So, perhaps we all are cafeteria Mormons specifically because we are willing to accept what is served to us on an ever-changing entree list – then add our own desserts and spices. Just had the thought, so I haven’t considered it fully yet, but I thought it was worth putting out there. (Although I’m not sure how I feel about the picture of Elders Monson and Oaks in aprons and hairnets.)

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying Steve, I was just wondering how much of a consensus there is about that definition. I suspect not much.

Greenfrog, you’re welcome on my pew anytime.

Also to post #1 Mark who stated our Doctrine changes. Our Doctrine never changes, the only thing that changes is the Application of the Doctrine.

Thanks.

There’s a big difference between choosing between gross and net tithing and between paying tithing or not at all. The suggestion of a term used to describe the grayness of the former intended to be applied broadly undermines the black and whiteness of the latter. Even if some argue there is grayness in the latter, the collective term still obscures the difference of degree.

Ok, I’m going to say it for the first time: our history demonstrates that LDS doctrine/theology/practice is a shifting phenomenon, the result of discrete individual and institutional choices made from a cafeteria of offerings.

In my view, that doesn’t diminish the worth of the institution, but it does give reason to evaluate for one’s self specific doctrines and practices.

A lot of us seem to see more to the metaphor than you do.

For myself, I’ve never been able to distinguish clearly the line between belief and practice that you seem to perceive brightly. Even so, we may still sit next to one another in Sacrament meeting.