Brookings Picks Up Church's LBGTQ Compromise
 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgo...101US0001-0308

I think I was reading God's mind. Back when the Church came out with support for SLC's housing protections for gays, I thought, we might as well support every gay right we can while being constrained by doctrinal integrity, and we should go all the way and make a big deal out of it.

The Brookings panel will discuss whether this can be a model for other states. So instead of being a social laggard once again, here's a chance to be an innovator.

And no, John Dehlin was not invited to the panel.

Being the tip of the spear for all manner of persons and organizations opposed to gay rights was never a great idea, IMO.

What is your opinion of what's happened recently? How do you react to that a prominent gay academic at the nation's premiere progressive think tank has spoken glowingly about the "Salt Lake Solution"?

Honestly I am more concerned about what is going on inside the 4 walls of the meetinghouses.

And as far as I can tell, nothing has changed there.

And this will be the case as long as all of the "progressive" stuff is shunted away from General Conference and official announcements and other venues where members actually hear the message.

I imagine the uptake on this legislation among American Mormons is close to zero.

No impact? Dehlin reported that someone facing discipline from his SP for participating in the Pride parade was told after the press release that he can stay and have any calling he wants.

Well that's good news.

I mean, I expect that the church is going to become more progressive in starts and fits.

Because it won't survive if it doesn't.

And the same goes with feminism as well.

No sports programs for girls in most stakes?

No ability for girls to go on campouts or outdoors high adventure?

Etc.

If we follow every fad we won't survive either. Take a look at liberal Protestants or the RLDS.

We could be hemorrhaging members, but not know it.

That's the thing, we are operating in a vacuum in terms of information and data.

What we can do is shed dumb cultural baggage that has nothing to do with the core of the message/gospel.

If we think there is a future where stake leadership meetings include zero females. Good luck to us.

Exactly. We'll change when we need to.

To quote Jeb Bush on reasons for converting to Catholicism:

The Catholic church can and does change.

And even when they don't change on controversial issues (birth control), their adherents just ignore the leadership.

It's easy to pick and choose.

That's why it's easy to be these one-off Bible churches...they don't have to make the hard choices about doctrine and practice in the same way that denominations do. So it's easy to say that the mainline Protestants are failing, when for the most part it's not any Christian denomination that is succeeding.

"Bible church" is not a denomination.