So-called "Cafeteria Mormons"

[wenglund]

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'?

Given your admitted agnosticism regarding key aspects of the restored gospel, I am wondering what motive you may have in seeking a temple recommend?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Droopy]

The fork in the road with regard to the ever recurring continuation of the "big tent" talk of what is and is not acceptable within the Church as to what concepts, ideas, doctrines and principles constitute "faithful" Saint status is the following:

2 Ne. 9:41:

O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.

Matt. 7:14:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Jacob 6:11:

O then, my beloved brethren, repent ye, and enter in at the strait gate, and continue in the way which is narrow, until ye shall obtain eternal life.

3 Ne. 27-33:

And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he said unto his disciples: Enter ye in at the astrait gate; for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein, until the night cometh, wherein no man can work.

1 Ne. 8: 19-20, 24, 30

19 And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.

20 And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.

I didn't catch the phrase "big tent" anywhere here, but of course, I may have glossed over it.

[Droopy]

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

Inclusiveness with regard to what?

[Calm]

The fork in the road with regard to the ever recurring continuation of the "big tent" talk of what is and is not acceptable within the Church as to what concepts, ideas, doctrines and principles constitute "faithful" Saint status is the following:....

O then, my beloved brethren, repent ye, and enter in at the strait gate, and continue in the way which is narrow, until ye shall obtain eternal life. ....

I didn't catch the phrase "big tent" anywhere here, but of course, I may have glossed over it.

Apples and oranges. One is talking about what one must become in order to receive eternal life, OTOH the question presented by this thread is about who is and who isn't allowed to sit down and worship with us in the LDS faith or claim to be part of the greater community.

Christ sat down with many sinners. He has invited all to come unto him. That is the "big tent" of the scripture.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

The Church is not only for those who have drunk unto eternal life, but those who are seeking for the refuge and refreshment of the Lord, but don't quite recognize the source yet or even the path to get there.

[mercyngrace]

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.

Great comment, DH!

Time for me to throw down one of my favorite Maxwell quotes...

There is a real risk that members of the Church

[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'?

Given your admitted agnosticism regarding key aspects of the restored gospel, I am wondering what motive you may have in seeking a temple recommend?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fair question. I don't think I can give a more satisfying answer than to simply say that I'm drawn to the temple experience. It's an odd sort of attraction. The experience itself is odd, and, in fact, it's largely the strangeness of it that I find compelling. The experience feels worshipful to me in a way that going to Church never has. I also like the idea that the worship is tied directly to helping somebody.

I think I understand the sacredness of the experience, the covenants, and the place. And, recently I've come to feel that my participation, especially as and if more people come to know what my attitude is, might, I don't really know how to put this, pollute the experience for others. Or, perhaps I'm mocking the ritual itself, or God, if he exists, by being a sort of unbelieving participant. And I certainly don't want to pollute or mock. And so if, say, my bishop were to tell me that my attitude isn't sufficient to warrant admission, I'd accept that, because I can see how my presence might be view by the Church as having a negative affect, though it certainly isn't my intention to do harm to the ritual or anyone's experience of it.

[Pahoran]

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.

Keep in mind that the whole idea of excluding anyone was introduced by the proudly self-proclaimed "cafeteria Mormon" thread originator. As such, this is an "I dare you to victimise me" thread. In case you haven't noticed, nobody has actually accepted his invitation to hold a necktie party in his honour.

Regards,

Pahoran

[semlogo]

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.

[SilverKnight]

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'?

Depends on the bishop, but for me it has always been a 'yes'.

Like you, I am essentially a hopeful agnostic. In TR interviews I have always been totally honest about this, and never once has my bishop hesitated to issue me a TR. Much of it depends on the attitude you have toward faith, the church and the temple. Honesty about your doubts coupled with hope and a desire to believe (as described in Alma 38) resonates with most of the bishops I have met, and should qualify you for a TR I think.

Members of this board, Dan Peterson, Mbukowski and Rongo are all bishops, and have all expressed similar opinion that such a person should be issued a recommend.

As far as I am concerned, those who would tear down the 'big tent' and erect a tiny VIP-only country club are less worthy to enter the temple than the hopeful doubters.

[semlogo]

As far as I am concerned, those who would tear down the 'big tent' and erect a tiny VIP-only country club are less worthy to enter the temple than the hopeful doubters.

Agreed. Jesus was extremely inclusive, going so far to associate with and speak well of "enemies" of Judaism like Samaritans and publicans.

[ElfLord]

Agreed. Jesus was extremely inclusive, going so far to associate with and speak well of "enemies" of Judaism like Samaritans and publicans.

Yet Paul seems to have been just the opposite.

Rom. 16: 17

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

2 Cor 6

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

Of course there is more than one way to interpret these.

[semlogo]

Yet Paul seems to have been just the opposite.

Rom. 16: 17

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

2 Cor 6

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

Of course there is more than one way to interpret these.

Yes, Paul was a bit obnoxious, and sometimes expressed opinions contrary to the teachings of Christ. It's unfortunate that so many of his letters became canonized.

[Pahoran]

Yes, Paul was a bit obnoxious, and sometimes expressed opinions contrary to the teachings of Christ. It's unfortunate that so many of his letters became canonized.

I rather suspect, Semlogo, that in any cases where your opinion differs from Paul's, yours are rather more likely to be "contrary to the teachings of Christ" than his are.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ahab]

As a TBM (or at least someone who thinks he can be correctly called one) I believe in holding up and promoting the ideal of perfection, rather than some mediocre alternative, so I say that all people who are or who desire to be members of the true Church of Christ should have their eyes on perfection rather than on only becoming mediocre.

And btw, cafeterias can be very wonderful places where you can keep going back for more, even though not all cafeterias have cooks who prepare things as well as our wives/mothers do when they do their home cooking.

[semlogo]

I rather suspect, Semlogo, that in any cases where your opinion differs from Paul's, yours are rather more likely to be "contrary to the teachings of Christ" than his are.

Regards,

Pahoran

Really? So you agree with Paul that women should shut their mouths in church?

[Pahoran]

Really? So you agree with Paul that women should shut their mouths in church?

That's a clever comeback, and I can only reply in kind: Of course they should -- the meetings will be shorter.

I'm not certain that Paul was talking about regular church meetings, though.

More to the point: can you point to a teaching of Jesus that addresses the question and contradicts Paul?

Because the matter at issue is the extent to which Paul's writings are "contrary to the teachings of Christ." If Jesus didn't say anything on the subject of women in the Church, then this is not really a very relevant example, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[semlogo]

That's a clever comeback, and I can only reply in kind: Of course they should -- the meetings will be shorter.

I'm not certain that Paul was talking about regular church meetings, though.

More to the point: can you point to a teaching of Jesus that addresses the question and contradicts Paul?

Because the matter at issue is the extent to which Paul's writings are "contrary to the teachings of Christ." If Jesus didn't say anything on the subject of women in the Church, then this is not really a very relevant example, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Jesus didn't address the topic of women in church, it's true. Most modern churches have the good grace to ignore Paul on that issue, though.

Peter does contradict Jesus on the issue of works, faith and grace, as well as inclusiveness vs exclusiveness.

[ElfLord]

That's a clever comeback, and I can only reply in kind: Of course they should -- the meetings will be shorter.

I'm not certain that Paul was talking about regular church meetings, though.

More to the point: can you point to a teaching of Jesus that addresses the question and contradicts Paul?

Because the matter at issue is the extent to which Paul's writings are "contrary to the teachings of Christ." If Jesus didn't say anything on the subject of women in the Church, then this is not really a very relevant example, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

From what I understand... the bit about women not speaking in church was a later addition.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services.

Many theologians have concluded that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery. Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." ₆If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul.

http://www.religious...rg/nfe_bibl.htm

[wenglund]

Fair question. I don't think I can give a more satisfying answer than to simply say that I'm drawn to the temple experience. It's an odd sort of attraction. The experience itself is odd, and, in fact, it's largely the strangeness of it that I find compelling. The experience feels worshipful to me in a way that going to Church never has. I also like the idea that the worship is tied directly to helping somebody.

I think I understand the sacredness of the experience, the covenants, and the place. And, recently I've come to feel that my participation, especially as and if more people come to know what my attitude is, might, I don't really know how to put this, pollute the experience for others. Or, perhaps I'm mocking the ritual itself, or God, if he exists, by being a sort of unbelieving participant. And I certainly don't want to pollute or mock. And so if, say, my bishop were to tell me that my attitude isn't sufficient to warrant admission, I'd accept that, because I can see how my presence might be view by the Church as having a negative affect, though it certainly isn't my intention to do harm to the ritual or anyone's experience of it.

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

My reason for asking was, I view the temple as an advanced means for spiritual progression--not wholing unlike graduate school in secular education. In some ways, it wouldn't make sense to me were I to apply for graduate school in mathematics if I was agnostic about what I learned in K-12 and undergraduate courses in mathematics. In other words, I am not sure if it makes much sense to continue on the path of progression in faith if, in all your years within the restored gospel, you have been entirely unsuccessful in progressing in faith.

However, one key aspect of spiritual progression is to work in becoming more like Christ, in large part through doing service to others. And, one of the more substantial ways of doing such is by participating in salvific works for the dead (thereby fulfilling one of the four-fold missions of the Church). Perhaps this is what you meant when you spoke of "helping people", and if so, then maybe that is reason enough for you to seek a temple recommend. I don't know. Such is between you and God and your bishop--to the extent that you may agnostically work it out with both.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ELF1024]

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 like funeral potatoes, does that mean that I'm a cafe Mormon? I'll belly up to the bar for another heaping helping of funeral potatoes... I'll be over here, embracing the doctrine and policy of funeral potatoes with all the other people hungry for the Gospel of Funeral Potatoes...