So-called "Cafeteria Mormons"

[William James]

A recent comment on another thread suggested that it would be a good thing for Boyd K. Packer to become president of the LDS Church because it would tend to force so-called "cafeteria Mormons" to either leave the church or become more faithful. For those unfamiliar with the term, as I understand it, "cafeteria Mormon" refers to a member of the LDS faith who feels at liberty to embrace some but not all doctrines/policies of the church. As I have defined the term, I certainly fit into this category, and I do not foresee that ever changing. While I choose to exercise faith in many of the Church's doctrines, I do not believe that should compel me to also embrace those aspects of church doctrine or policy which are abhorrent to both my reason and my conscience. While I can understand that TBMs feel threatened by this notion and often insist on the idea that the Church and its doctrines are an "all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it package," I believe that this zealous approach is not only a gross oversimplification, but it also seems to leave little room for the idea that faith and understanding develop over time in stages.

Like it or not, I believe the reality is that many outsiders are introduced to the LDS Church through moderate members who in no way fit the mold of the standard conservative TBM. Even the Church's website appears designed to emphasize the easier-to-accept-for-outsiders aspects of the Church.

So, I suppose my question is this: Is there/should there be room in the Church for "cafeteria Mormons" who are willing to embrace some, but not all of LDS doctrine/policy? Thanks for your input, everyone.

[semlogo]

A recent comment on another thread suggested that it would be a good thing for Boyd K. Packer to become president of the LDS Church because it would tend to force so-called "cafeteria Mormons" to either leave the church or become more faithful. For those unfamiliar with the term, as I understand it, "cafeteria Mormon" refers to a member of the LDS faith who feels at liberty to embrace some but not all doctrines/policies of the church. As I have defined the term, I certainly fit into this category, and I do not foresee that ever changing. While I choose to exercise faith in many of the Church's doctrines, I do not believe that should compel me to also embrace those aspects of church doctrine or policy which are abhorrent to both my reason and my conscience. While I can understand that TBMs feel threatened by this notion and often insist on the idea that the Church and its doctrines are an "all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it package," I believe that this zealous approach is not only a gross oversimplification, but it also seems to leave little room for the idea that faith and understanding develop over time in stages.

Like it or not, I believe the reality is that many outsiders are introduced to the LDS Church through moderate members who in no way fit the mold of the standard conservative TBM. Even the Church's website appears designed to emphasize the easier-to-accept-for-outsiders aspects of the Church.

So, I suppose my question is this: Is there/should there be room in the Church for "cafeteria Mormons" who are willing to embrace some, but not all of LDS doctrine/policy? Thanks for your input, everyone.

I don't think I've ever met a member who WASN'T a cafeteria Mormon.

[ELF1024]

While I choose to exercise faith in many of the Church's doctrines, I do not believe that should compel me to also embrace those aspects of church doctrine or policy which are abhorrent to both my reason and my conscience.

So, I suppose my question is this: Is there/should there be room in the Church for "cafeteria Mormons" who are willing to embrace some, but not all of LDS doctrine/policy? Thanks for your input, everyone.

I suppose it depends on what you find abhorrent to your reason and conscience.

I suppose there are things which can be less emphasised in your beliefs. However there are somethings that are foundational and cannot just be ignored at whim.

[Uncle Dale]

...

So, I suppose my question is this: Is there/should there be room in the Church for "cafeteria Mormons" who are willing to embrace some, but not all of LDS doctrine/policy? Thanks for your input, everyone.

In the spring of 1838, at Far West, Missouri, President Sidney Rigdon

answered that question. The Whitmers, Phelps, Cowdery, and others

professed the Latter Day Saint religion, but were unwilling to follow

the First Presidency in all things.

Rigdon reportedly quoted 3rd Nephi -- to the effect that those members

who had lost their "savor" should be cast out and trodden down. He also

reportedly advised that they should lose their heads.

So far as I know, Rigdon's presidential counsel has never been revised;

at least not by any direct countermanding of his message.

Perhaps the LDS Church is headed for another "Far West" experience.

If so, it will become clear who will follow the General Authorities

in all things, and who attempts to "pick and choose" their religion.

UD

[William James]

I don't think I've ever met a member who WASN'T a cafeteria Mormon.

Semlogo, I agree with you, but the vast majority of conservative members do not seem to recognize this trait in themselves. I remember that on my mission, I would often debate various points with my more conservative companions. As I recall, many were quite irritated when I would bring up more extreme examples to illustrate that they themselves did not believe in their espoused principles absolutely, and that things were not as black and white as they apparently imagined.

[William James]

Would a cafeteria Mormon include someone who would have opposed/refused to practice polygyny during the early days of the Church, or who would refuse to accept it if it were purportedly commanded again in modern times? I think so.

[Jeff K.]

I believe the term Cafeteria Mormon is often confused by people.

There are many aspects of doctrine members struggle with or perfect in different ways. Some struggle with tithing, but do not have the same struggle with the world of wisdom, some struggle with the word of wisdom, but have no struggle with keeping the sabbath day holy. In other words we all have distinct or different areas we improve at different rates. We continuously seek to improve and grow stronger.

Cafeteria Mormons, as I understand it, are static. they accept some doctrines and commandments and will seek to improve on those doctrines but purposely reject or overlook others. It is their agency to do so. To state one has never met a member who is not a cafeteria mormon is to state that one has never met a Latter-Day Saint that does not seek to bring himself closer to God and as an imperfect mortal, grows or learns, or gains a testimony at different rates.

We should not confuse those who reject some commandments and doctrines with those who attempt to fulfill the commandments and understand the doctrines as they grow.

[Jeff K.]

Would a cafeteria Mormon include someone who would have opposed/refused to practice polygyny during the early days of the Church, or who would refuse to accept it if it were purportedly commanded again in modern times? I think so.

It depends. For instance. If the person rejects the idea of polygamy as doctrine, yes. But if they believe the doctrine but do not believe they are prepared to adhere to it, then the question remains open in the sense that they are attempting to understand it and develop the strength and testimony they need to fulfill it.

[LeSellers]

Is there/should there be room in the Church for "cafeteria Mormons" who are willing to embrace some, but not all of LDS doctrine/policy? Thanks for your input, everyone.

Joseph Smith seemed to think so. He detested the creeds because, among other things, they said, "this far and no further."

There is very little that the Church demands in terms of belief to be considered a faithful Saint. The rest is available as one is ready to receive it.

Lehi

[ELF1024]

Short of rejecting something that will result in your excommunication, I don't really care what people do or do not do.

For example: if you reject the idea that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and your actions bring forth your own excommunication... that would be an issue and you may be better off without the church.

However, if you reject the word of wisdom, and continue to drink coffee, which results in the inability to get a temple reccomend... not a issue (to me).

If you reject that homosexual behavior is wrong, and you marry a member of the same sex, and expect to have your marriage respected by the church... that would be an issue, and you will be better off without the church.

If you reject fast offerings or tithing, I don't think it's an issue...

If you reject Home Teaching or Visiting Teaching, not really an issue...

Am I making sense?

[semlogo]

Semlogo, I agree with you, but the vast majority of conservative members do not seem to recognize this trait in themselves. I remember that on my mission, I would often debate various points with my more conservative companions. As I recall, many were quite irritated when I would bring up more extreme examples to illustrate that they themselves did not believe in their espoused principles absolutely, and that things were not as black and white as they apparently imagined.

Yes, I agree, sometimes it can be quite unconscious. Everyone seems to have parts of the doctrines that they relish, and others that they sort of avoid thinking about.

[CA Steve]

Seems to me there is one main course at the cafeteria and if you don't like it you need to eat elsewhere. As members we seem to spend a lot of time arguing about the side dishes. Me, I like the tapioca.

[ttribe]

This should about cover it: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/18/23,30,32#23

[Brenda]

A recent comment on another thread suggested that it would be a good thing for Boyd K. Packer to become president of the LDS Church because it would tend to force so-called "cafeteria Mormons" to either leave the church or become more faithful. For those unfamiliar with the term, as I understand it, "cafeteria Mormon" refers to a member of the LDS faith who feels at liberty to embrace some but not all doctrines/policies of the church. As I have defined the term, I certainly fit into this category, and I do not foresee that ever changing. While I choose to exercise faith in many of the Church's doctrines, I do not believe that should compel me to also embrace those aspects of church doctrine or policy which are abhorrent to both my reason and my conscience. While I can understand that TBMs feel threatened by this notion and often insist on the idea that the Church and its doctrines are an "all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it package," I believe that this zealous approach is not only a gross oversimplification, but it also seems to leave little room for the idea that faith and understanding develop over time in stages.

Like it or not, I believe the reality is that many outsiders are introduced to the LDS Church through moderate members who in no way fit the mold of the standard conservative TBM. Even the Church's website appears designed to emphasize the easier-to-accept-for-outsiders aspects of the Church.

So, I suppose my question is this: Is there/should there be room in the Church for "cafeteria Mormons" who are willing to embrace some, but not all of LDS doctrine/policy? Thanks for your input, everyone.

Well of course. We're all on that ladder. Some are just farther along than others. Just because you aren't on the same step, doesn't mean you don't belong on the ladder.

I don't think I've ever met a member who WASN'T a cafeteria Mormon.

Hello?

[Brade]

So, I suppose my question is this: Is there/should there be room in the Church for "cafeteria Mormons" who are willing to embrace some, but not all of LDS doctrine/policy? Thanks for your input, everyone.

I'd like to think, for my own sake, that there is plenty of room. I've heard general conference talks that sort of express this idea that the Church is open to lots of folks with lots of different views. However, my Sunday-to-Sunday experience gives me reason to think that in practice it can be difficult to be unorthodox or unbelieving. And, it's difficult for both parties.

As it happens, this thread has popped up at an interesting time in my spiritual journey. I'm interested to see where this goes, and I hope for some insightful comments.

[ttribe]

However, my Sunday-to-Sunday experience gives me reason to think that in practice it can be difficult to be unorthodox or unbelieving. And, it's difficult for both parties.

That's a cultural issue; not a doctrinal one.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I hope for some insightful comments.

I can relate to you the experience of the Reorganized LDS, if that is

of any interest.

Under the Prophet Israel A. Smith, the teaching there was to obey all

the commandments explicitly, neglecting none of them, under any circumstance,

We were taught: "whoso among you shall do more or less than these, are not

built upon my rock... and the gates of hell is already open to receive them."

And then he died and his brother became the prophet, and taught that we

should have toleration for various theological viewpoints. After which time

the RLDS Church began a downhill slide into chaos, which ultimately led to

the resignation of the Community of Christ prophet, for transgression --

and the splitting of the church into many dozens of independent groups.

Take heed -- those Mormons who would "do more or less" than to obey each

and every Divine commandment, without question and without murmuring.

UD

[CA Steve]

I can relate to you the experience of the Reorganized LDS, if that is

of any interest.

Under the Prophet Israel A. Smith, the teaching there was to obey all

the commandments explicitly, neglecting none of them, under any circumstance,

We were taught: "whoso among you shall do more or less than these, are not

built upon my rock... and the gates of hell is already open to receive them."

And then he died and his brother became the prophet, and taught that we

should have toleration for various theological viewpoints. After which time

the RLDS Church began a downhill slide into chaos, which ultimately led to

the resignation of the Community of Christ prophet, for transgression --

and the splitting of the church into many dozens of independent groups.

Take heed -- those Mormons who would "do more or less" than to obey each

and every Divine commandment, without question and without murmuring.

UD

I always enjoy reading your posts UD. Can you tell me how teaching toleration for other theological viewpoints led to the dissolution of the RLDS?

[Uncle Dale]

I always enjoy reading your posts UD. Can you tell me how teaching toleration for other theological viewpoints led to the dissolution of the RLDS?

Since that's not the topic of this thread, I'll say very little.

In my own mind, I am tolerant of many possible religious viewpoints;

but a church acting in the capacity of the "one true church," guided

by latter day revelation, as God's Chosen People, cannot act with a

multitude of interpretations of doctrine and scripture.

What has happened to the Reorganized Latter Day Saints, is that they

have shattered into a multitude of different congregations, the largest

sect of which is Community of Christ.

If a religious body turns into a congregational church, with each

congregation deciding how to live the religion, then the leadership of

a first presidency and body of apostles is doomed. The actual dissolution

may take years -- it may be hidden behind a facade of brotherly unity --

but either a church is authoritarian or it is congregational. And if it

becomes congregational, it is hardly a church at all.

Inspired, intelligent, proactive, obedient leadership is perhaps the answer.

When that leadership begins to tolerate a variety of theological viewpoints,

it is on the verge of abdicating its own responsibility -- a dangerous thing.

UD

[ERayR]

Isn't it irritating to be around those who think they know everything for us who do?

[Sky]

If the person can pass a Temple Recommend interview honestly, then I don

[Brade]

Where the problem comes in, as I see it, is when these members start to openly publish their views in direct opposition to the authorities of the Church.

Just curious. Do you think that posting on a blog or forum counts as publishing?

[wenglund]

So-called "Cafeteria Mormons": Is the LDS Church better of with or without them?"

To me, the Church is intended to be there for the benefit of the members (be they "Cafeteria" or otherwise), not the other way around. So, from my perspective the question of this thread inadvertantly got things backwards--not that it is any big deal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lightbearer]

So, I suppose my question is this: Is there/should there be room in the Church for "cafeteria Mormons" who are willing to embrace some, but not all of LDS doctrine/policy? Thanks for your input, everyone.

Of course there is room for less valiant members of the Church, the perfection of the Saints is part of the mission of the Church. Everyone is at a different level in the path to Eternal Life, some are weaker than others and the Church is built to strengthen those who are not fully converted, and to help those who are to endure in faithfulness to the end. We all have peaks and valleys in our living up to the truth, and the understanding of many are in flux... hopefully the light will become brighter and brighter until the perfect day. But the idea of a "Cafeteria Mormon" is sort of odd anyhow I mean it sort of reminds me of the following:

(D&C 49:2) "Behold, I say unto you, that they desire to know the truth in part, but not all, for they are not right before me and must needs repent."

The Lord here is talking about the Shakers but I think it could also be applicable to so-called "Cafeteria Mormons." We must all eventually accept all the truth the Lord has and will reveal... if they are really struggling with some "unsavory" teaching (I do not believe there are any) then they must eventually come to terms with it and gain a testimony and accept it. The most important thing is to not to harden our hearts, if we do then we are damned... we will never come to an understanding of the fullness of the truth. As stated here:

(Alma 12:9-11) "And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell."

So eventually there will be a polarization, like the wheat and the tares, but since there are varing degrees of glory for the varing degrees of faithfulness the Lord has many mansions and there will be a place for all according to their works and their faith.

[Sky]

Just curious. Do you think that posting on a blog or forum counts as publishing?

Good question. I think posting on blogs and forums can count as publishing, but most of the time the posters are anonymous, so that complicates things a bit. It