Members of the LDS Church don't always take some of these narratives you are referring to in "word for word" specificity/literalism as evangelicals and some other Christians do. Sometimes we may. In fact, Latter-day Saints, at times, may look at the 'literalist' point of view as being more symbolic/metaphoric...while at the same time referring to real events.
In regards to the "mountains of Petra" Latter-day Saints would redefine and redirect that scripture you are referring to to apply to the "Mountain of the Lord"...or gathering to the Temples built by the church.
The CofJCofLDS does believe/teach that Jesus Christ will appear on the Mount of Olives and deliver the Jewish people. The "mountain split" will be centered in Jerusalem, not Petra.
In other words, it's kind of a mix and match sort of thing. Modern day prophets and scripture outline and add more context to Biblical accounts/representations of events that will...and have already...occurred.
Regards,
MG
I don’t think Quantum is really here to have any serious discussion… this post for example has nothing to do with Mormonism. I do appreciate you trying to steer him towards salience though!
On another thread I'm questioning him/her as to what their motive/purpose is.
A reasonable approach as apposed to lunatic rigidity which some people seem to long for and leave because it cannot be secured.
Did the leaders of the Church promote the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is the way to go, that members should pick and choose just the bits of Mormonism that they find appetising and ignore the rest of it?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
A reasonable approach as apposed to lunatic rigidity which some people seem to long for and leave because it cannot be secured.
Did the leaders of the Church promote the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is the way to go, that members should pick and choose just the bits of Mormonism that they find appetising and ignore the rest of it?
Well different leaders all have variations of view so members have no choice but to assemble their understanding as best as their choices can manage. That is why there is variations in viewpoints. Example, my very Mormon mother enjoyed playing bridge. There are mor.ons who reject such card games because of their selected understanding.
Like it or not I think cafeteria is inescapable. I realize the phrase is sometimes a criticism used by people rejecting some other person’s views. The person leveling the criticism may perhaps be only trying to justify their own selections in the cafeteria.
Did the leaders of the Church promote the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is the way to go, that members should pick and choose just the bits of Mormonism that they find appetising and ignore the rest of it?
Well different leaders all have variations of view so members have no choice but to assemble their understanding as best as their choices can manage. That is why there is variations in viewpoints. Example, my very Mormon mother enjoyed playing bridge. There are mor.ons who reject such card games because of their selected understanding.
Like it or not I think cafeteria is inescapable. I realize the phrase is sometimes a criticism used by people rejecting some other person’s views. The person leveling the criticism may perhaps be only trying to justify their own selections in the cafeteria.
But do the leaders of the Church promote the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is the way to go, that members should pick and choose just the bits of Mormonism that they find appetising and ignore the rest of it? You seem to be avoiding the blatantly obvious answer to my question.
Whilst cafeteria Mormonism might be what less diligent members (like MG) run with, Church leaders want members to rigidly adhere to whatever it is they, the leaders, say should be adhered to. Follow the Prophet and all that.
I’ll wager that you cannot find a quote from General Conference April 2026 that promoted the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is okay.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Well different leaders all have variations of view so members have no choice but to assemble their understanding as best as their choices can manage. That is why there is variations in viewpoints. Example, my very Mormon mother enjoyed playing bridge. There are mor.ons who reject such card games because of their selected understanding.
Like it or not I think cafeteria is inescapable. I realize the phrase is sometimes a criticism used by people rejecting some other person’s views. The person leveling the criticism may perhaps be only trying to justify their own selections in the cafeteria.
But do the leaders of the Church promote the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is the way to go, that members should pick and choose just the bits of Mormonism that they find appetising and ignore the rest of it? You seem to be avoiding the blatantly obvious answer to my question.
Whilst cafeteria Mormonism might be what less diligent members (like MG) run with, Church leaders want members to rigidly adhere to whatever it is they, the leaders, say should be adhered to. Follow the Prophet and all that.
I’ll wager that you cannot find a quote from General Conference April 2026 that promoted the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is okay.
Question, of course you are correct about what the leaders say. I was thinking of two things. Cafeteria is an unspoken reality necessary if one engages one's brain. Second it is always better to engage one's brain. I choose to favor David O. Mckay respect for not entirely orthodox Sterling McMurrin because he thinks.
I notice that Blake Ostler has not been kicked out or disciplined. I do no follow him so know no details but on a thread about him it is ex or critical Mormons that complain that his thinking strays off the main line.
But do the leaders of the Church promote the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is the way to go, that members should pick and choose just the bits of Mormonism that they find appetising and ignore the rest of it? You seem to be avoiding the blatantly obvious answer to my question.
Whilst cafeteria Mormonism might be what less diligent members (like MG) run with, Church leaders want members to rigidly adhere to whatever it is they, the leaders, say should be adhered to. Follow the Prophet and all that.
I’ll wager that you cannot find a quote from General Conference April 2026 that promoted the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is okay.
Question, of course you are correct about what the leaders say. I was thinking of two things. Cafeteria is an unspoken reality necessary if one engages one's brain. Second it is always better to engage one's brain. I choose to favor David O. Mckay respect for not entirely orthodox Sterling McMurrin because he thinks.
I agree that many members will pick and choose the bits of Mormonism they want to live, and reject the bits they don’t. But that’s apostasy. It might not be a full separation from the Church, but choosing to not live an aspect of Mormonism as it is currently taught means, if you’re being honest, that you should not hold a temple recommend.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I agree that many members will pick and choose the bits of Mormonism they want to live, and reject the bits they don’t. But that’s apostasy. It might not be a full separation from the Church, but choosing to not live an aspect of Mormonism as it is currently taught means, if you’re being honest, that you should not hold a temple recommend.
The problem is that “Mormonism” isn’t a fixed standard to begin with. If a current prophet can redefine doctrine, policy, or emphasis through new “revelation,” then the boundaries of belief are inherently fluid.
That makes it impossible to draw a clean line between “faithful adherence” and “apostasy,” because what counts as orthodoxy today may not have been so yesterday, and may change again tomorrow.
At that point, the only consistent requirement left is a person’s willingness to “follow the prophet,” whatever that happens to mean to that person at that time.
I agree that many members will pick and choose the bits of Mormonism they want to live, and reject the bits they don’t. But that’s apostasy. It might not be a full separation from the Church, but choosing to not live an aspect of Mormonism as it is currently taught means, if you’re being honest, that you should not hold a temple recommend.
The problem is that “Mormonism” isn’t a fixed standard to begin with. If a current prophet can redefine doctrine, policy, or emphasis through new “revelation,” then the boundaries of belief are inherently fluid.
That makes it impossible to draw a clean line between “faithful adherence” and “apostasy,” because what counts as orthodoxy today may not have been so yesterday, and may change again tomorrow.
At that point, the only consistent requirement left is a person’s willingness to “follow the prophet,” whatever that happens to mean to that person at that time.
It’s really quite simple. Mormonism is whatever the current incumbent says it is. We are currently in a period of Oaksism. After a period of Nelsonism.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
But do the leaders of the Church promote the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is the way to go, that members should pick and choose just the bits of Mormonism that they find appetising and ignore the rest of it? You seem to be avoiding the blatantly obvious answer to my question.
Whilst cafeteria Mormonism might be what less diligent members (like MG) run with, Church leaders want members to rigidly adhere to whatever it is they, the leaders, say should be adhered to. Follow the Prophet and all that.
I’ll wager that you cannot find a quote from General Conference April 2026 that promoted the idea that cafeteria Mormonism is okay.
Question, Of course you are correct about what the leaders say. I was thinking of two things. Cafeteria is an unspoken reality necessary if one engages one's brain. Second it is always better to engage one's brain. I choose to favor David O Makay respect for not entirely orthodox Sterling Mcmurim because he thinks. .
I notice that Blake Oustler has not been kicked out or disciplined. I do no fallow him so know no details but on a thread about him it is ex or critical Mormons that complain his thinking strays off the main line.
You are communicating with a person who is a prime/stellar example of "rigidity". It comes across consistently.
David O. McKay. What a man. And in my opinion, a prophet of God.
