So-called "Cafeteria Mormons"

[FutureTwitBlog]

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.

I absolutely agree. For example, when is the last conference talk that you've ever heard about the "New Jerusalem" being established on "this, the American continent"? I think that we've kind of forgotten about that one . . . *ahem

[Sky]

I absolutely agree. For example, when is the last conference talk that you've ever heard about the "New Jerusalem" being established on "this, the American continent"? I think that we've kind of forgotten about that one . . . *ahem

How about this talk by Elder D. Todd Christofferson from the October 2008 General Conference...

Zion is both a place and a people. Zion was the name given to the ancient city of Enoch in the days before the Flood.

[StuddleyG]

I take everything that is on the menu, but there are some things that I feast on more than others. Some of the things I like to play with and mold a little bit. But I think I get all my essential vitamins and minerals.

[BCSpace]

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.

Depends on what you mean by "room" and what is the cut off for being "cafeteria". There certainly is no room in the CK for cafeteria Mormons and in that sense, the Church might not be for them unless they're okay with the Terrestial or possibly even the Telestial. But that speaks to the reasons why they might be cafeteria in the first place. I'm sure some consider themselves to be ahead of or an improvement of the Church.

As for what is the cut-off, I think those that accept every doctrine are relatively few and some are under the erroneous impression that some doctrines are really not doctrine. So I think the tendency would be to define "cafeteria" in a way that keeps one out of that definition and I will freely admit that I am no exception as I don't accept some of the Church's doctrines and consider these to be so minor that I would still qualify for the CK in terms of belief.

So you be the judge. I would say that the most important doctrine (most others are policies) I disagree with is the global flood. I do accept a literal Adam and Eve and the Fall. Though I accept evolution as completely compatible with LDS doctrine, I do not have a problem with other members having creationist beliefs. Am I a cafeteria Mormon?

Where I draw the line, and the Chruch actually draws this same line but they don't often enforce it, is on social and moral issues all of which are relevant to LDS doctrine. There is no place in the Church for opposition to it's stands on those values. If a member is in public opposition and is not trying to repent or otherwise believe, then there is no room in the Church for such a person. Of course there are non social/moral issues which can get someone into trouble as well.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Am I a cafeteria Mormon?

...

Not if you have received your second anointings from the

Living Prophet, in the SLC Temple's holy of holies, and

attend his prayer circle meetings.

Otherwise, you might want to ask The Brethren, if your

reservations about a ten-foot-deep layer of wet mud

covering the globe, up to the top of Ararat, conflicts

with Gospel Doctrine.

I rather think you'd pass the tests, myself.

UD

[BCSpace]

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

[BCSpace]

Not if you have received your second anointings from the

Living Prophet, in the SLC Temple's holy of holies, and

attend his prayer circle meetings.

Otherwise, you might want to ask The Brethren, if your

reservations about a ten-foot-deep layer of wet mud

covering the globe, up to the top of Ararat, conflicts

with Gospel Doctrine.

I rather think you'd pass the tests, myself.

Well, I don't accept the wet mud or the sloshing theory either. I do believe there was a literal flood, but that it was local. But as you can see, I do have some pretty strong opinions. It wouldn't bother me if someone else labeled me a cafeteria Mormon according to their own defintions.

[Uncle Dale]

...I do have some pretty strong opinions.

...

I recall a Sunday School argument, over just how far the three days

of daylight and the three days of darkness extended.

Can't remember the details, but I think we agreed that the

folks in Greenland and the Galapogas Islands may have not

noticed anything unusual.

You'd think it was the end of the world, if somebody disagreed

even slightly with the class teacher and the official lesson.

C-o-o-k-i-e-C-u-t-t-e-r-i-s-m

UD

[thesometimesaint]

To me the Church is not a rest home for the righteous. It is an ER for the spiritually wounded of the world.

[Pahoran]

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.

The term is actually borrowed from "Cafeteria Catholic." It implies that people are picking and choosing what they will and won't accept.

As I have defined the term, I certainly fit into this category, and I do not foresee that ever changing.

That's up to you. But you shouldn't be so quick to give up on yourself.

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

I really wish you could spare us the condescending presumptions of superiority. From the olympian heights of your enlightened lukewarmth, you may imagine "that TBMs feel threatened by this notion," I doubt that any really do. Some Latter-day Saints (note please that "TBM" is invariably a disparaging label, just as you have used it here) may be annoyed by your Laodicean triumphalism, but I can't see why any would feel threatened thereby.

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.

But how is such a process of development relevant to someone who does, or can, "not foresee that ever changing?"

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.

What "standard conservative TBM" is that? A stereotype you have created in order to massage your own feelings of comfortable superiority?

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.

Short answer: since there are very few people who genuinely reject everything the Church teaches, not excepting those who violently oppose the Church, it follows that it must depend upon what, specifically, they are rejecting.

Regards,

Pahoran

[charity's child]

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.

tapioca is the devil's dessert! One should only eat the apple crumble!

[Brade]

I hesitate to bring this up here, but I'm curious about something relevant to my own condition with respect to the recommend interview. Now, I've recently come to more openly and comfortably accept something that I've believed for a while now but have been hesitant to fully embrace. What I've come to more openly and comfortably accept is that on many major religious issues I'm essentially agnostic. That goes for many of the things asked about in the recommend interviews, including the first question. Many of the questions ask if the person being interviewed has a testimony of such and such. For many major issues, the strongest positive attitude I have is hope. For example, with respect to the first question, I hope that a being something like the Christian God, and particularly the anthropomorphic version of Mormonism, exists. And my feelings are the same for Christ, and so on. But that's the extent of my attitude toward existential claims about such beings. So, my question is this, is mere hope sufficient for a 'yes'?

[dbschroeder]

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

Salt Sermon?

dbs

[Uncle Dale]

Salt Sermon?

dbs

Yes -- but the message was taken from 3rd Nephi and appears in

a less pointed form in the New Testament.

The general idea appears to be that a Mormon either obeys the

First Presidency in all things, or he does not.

I'm sure that Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and their associates

in Missouri felt that they were living the Latter Day Saint religion

exactly as it was to be lived.

But, even one instance of disobedience to the First Presidency was

enough to have them cast into the waiting arms of Satan. It did not

matter whether or not the top leadership was right or wrong on any

particular point --- they were to be obeyed, and that was that.

In one odd situation the "cafeteria Mormons" at Far West prevailed,

however. The First Presidency called for an annual salary, from out

of the Church tithing, and the requisition was not sustained by the

quorums. If I recall correctly, this was the last time that the Saints

as a body ever defied their leaders.

UD

[TAO]

I hesitate to bring this up here, but I'm curious about something relevant to my own condition with respect to the recommend interview. Now, I've recently come to more openly and comfortably accept something that I've believed for a while now but have been hesitant to fully embrace. What I've come to more openly and comfortably accept is that on many major religious issues I'm essentially agnostic. That goes for many of the things asked about in the recommend interviews, including the first question. Many of the questions ask if the person being interviewed has a testimony of such and such. For many major issues, the strongest positive attitude I have is hope. For example, with respect to the first question, I hope that a being something like the Christian God, and particularly the anthropomorphic version of Mormonism, exists. And my feelings are the same for Christ, and so on. But that's the extent of my attitude toward existential claims about such beings. So, my question is this, is mere hope sufficient for a 'yes'?

Brade, I hate to say, I don't know how you could live in the middle. I certainly couldn't. XD. I guess I am a 'one way or the other' sorta person.

[cinepro]

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, for one, am sick of "cafeteria Mormons", and wish they would just make up their minds and get with the program or leave. If such a person (who willfully contradicts certain commandments or policies) is found out, they should be given opportunities to repent, but if they don't, they should be politely asked to worship elsewhere.

With the stipulation that my enlightened understanding of the Church's commandments and doctrinal issues is used as the standard against which others are judged for cafeteriousness. It obviously wouldn't be fair to judge me against any actual cafeteria Mormons (even the cafeteria Apostles), else I would incorrectly appear to be cafeteria when in fact the opposite is correct.

[Calm]

So, my question is this, is mere hope sufficient for a 'yes'?

When is hope ever "mere"?

It seems to me that a great deal of doctrine is spent dwelling on hope and its interaction with faith. I think in many cases "mere hope" is more than sufficient, but there is a whole spectrum that "hope" includes so I think it would be necessary to make a unique judgment call on each unique case (most likely by the person doing the interviewing in combination with the individual him/herself).

So I guess my response to you is a question as well: do you think your hope is sufficient?

[Terran]

So, my question is this, is mere hope sufficient for a 'yes'?

Read Alma 32 in regards to hope and then ask your bishop the question.

[FutureTwitBlog]

How about this talk by Elder D. Todd Christofferson from the October 2008 General Conference...

I must have missed that one

[Brade]

When is hope ever "mere"?

When it isn't mixed with belief, I suppose.

Read Alma 32 in regards to hope and then ask your bishop the question.

Good advice. Thanks.

[DH]

I'm not clear on why people would want to exclude anybody, unless they were actually disrupting meetings or victimizing other members. The purpose of the Church is not to be an exclusive club for people who have reached a certain level of spiritual maturity or righteousness, to pat each other on the back. The Church exists to serve as a sort of spiritual hospital or rehabilitation center. All humans are sinners, and all of us need to grow, and the Church's job (in other words, our job) is to help. As far as I'm concerned, "cafeteria Mormons" are more than welcome.

[consiglieri]

For example, with respect to the first question, I hope that a being something like the Christian God, and particularly the anthropomorphic version of Mormonism, exists. And my feelings are the same for Christ, and so on. But that's the extent of my attitude toward existential claims about such beings. So, my question is this, is mere hope sufficient for a 'yes'?

Different approaches to gospel adherence seem to be set forth by church leaders at different times. Uncle Dale has given a good example of an extreme position set forth by Sidney Rigdon in 1838. Understanding President Rigdon's penchant for bombastic oratory, I think the context of the times may account somewhat for the tenor of his address; so many within with the church (and in the church leadership) were absconding or turning "traitor" at the time, I think the situation lent itself to a "bright line" demarcation of friend and foe.

And I think we all know that the results of that particular sermon by President Rigdon didn't turn out so well.

On the other hand, we have words of encouragement in the Doctrine and Covenants for those who are not so sure of the truth of the gospel as others profess to be:

D&C 46:13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

These words of inclusiveness and hope strike me as more in harmony with the spirit of the gospel.

But then, I wasn't in Far West in 1838, and by trying to put myself in the shoes of the Mormons there who very likely felt their back against the wall in their efforts to build Zion in Jackson County, I can see how Rigdon's speech might have resonated more with me in that setting.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[DH]

[Retracted ]

[dbschroeder]

Yes -- but the message was taken from 3rd Nephi and appears in

a less pointed form in the New Testament.

The general idea appears to be that a Mormon either obeys the

First Presidency in all things, or he does not.

I'm sure that Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and their associates

in Missouri felt that they were living the Latter Day Saint religion

exactly as it was to be lived.

But, even one instance of disobedience to the First Presidency was

enough to have them cast into the waiting arms of Satan. It did not

matter whether or not the top leadership was right or wrong on any

particular point --- they were to be obeyed, and that was that.

In one odd situation the "cafeteria Mormons" at Far West prevailed,

however. The First Presidency called for an annual salary, from out

of the Church tithing, and the requisition was not sustained by the

quorums. If I recall correctly, this was the last time that the Saints

as a body ever defied their leaders.

UD

I like the fact that Oliver, David and Martin despite their misunderstandings w the early leadership never sold out, depsite thousands of oppurtunities to do so.

Also, I found this interesting, written by Oliver while ex communicated:

I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character, as those who might believe in my testimony, after I should be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so

[Glenn101]

Well ther are chapel mormons, internet mormons, "true Believing Mormons", and now cafeteria Mormons. I probably would be classified as a TBM and take no offense when someone hangs that appellation on me. Ephesians chapter four tells us how long we will need apostles and prophets. One of the criteria is that we come to a unity of faith. It is evident that this includes those that are members as well as those who have yet to embrace the fulness of the gospel.

I think that there are many who struggle with certain aspects of the gospel but yet are faithful and productive in ther respective wards, branches, and stakes.D&C 84: 109-110 tells us "109 Therefore, let every man stand in his own aoffice, and blabor in his own calling; and let not the chead say unto the feet it hath no need of the feet; for without the feet how shall the body be able to stand?

110 Also the body hath need of every amember, that all may be be dified together, that the system may be kept perfect."

If we took out all qho have not a perfect faith, the church would be small indeed.

Glenn