https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/03/the- ... e?lang=eng
One section stood out for me personally:
three things. One, the one-year waiting period puts many couples in a position where they and their families need to fly to Britain or other places where you can have a civil and temple marriage on the same day. So, this policy encourages couples who don't want to leave their non-member family out of the experience to engage in excessive travel. But of course, the egocentric nature of the policy seems to completely ignore the interests and long term effects of excluding non-member family from the marriage experience in North America.Some other cultural practices or traditions that may conflict with gospel culture are weddings and funerals. I ask you not to make plans in connection with weddings and funerals that would cause you to go deeply into debt. Avoid extensive travel and expensive feasts. Excessive debt will weaken or prevent your ability to pay tithing, to attend the temple, and to send your children on missions. Make plans that will strengthen—not weaken—your future Church activity.
Second, his last sentence...
This bothers me. It's not about your church activity -- it's about the happiness of your life. This means your family life, your personal life, your leisure time, your mental health, your professional life, your comfort level when financial calamity strikes, etcetera. Why does it have to be about the church all the time?????? Happiness is the object and design of our whole EXISTENCE, not church activity as the epicenter of happiness.Make plans that will strengthen—not weaken—your future Church activity.
Third this quote:
When I read this I thought of my own state -- am I on the fringe because I am a first generation Mormon? Does DHO"s statement entrench the culture that third and fourth generation Mormons are somehow superior in their commitment or leadership eligibility than people who are new to the church??? Sounds like he is entrenching some negative values I have heard about in other parts of the world, particularly Utah and Alberta.As we seek to establish the Church in Africa and other nations, we must have third- and fourth-generation faithful Latter-day Saint families in our leadership and membership. Faithful Latter-day Saints who move to another country weaken the Church in their homeland. Of course the Church does not forbid its members from moving from one place to another to better themselves, but it has been many years since the Church has encouraged such emigration.
Also, troublesome for me is that again, he seems to imply that you should live in the place that best serves the church. But life in certain African countries is not pleasant. Given an opportunity to emigrate to America, or other places, for some African families, it could be a blessing. To boil the decision down to what is best for the church, again, sacrifices personal happiness on the alter of church egocentrism.
Some of the other things he "questions" in other cultures (a soft word for what he is saying) seem to address brutal or unfair practices (such as men in certain cultures thinking woman are servants around the house while the men do nothing). These seems to make a certain amount of sense from a North American and humanistic perspective.
But the three items I mentioned above got to me...
Does his article seem to weight church interests more heavily than what might be good for individual members?