- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Personally I have abandoned the “Cafeteria Mormon” Phrase because (as everyone else has said), every Mormon is a Cafeteria Mormon. We have been for years. None of us do all of the Mormon things all the time. Genealogy, Food Storage, Every Member a Missionary, FHE just to name a few. There are even active members who are Cafeteria Style but because we see them in the pews and they look the part, we assume they do everything. I stick with phrases like Middle Way Mormon, Christian Mormon or just LDS and let people decide what they want about me. Sometimes the last part is the hardest. My heart is Christ centered, but I don’t always see Christ the same way my religion does. Same with the “gospel”. Extending grace to the other person can be hard for me. I want to feel comfortable at my chosen church. When I don’t I panic, become defensive, and both parties get hurt.
Since I have chosen to stay, I work to develop love, grace, courtesy and even good sportsmanship towards the “Big Church” and the people in the church. I have participated with enough other churches and church groups to see their flaws to, both in doctrine and action. I would have to use the same skills there and that I do here. So I stay, get wound up, stop over here and vent, then pick up the load and try to love again.
that is a very very good point, mom3. There will be some labels that just don’t really work when talking with others. At least that has been my experience. At some point, you realize you won’t get affirmation from others…you just reconcile it in your own mind but don’t talk about it. I’ve always avoided being defined. At any level. I don’t want to be predictable or orthodox. If the choice is a literal believer or a cafeteria Mormon. I choose the later.
The truth is I don’t like labels period.
To many of my traditional friends, I am a liberal Mormon. To many of my liberal friends, I am a conservative Mormon.
To me, I am me.
I am okay with all of that, since I am okay with (most) others and with me.
Old Timer wrote:To me, I am me.
And that is a good “me”.
This is an article in the Huffington Post. It shows how the term “Cafeteria” is applied to other people & religions. The author makes the claim that Jesus was a Cafeteria Jew.
FWIW. I found it interesting.
Jesus was a cafeteria Jew in one fascinating way: He was more “liberal” in some ways than the leadership and more “conservative” than the leadership in others. I think it would be reasonable to call him a middle way Jew – more so than a cafeteria Jew, since I’m not sure he would tell others to pick and choose whichever parts of Judaism made the most sense to them.
In that way, I think all of us are cafeteria Mormons in a real but limited way. We are working on building our own individual, unique faith within the general Mormon faith tradition and LDS Church organization, and we are trying to allow others that same privilege, but there are limits on what we think is “healthy food” and would celebrate if certain dishes were removed from the buffet table.
I’m okay with the general term “Cafeteria Mormon” – but I think it ismportant to be careful and precise when dealing with labels for others, like Jesus or Luther (cafeteria Catholic?) or Joseph Smith. In a sense, Joseph was building a new dining hall, experimenting with lots of different foods and recipes – some delicious and some toxic. He was more like a chef with all ingredients at his disposal – and the cafeteria was formalized after his death.
(Just free-flowing there. I haven’t pursued that analogy in the past.)
Old Timer wrote:Joseph was building a new dining hall, experimenting with lots of different foods and recipes – some delicious and some toxic.
As I have spent some time studying different Christian religions, I have been keenly interested in their worldview or narrative and how that fits with their interpretation of the bible. I have in the past called them cafeteria religions (since they choose which doctrines to highlight as ultra important and which to minimize or dismiss). But I find that that the metaphor of a cafeteria is not the best.
To me they seem like “narrative” or “meaning” religions. They have the same issue as historians being impartial. There are a set of facts that everyone (or most everyone agrees upon). There are other reported incidents where the corroborating evidence is in dispute. Finally there are tidbits that are of late origin (rememberances long after the fact) and no supporting evidence. What story do we tell with this pile of information? It certainly matters what “facts” we decide to use and what we do not. It also matters what order we put them in and how we use some to shed light on others. To just recite dates and events without any meaning seems so contrary to human nature. We are creatures of purpose, meaning, and narrative. We are born storytellers.
Imagine that there is a communal story/history that is told and retold. All are familiar with the essential elements. There are certain subgroups within the community that prefer a certain version of the story. Some even go as far as to claim that their version is the one true story. They then attach the label of “cafeteria” to anyone within their subgroup that does not tell the story in the “correct” way.
It is the constant tension (the push pull) between communal meaning and individual meaning. How much of your individual story are you willing to subvert to the group story? How much can one deviate from the group narrative before they are no longer considered part of the group at all? Is it “belonging” or is it “individualism”?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.