We hear the phrase “cafeteria Mormon” thrown around a lot for those that “pick and chose” what teaching and/or beliefs they espouse. I firmly fall into this definition. But I maintain that all Mormons are cafeteria Mormons. I also think that the Institutional LDS church practices a “cafeteria style” approach to what they enforce and what they let slide.
For “institutional cafeteriaism” (yup, I just made that up) the one example that jumps out at me is Christ’s injunction that anybody that puts his wife away for divorce, save it be for fornication, has himself commented adultery (Matthew 19:9) . We all know somebody in church that has a divorce for something other than fornication, yet they had no disciplinary action taken against them. I know of no official prophetic proclamation that does away with Christ’s words in the New Testament. The LDS church just ignores it, like passing by the broccoli in the serving line.
Another example is D&C 89. Again, the institutional church has completely passed on the “vegetables” (literally and figuratively) ignoring the first verse completely, and then picking and choosing (sound familiar) what they will and won’t enforce. If in fact the past or current prophetic leadership has received direction from on high to change section 89, why haven’t they changed the words and had us vote on it?
What other examples have you seen of this institutional cafeteriaism? What ways does the church, through policy or practice pick and choose what it will enforce, contrary to canonized scripture?
Wheat & Tares 
I have seen some slight improvements, but it still feels to me that there is a huge emphasis on serving those within the ward and not much about serving the community at large (especially the needy).
Not to distract too much from the main thrust, I don’t see why we need a new section of the D&C or to vote as a church to change the Word of Wisdom. Yes, I know the D&C talks about the need of Common Consent, but the way Mormon blogs invoke this remind me of my friends further to right than myself that matter of factly remind me that the US Constitution says only congress can write laws!! Well sure, but if we actually followed that and didn’t allow the executive, courts and administrative agencies to make law we’d be stuck in the (figurative) Stone Age. Plus, I’d argue by this point in time the brethren probably do have Common Consent. There are more ways to give consent than just vote. In a process I’d compare to international customary law, members have for a long time followed the current understanding of WoW (at least 80 years) with the understanding that this is God’s will. You can’t say that for everything the institutional church has tried. For example certain leaders tried to teach against contraception, but there was pushback. People didn’t follow the advice, or in other words, the church did not get Common Consent because the did not sustain the advice with their actions. In some ways, 80-ish years of following a teaching is a better measuring stick of consent than raising an arm to the square.
It has been noted a number of times that reconciling same-sex marriage with the scriptures is easier than reconciling divorce with the scriptures. Leviticus, et al., and the Epistles provide a wealth of opportunities for cafeterianism on that and other subjects. Yeah, Bishop, I know I added an n to your neologism. For me it has a better ring to it that way.
Jason, Did following the simultaneous expansion and limitation of the WoW to abstaining from coffee (caffeinated), tea (black), alcohol (drinking), and tobacco (internal) constitute consent to that change as a divine mandate after it became a measure of temple-worthiness? or was it then only consent to act in accordance with that bit of institutional cafeteria mormonism?
I’ll second JR’s n: Institutional cafeterianism, a term with a future.
Examples? First, personal cafeterianism. Just today I was reading articles by an LDS scientist-environmentalist, who observed how Mormons (particularly in rural Utah) ignore pro-environment counsel such as President Kimball’s famous “Don’t Shoot the Little Birdies”” talk and just adopt a “rape and pillage the land” approach. Worse, Mormons are adept at baptizing their own contrary views, coming to think that’s “the gospel” rather than what LDS leaders are actually saying, which might be 180 degrees opposite.
Alt-right Bundyism is another example. LDS leaders regularly say we should honor and sustain the law, but Mormon renegades and their supporters somehow think that by opposing the government or flaunting the law they are doing God’s work.
For true institutional cafeterianism, I would note how harsh the LDS disciplinary process often is on some transgressors, but how lax, even supportive, many bishops are (according to credible reports) on male priesthood holders who molest or assault young family members or other children. For LDS young men, they seem to think getting the young man on a mission justifies ignoring the transgression or crime (the victims, generally children or young women, don’t seem to carry much weight in these cases); for older priesthood holders who are the perpetrators, it’s sort of an old boys network thing. This is partly a case of untrained clergy but also an example of institutional cafeterianism, treating similar transgression harshly in some situations but with great leniency in others. The problem is exacerbated by the institutional practice of avoiding calling LDS police or prosecutors into local leadership callings (because they would be more likely to report perpetrators to the authorities, as often required by law if they are mandated reporters). That gives local LDS leaders more leeway to not report such cases.
http://adrr.com/lingua/divorce.htm
For just a little context, drawn from Evangelical Hebrew scholars.
To quote Paul Young:
“In Luke both the verbs “divorce” and “marry” are in the present tense. The parallel in Mark 10:11 puts them in the subjunctive mood. In Hebrew the force of the expression would have linked the two actions together in continuous motion: kol hasholeach et eshto venose acheret noef …
Perhaps in English one could better capture the meaning of the saying by translating it, “Everyone who divorces his wife [in order] to marry another commits adultery.” ([] in origional) From Divorce and Adultery in Light of the Words of Jesus, Paul Young in Jesus (Hendrickson Publishers, ISBN 1-56563-060-2. Also visit http://hakesher.org)
Note how Mark 10:11 reads:
“…Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
Reading the verses in Luke, using proper parallelism, the rendition is more likely proper as:
“Everyone who divorces his wife in order to marry another commits adultery, he that marries the new wife commits adultery, the same is true if the woman putteth away her husband in order to marry another.”
But, to quote Paul Young (at page 116) “No one should attempt to lesson the force of a powerful saying of Jesus. When a man abuses the law and divorces his wife in order to marry someone new — it is the same as adultery.”
I left the church, and I have been accused of “picking and choosing” my religion. As if the better road is to ignore what I have actually come to believe, and align myself to that which runs contrary to conscience. But this is what the church would desire. “Choose to believe, and keep the commandments until you do.”
Those are words straight out of Hell. If the church is false, they keep the individual away from the search for truth. And if the church is actually what it claims to be, it proves that the leaders believe that the letter of the law is good enough to save.
The Mormons who stay are those who have made their compromises with their covenants. The Mormons who do not believe in compromise will actually be crushed by them. When crushed, the individual rushes to Christ. The church then becomes utterly irrelevant, and it is revealed as the anti-Christ it actually is.
Indeed, we all pick and choose. Some of us may even be allergic to some of what is served. Best to skip those parts, I think.
To answer the main OP question, I think a possible instance of institutional cafeterianism is the laissez-faire approach to wealth within the church. There are enough warnings in scriptures about income inequality that it should cause greater concern to us.
That being said, I think saying all Mormons and the church itself practice cafeteria Mormonism lacks a certain nuance. In my understanding, the term was intended to describe a particular philosophical approach, one where the individual considers themselves the primary authority on deciding questions of doctrine. Just because someone fails to follow every scripture, does not mean they embrace the idea of the individual as the primary authority. An individual or institutions could act by divine command to ignore elements of past scripture. Or, if no divine command is given or available, their doctrinal priorities might flow from accepting or fearing to contradict tradition. In either case, the individual or institution comes into the cafeteria believing there are preset choices determined by wiser authorities. Behaviorally, it may look the same, as neither will emphasize all available scripture, but philosophically it is not. These philosophical differences on authority are important for understanding many disagreements within Mormonism.
Nice work Stephen. I believe many of the difficult questions or hard to understand things found in scripture can be answered with the application of a little Greek or Hebrew language knowledge. There are many resouses available to people if they will look and study. I just love it when I learn something like what Stephen shared. And to give the references allows me to look up the material and study it myself to see if it rings true.
I am not sure what the issue of “wealth with in the church” that Hanson is talking about? Is it that some members have more wealth than others or that the church as an institution has wealth and it should not? If we are saying that some members are wealth and that in and of itself is bad then I would have to disagree. I know far to many wealth good members who give so much to the church and people in general. And they do it silently, behind the scenes. They are the senior missionaries in the field around the world, working to better peoples lives. They are the members supporting multiple missionaries that would have a hard time going on missions with out that help. And so many more things. And the vast majority that I have know are kind and humble people. I see no great sin of pride in them. There are a few bad apples here and there, but it is not the majority. Pride and envy are much more prevalent in the poorer members, demanding that people help them but will not lift a hand to help others, it does not even enter their minds. At least it appears that way from observing them in action.
Merry Christmas everyone.
I’m amazed at the downvotes in this thread. I did not expect that sort of strong reaction to the topic or the comments.
Great post and interesting discussion. Our institutional narrative is currently at a place where the Church has answers and solutions for every aspect of your life. This has become more and more pronounced over the course of the Church’s history; many members have grown up with the idea that the Church has all the answers, the rules for everything and the solution to every problem. People become very disillusioned when this proves to not be true. They followed the prescribed pattern and things didn’t work or they find the Church does not have the answers to tough doctrinal or historical questions. I love the phrase from AA: “Take what you need and leave the rest.” I guess that is the ultimate cafeteriaism, but I think would set up healthy boundaries and realistic expectations for people in the Church. I would love it if things shifted to a cafeteria approach, i.e. presenting all that the Church has to offer as options and letting people take what they need and leave the rest. This is not intended to be a critique of our leaders, but I think it is a natural tendency to take as much power and authority as people are willing to give you and it is hard to give that up. We are experiencing that pain right now and it will only get worse. People are either leaving it altogether or giving the leaders and institutional Church less authority than they once had. The leaders are scrambling to hang on to it (look at how many talks in Conference focus on following the apostles and prophets). The inertia toward a cafeteria approach seems to be building and will be difficult to stop. As far as the Church taking a cafeteria approach? One example is female healings and blessings. Joseph Smith gave the sisters the keys for this authority, explicitly told them to do it and they did it until the early 20th Century. We don’t have good answers for why it stopped.
Loved your clarification to the Saviour’s words on marriage Stephen, helps me settle that one right down. Very useful.
The older I get, the more careful I need to be about what enters my system. Some stuff just doesn’t agree with me, and I need to learn to let it go.
That’s how I feel about church these days, and I figure that can’t be unique in human experience.
God knows I’m tired.
The Book of Mormon has numerous verses that the Jews should be given this book, starting with two references on its title page. See also: 2 Nephi 26:12, 2 Nephi 29:13, 2 Nephi 30:7, Mormon 5:14, etc. Yet the LDS Church withdrew its publication of a Hebrew Book of Mormon in order that BYU-Jerusalem could be established. Furthermore, BYU-Jerusalem students are under harsh restrictions regarding mingling with Jews in Israel. Sad… Also the office of Church Patriarch has been withdrawn…
Excellent points, Tom