an attitude of condescension but rather as a solemn responsibility for fulfilling the sacred covenants we make as members of the LDS church. It is the beckoning call of, "Come, partake of milk and honey without cost."

In addition to the Protestant feelings of many people in the eastern parts of England, anti-monarchical political feelings were also prevalent in that part of England. Numerous peasant uprisings occurred in eastern England. During the English Civil War, when many sought to reject the monarchy and establish a parliamentary government system, the strongest support came from that eastern part of England. These were people who sought not only religious freedom but also political freedom. This was an important desire that would eventually lead to the founding of the United States of America. Latter-day Saints, like the Puritans, had and have a strong desire for political freedoms (i.e., democracy). Even as the government of the United States failed to protect the persecuted Mormons in the 1830s and 1840s (and later), Latter-day Saints were some of the staunchest supporters of the government. We believe that the founding of the United States was inspired by God; prophets had preached about it thousands of years before (see 1 Nephi 13:17-19). The United States existed in part so that the Restoration of the gospel could occur - even so, the Church barely survived in this land of freedom (eventually they had to leave the country for a while to gain religious freedom). After the prophet Joseph's assassination, some scorners of the prophet prophesied the demise of Mormonism. Yet the stone cut without hands did not and will not fail (see Daniel 2:34,45; D&C 65:2). The Puritans helped loosen that rock from the mountainside.

When many Puritans started moving from England to the New World, they left largely as family units - more so than any other concurrent migration. Family was very important to these Puritans. They viewed marriage as a covenant relationship between two willing partners (i.e., marriages were typically not arranged). They had some of the highest marriage rates in the world - many towns in the 1600s had marriage rates of close to 100%. Husbands and wives "worked very hard at perfecting their relationship, in a mutual effort to achieve love and harmony within the household." In addition, they also had a strong love of genealogy; they cared about their family names and their hearts were drawn to their ancestors. Their love and respect for family was strong - they viewed their families as part of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Puritans in Massachusetts also had very large families. In some communities over a span of years they had an average of almost 10 children per family! While many children died in infancy and in childhood, they still had many children survive. Family was important. Fathers also played a strong role in the raising and care of their children - they were very involved in their education, training, discipline, and care. Many of these are similar to LDS beliefs and practices about families.

Link to part 1 of this essay.

Reference

Fischer, D. H. (1989). Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lessons from Death, Part 5

The great prophet Enoch had a vision that spanned the ages of the earth. He saw many people in many times. He saw the great wickedness upon the face of the earth. He saw the flood in the time of Noah wipe out all the people of the earth except for Noah and his family. Enoch's response to this vision was similar to many of our responses to death. "And as Enoch saw this, he had bitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren, and said unto the heavens: I will refuse to be comforted; but the Lord said unto Enoch: Lift up your heart, and be glad; and look. And it came to pass that Enoch looked; and from Noah, he beheld all the families of the earth; and he cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the day of the Lord come? When shall the blood of the Righteous be shed, that all they that mourn may be sanctified and have eternal life?" (Moses 7:44-45). The blood of the Lamb that was slain sanctifies us, which sanctification is not just a purification of our sins but also a change in our very beings. Sorrow is replaced with exultation.

Joseph Smith, while a prisoner in the Liberty Jail pleaded, "O God, where are thou? And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place?... Remember thy suffering saints, O our God: and thy servants will rejoice in thy name forever." (D&C 121:1,6). In reply the Lord comforted Joseph: "My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high" (D&C 121:7-8). What comfort comes from Him who descended below all and rose triumphant from the grave, victorious over death! The prophet Joseph Smith and his wife Emma experienced the loss of multiple children. Surely their grief was intense as they buried their little children amid the turmoil of the Restoration. Joseph said, "The Lord takes many away even in infancy, that they may escape the envy of man, and the sorrows and evils of this present world; they were too pure, too lovely, to live on the earth; therefore, if rightly considered, instead of mourning we have reason to rejoice as they are delivered from evil, and we shall soon have them again" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 196-197).

Link to part 4 of this essay.

The Divine Role of Motherhood - Part 4

A few years ago I talked with my mother about some of the best experiences she had in life. She talked mainly about being a mother. During our conversation I learned much about the great joy she had as a mother but also about the great times of struggle. She stated that the most rewarding and satisfying thing in her life was, in her own words: "The safe pregnancy and delivery of our children and then raising them. Having and raising seven lovely children has been wonderful. It was a lot of hard work but they all turned out okay. We did a lot of things together as a family, we worked hard, we survived hard times and ate cracked wheat. We went to church every week and spent the time together as a family. There were occasional problems but we survived them and overcame them.

"One time when we had 3 or 4 small children a friend was extolling the virtues of Sesame Street and said how her child could count to 10 and knew all the colors and all because the child watched Sesame Street on TV. I was appalled and wondered 'What is a mother for?' and why would anyone need TV to teach children what I thought was my 'job description.' So we read and played and counted everything and numbered everything and named colors and tied shoes and did all sorts of things. We learned to work and had jobs to learn responsibility."

She also talked about the struggles of being a mother: "What has been difficult? How about seven babies! It was very difficult when we didn't have any money and Dad was working two jobs and we were trying to make ends meet. We did not have much money at all, especially when the kids were small. We did not have much but we always survived. It just took a lot of hard work and some ingenuity.

"Another hard time was when we had four children under the age of five. This was a terrible emotional stress. The kids were sick all the time and we had no money. I was physically sick some too. Our washer broke during this time and so the children stomped the clothes in the bathtub to wash them – they thought it was fun; they thought they were like the pioneers. At least they had fun with it.

"These years were hard with a lot of difficult physical work. I was changing diapers on three babies. I also mopped the floors at night so they would stay clean at least the eight hours until morning. I also had to deal with potty training all the kids and cleaning up their messes. We also had a garden and had to plant it and keep it growing and harvest the food and can and store some as well. We had to work really hard to survive."

My mother found that church helped her cope with the stress of raising children: "I really loved going to church and relief society – that was my salvation once a week. Enrichment was lovely to put the kids in the nursery and be away for 1.5 hours. We had weekly meetings and so it was nice to have some time away from the kids. I could learn and grow and spend time with other ladies in the ward. Church was always a big boost for me and I looked forward to it each week."

I will always be grateful for my mother and all the work she did (and does) as a mother. She is a remarkable woman and mother. She is someone the Lord looks upon and smiles.