We need to meet him today, with the dust of the street on our shoes and in our souls.

If the choice is taxes or tithing?
consumer/student loan debt or tithing?
child support or tithing?
medical bills or tithing?
If you’re receiving Church assistance to make ends meet should you also be paying 10%?

Of course, many will say that tithing is a privilege and that taking it away from people (as an institutional rule) would be depriving them of blessings. The problem I see, is we know the blessings of tithing do not always come in the form of money. Maybe the greater blessing for you at this moment is to get yourself right financially.

“We would all sit up a little straighter if it was Moses right?” And on and on about the complacency of modern life and the ease in which we receive the Word. Its true, many of us do live a more comfortable life than our forebears. And for many in history, scripture (or information of any kind) was terribly hard to acquire. But those are not the reasons that we value some prophets more than others.

I’m aware that a main theme of the Mormon narrative is the sameness of God’s prophets throughout time and place. And although I think this is a historically dubious claim (at least the way we commonly teach it), I understand its utility in the way we try to view the living prophet.

The problem is that we’ve already decided – theologically/institutionally – that some prophets really do weigh differently. We like to say that the latest Conference addresses are the same as scripture for at least the 6 months following. But that’s really not the same as placing it in the canon for time and all eternity. It’s not. Thank heaven it’s not, right?! Sure, we like to revive the words of modern prophets and find the wisdom that God revealed through them. But we all know that this is heavily cherry picked to align with our contemporary sensibilities (or revelations). And even then – manuals do not equal canon.

Of course, this should all be non controversial. And that’s the point. Its right in front of our nose and we talk as if its not. Its right in the fabric of official Church teaching.

So, Thomas S. Monson does not weigh the same as Joseph Smith or Jeremiah or Paul and that’s OK. It has been for quite a long time.

If there are those who identify as Democrats or Republicans, I would at least call it an even balance. When it comes to family, the vast majority of couples started having children after both husband and wife had finished their higher education and in many cases, the woman has had a number of successful years as a professional. When it comes to homosexuality, let’s take for granted that its a very inviting, loving and non judgmental place – when it comes to members of the ward who would identify as gay but also concerning the broader gay community (the proof of this assertion could be another post entirely).

As for basic testimony and teaching, this ward is full of very committed and even passionate believers in the Atonement of Jesus, the Restoration and in today’s Church structure and leadership. I would also add though, that its not uncommon to hear the less-talked-about aspects of Church history or doctrine in this ward, particularly in relation to peep stones, polyandry or anything else you might find in Rough Stone Rolling (for example). In fact, Bushman might be the most quoted individual in GD after Church leaders and C.S. Lewis.

Now take this ward and insert a Gospel Doctrine Lesson on the Priesthood. The whole of the lesson goes as you might think – “power to act in the name of…” etc, etc. With about 5 minutes remaining, the teacher throws out the question, “What is the role of women in the priesthood?” Chirp, chirp, no one says a word for at least a solid minute. “I would love to get a woman’s perspective on how you operate in the priesthood and what is your role.”, the teacher encourages.

Finally, a man in the class raises his hand and says a few words about revelation and the changes that have taken place in Church doctrine and policy. “There’s no reason to think that women won’t one day hold the same authority as men”, is the gist of what the man says. Suddenly, a number of hands shoot up – all women. One by one, they give articulate responses to the question, none of which talk of something missing. None that speak of a future day. In fact, without exception, they each describe the joy in their present “partnership” and role. Each answer is unique and not entirely predictable or rehashed. Each answer is, in the end, in support of the current status of women in relation to the priesthood. Now, imagine the lesson ends and the women in the room swarm around those who spoke and thank them for what they said and express solidarity and support.

Yes, this happened in my ward and, I have to admit, it left me feeling a little humbled. To put it plain, I have a fairly radical view of women and the priesthood. In short, I think they should hold it, the same as men. And I think the best reason is that it might benefit us all. That is, female voices in leadership at all levels of the Church would better accomplish the goals and missions of the Church and in carrying out the teachings of Jesus. Women being able to lay hands on their children, bless their infants, baptize and confirm their converts and bestow God’s power, when no man is in sight would work for the greater good.

Sure, it would turn the whole Church structure upside down. But, I see no doctrinal justification for a male only priesthood. I mainly view it as a tradition that may have been useful at one time, but less so now and in the perceivable future.

As a man, does my opinion count in the face of so many women in support of the existing state of affairs? I’m finding that the answer is – not so much.

Sure, this was a very small sample of the opinions of women of the Church. I know that there are many women who do, in fact, agree with me and my views (to some degree or another). But, the world in which we operate is our local, face to face world. I know the internet has great power but, at the end of the day, the world that we live in and influence most is among the people we see and associate with in real time. And when I look at the women in my sphere who smash to pieces the common stereotypes of the oppressed, submissive or blind Mormon woman, I find their words extremely compelling – if only because they are women and I am not.

In fact, I happen to know one of these women quite well. A woman that I have so much respect for – not just for her abilities and work as a mom, but for her intellect, integrity and broad range of talents. A woman who’s views in so many other aspects of life I would describe as “feminist”. And after giving her my best argument for why women should hold the priesthood, the response was essentially this: “I think you undervalue the current contribution of women in the Church. I think you don’t realize how vital the role is that we currently play.”

What is a man supposed to say to that? My rebuttal was received respectfully, but in the end my gender seems to put me at a disadvantage.

I essentially said this: I don’t undervalue women’s role in the Church regarding the priesthood, I correctly value the role of an ordained priesthood holder in the Church. Because that is exactly what I’ve been taught my whole life – to hold the priesthood is HUGE. In fact, we are semi-annually chided for not exalting it enough!

The conversation was long and detailed. Suffice it to say, I still hold to my views and still worry about the future of the Church in regards to the lack of female influence. But, I’ve been forced again to rethink things a bit and maybe even consider that I’m wrong. At the end of the day, maybe advocating for a genderless priesthood is unrealistic. Especially if the chorus of voices against such a policy change are women. As it currently stands, I find a long held theory of mine continually validated: If the majority of Mormon women wanted the priesthood, they would have it.

It’s been a two-year labor of love. I love the story and I love the people in the story. I can’t even bring myself to call them “characters”. They’re certainly more real to me than half the people I know on Facebook.

The book, while not a Mormon book per se, is awash in Mormon questions and Mormon answers. Polygamy, gay marriage, and the meaning of love and faith and family in the wake of the end of oil. It also asks what happens to a global, hierarchal Church when the wells go dry …

So what do you do with a hard-won global empire when the global low fuel light is flickering? Do you call everyone home? Do you shutter operations and pray for a miracle? Cold fusion, perhaps? The Second Coming, maybe? The answer came, one Sunday morning, five years before the oil stopped flowing. In a letter translated into 180 languages and read from every pulpit.

Brother Husband, Chapter 5

Want to hear more?

Chapters 1–4 are available as an audio preview on Soundcloud:

You can also like Brother Husband’s fanpage on Facebook.

But here’s the question for you: how do you imagine the end of oil might affect the Church? Assume the end of oil also spells the end of reliable electricity … how do wards change? How does worship change?

“Generally church members are encouraged to wear their best clothing as a sign of respect for the Savior, but we don’t counsel people beyond that.”

-Scott Trotter, Church Spokesman

This is one of those times that the backlash has become a bigger story than the original issue. Apparently, those who are opposed to women wearing pants to church (and apparently there are quite a few people in this category) are escalating the rhetoric beyond any reasonable level. I’m not sure why this would be a hot-button issue for people.

If you are a woman, will you wear pants? Please let me know your thoughts on this issue and if you have an explanation for why some people seem to have such a problem with this.

As this period presumably is drawing to a close with the end of Romney’s candidacy, it will be interesting to see the effect that this increased attention has and continues to have on the Church and the public. I suspect that it has been mostly positive for the Church, as the Church has taken the opportunity to deliver new messages on what the Church is and is not, as well as updating its image. Will the end of Romney’s candidacy mean that the Church will fade back into relative obscurity, or will Mormonism continue to be a presence on the national and international media stage? Time will tell, but in the meantime, let’s take a look at the best and worst that came out of this time period.

The Best:

My favorite part of this cultural phenomenon is the Book of Mormon musical. Irreverent, even profane, but fun and lovable nonetheless, this piece of pop-cultural song and dance fabulousness signals a certain coming-of-age for the Church. Mature people and institutions have to be able to withstand some fun being poked at them, and this musical did that in a pretty loving way, as only Trey Parker and Matt Stone can do. Even people who don’t like the musical have to admit that it shows a ton of talent and, though it may not be a good representation of current beliefs and practices of the Church, in tone and spirit it got a lot of things right and is actually really funny.

The Worst:

My least favorite part of the past few years of media attention has been the ridiculous pontificating by know-nothing media talking heads like Lawrence O’Donnell who, without even the pretence of citing sources, presume to comment on the history and origins of Mormonism. No religion ought to be demonized in the national media by pundits speaking out of their butts, and the past few years had no shortage of this kind of thing. I will be glad if the end of the “Mormon Moment” means at least some respite from this kind of media trash-talking.

What are your nominations for the best and worst of this cultural phenomenon?

Check out this hilarious clip from SNL’s weekend update and let me know what you think. Just when you think you know what they will do, SNL goes a whole other direction.

A fragment of a book written in Coptic has now been discovered which suggests that early Christians of about the fourth century believed that Jesus was married. This may not be earth-shattering news, but it does raise some interesting questions. For myself, I have always believed that Jesus was most likely married, despite the paucity of evidence on the subject. It just seems more likely to me that he would have set an example of being the perfect husband (and perhaps father?), along with the other things he did perfectly.

What about you? Do you have any beliefs or assumptions about Christ’s mortal marriage or lack thereof? Does the importance of marriage in our doctrine play any part in your assumptions? Does this new discovery impact your belief one way or another? Should this have any impact on those who practice or believe in celibacy?

Brightly Beams Our Fathers Mercy A Cappella from Jamez on Vimeo.