What is a cafeteria Mormon?

It might mean different things to different people but to me it has always meant that a member does not believe every teaching and/or scripture of the LDS church. They pick and choose what they believe as if they were in a cafeteria line picking and choosing what they want to eat. Many believing members would never admit to being a cafeteria Mormon because it implies they are less than a “true believer”. I think they might be surprised at what qualifies them for this esteemed category so I’ve provided some examples to help people to get a quick idea about whether they or someone they know is a cafeteria Mormon.

Without further ado…

You might be a cafeteria Mormon if…

1. You don’t believe remarrying after divorce makes you an adulterer.

I know right? But it actually gets even better. Anyone who marries a divorced person is also an adulterer.

Luke 16:18 : “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” 3 Nephi 12:32 : “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery.”

Some try to justify these verses by saying “put away” means a divorce that isn’t fully legal. These verses make a clear connection between “putting away” and “divorce”. And even if one did believe the first half doesn’t mean divorce it clearly states that if you marry a divorced woman, you are committing adultery.

2. You believe that David having wives and concubines was a sin.

D&C 132:39 : “David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.”

Perhaps you simply aren’t versed well enough in modern revelations if you don’t understand that God gave David his wives and concubines. He only screwed up with Uriah. Glad to have this cleared up.

3. You believe that David having wives and concubines wasn’t a sin.

Jacob 2:24 : “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

Perhaps you simply aren’t versed well enough in the Book of Mormon if you don’t understand that David’s wives and concubines were abominable before the Lord. He didn’t just screw up with Uriah. Glad to have this cleared up.

4. You think it was somehow okay that Joseph continually lied to Emma about his polygamy.

D&C 132:61 : “And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.” [emphasis added]

Not only was it expected that Emma know about his plural marriages, she was supposed to agree to them. Joseph’s continued deceptions with Emma had no justification.

5. You think Joseph marrying already married women was okay.

D&C 132:61 : “And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.” [emphasis added]

Pretty sure women married to other men have made vows with those men, even if we ignore the whole virgin requirement. Joseph’s polyandry was not acceptable under the laws of God or man.

6. You believe the black priesthood/temple/exaltation ban was a commandment from God.

When Brigham young introduced the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood, which had the unfortunate side effect of denying blacks the exalting ordinances of the temple, it was purely a policy, not doctrine or revelation. The Church denounces Brigham’s and the following church leaders’ racism altogether. Good on them.

“In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination.” … “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” Race and the Priesthood

Good thing we have prophets today to clear stuff like this up, right? Would have been nice if someone had put out a clear statement about this in the past.

7. You believe the black priesthood/temple/exaltation ban was not a commandment from God.

The First Presidency of the church stated unequivocally and without any ambiguity that the blacks not receiving the priesthood was a direct commandment of God and was not a matter of policy.

“The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.” [emphasis added] First Presidency Statement (President George Albert Smith)

Good thing prophets can’t lead us astray, right? Not like anyone is going to completely contradict this and throw President Smith and a bunch of other prophets under the bus a half century or so later, right?

8. You believe that black/dark skin is a curse or sign of disfavor with God.

The church has completely disavowed any of the racist theories that dark skin is a curse from God. It’s good to see the Church acknowledging these blatantly racist theories of the past for what they are.

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.” Race and the Priesthood

9. You believe that black/dark skin is not a curse or sign of disfavor with God.

The Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses both show that the Lord has used dark skin as a curse in the past.

2 Nephi 5:21 : “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” Moses 7:8 : “For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.”

In the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established, eh? This must be pretty solid if it’s in two modern revealed scriptures.

10. You believe in human evolution.

I’m not going to get in to how much evidence there is or isn’t for evolution, because that really isn’t the point here. Many members of the Mormon church in light of all the evidence supporting evolution have tried to reconcile human evolution with a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and eve. Unfortunately, these two ideas are mutually exclusive. If Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth, then human evolution has to be a complete fraud. If evolution is accurate, then a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve is impossible. The main reason for this is that there was no death before Adam. None…at all. And by most interpretations of the scriptures, no death on Earth PERIOD before Adam and eve.

2 Nephi 2:22 : “And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.”

Fairmormon gives a decent treatment to the topic. Admittedly, death for all the world is not a rock solid interpretation of the scriptures, but by all accounts including apologists, Adam and Eve were not mortal before the fall and were the first man and woman on the face of the earth. With how evolution works, they cannot have been immortal and the first man and woman AND have been created through evolution. Their parents would have had to have been human…they would have had to have had parents period at that. Human evolution and a literal Adam and Eve are completely exclusive events.

Conclusion

It’s not actually possible to NOT be a cafeteria Mormon. No Mormon believes all of Mormonism. As evidenced in just these few examples, it’s not even actually possible TO believe all of Mormonism, because the teachings of the church/scriptures contradict far too often. To those who would say “we receive further light and knowledge from modern prophets!”, I say that there is a difference between further light and knowledge and completely snuffing out the light given in the past and replacing it with new light. Truth cannot contradict truth.