By g.wesley
Despite prohibition in the YMMIA handbook against the scout handclasp, swearing oaths, and the elaboration of rank advancement with ritual, the scout committee of the Pleasant Grove, Utah third ward instituted the Order of the Skunk Skull in 1937. Minutes from the first meeting record the number of attendants at 22 and list the names of some 18 scouts who took the oath of secrecy and drank “poison water from [the] ear of [a] deer.” There is a photograph of the meeting as well, showing the attendants dressed as Native Americans; one of them holds a cup fashioned from a deer’s ear mounted to a piece of wood with an antler for a handle.
Continuing to meet in a cave in the near-by mountains, the order celebrated its 50th anniversary in 1987. Originally, scouts were initiated upon achieving the rank of eagle. But over the years, membership was offered to others, especially dignitaries, regardless of when or if they had become eagle scouts. The 70th anniversary meeting was actually held in an LDS church if for no other reason than that there were too many attendants to fit in the cave. A few of the first skunks, still living, came, insisting on the use of the old scout handclasp, while among the candidates for initiation were the city mayor, two state representatives, several members of local bishoprics and stake presidencies, and a general young men’s board member.
In his book Sports in Zion, Richard Ian Kimball suggests that behind the proscription of this type of scouting was the fear “that an association with Scouting ceremonies might diminish the impact of the holy activities within the temple.” Whatever the reason, no doubt a skunk would maintain that initiation in the order actually has the opposite effect. Most fascinating to me is that the Order of the Skunk Skull operates within Mormonism and at a rather high level, notwithstanding official injunction. It would be interesting to learn the histories of however many other scout groups there are of this kind.
By Chris Henrichsen
This is something my friend Mike M. put together. He is a serious social scientist who says that I can just describe this as the “crazy ramblings of some kook you knew in Rexburg.” While I knew many kooks in Rexburg, I had not considered Mike to be one. Anyways, here is something fun for Christmas:
Were the wise men Nephites (and Lamanites)?
By Mike M.
Here’s something I’ve been mulling over for a while . . .
Who were the “wise men” mentioned briefly in Matthew Chapter Two? There are many
plausible theories, but I would like to suggest a particularly intriguing possibility: perhaps the wise men were descendents of Lehi who travelled to Jerusalem from the western hemisphere.
The Book of Mormon offers some tantalizing clues to support such a notion. First, Lehi’s posterity in the New World had been looking forward to the coming of Christ for centuries. It makes sense that representatives from a righteous branch of the House of Israel would be allowed to witness the arrival of the long-awaited Messiah.
Nephite and/or Lamanite representatives also likely had the means to return to Jerusalem.
Approximately fifty years before the birth of Christ, Hagoth was building “exceedingly large ships” and sailing the “west sea” with large numbers of people (Alma 63: 5). And with the Brass Plates and the records of Lehi and Nephi, these representatives would have had some knowledge of Old World geography
Interestingly, the star that the wise men followed is not mentioned anywhere else in the Old or New Testaments. But righteous Nephites and Lamanites in the New World had been looking for just such a sign of Christ’s birth as a result of Samuel the Lamanite’s prophecies.
Read more »
By Sheldon Lawrence
…a short sermon for Sunday
Though I live at the northern tip of the Jell-O belt, I follow the news throughout Utah and Idaho. I have noticed that whenever there is some sort of community scandal, high profile crime, or mid-profile crime (okay, anything involving middle class Mormons) there is a tendency on comment boards to want to “throw the book” at the perpetrator. Maximum sentence! Throw away the key! Make an example! Crucify them! Even the innocuous story of David Archuleta choosing not to serve a mission garnered the harsh disapproval of many saints.
Now, we must keep in mind that such comments may not fairly represent the general reaction of the community, so we must be wary of making generalizations regarding LDS culture based on these comment boards (we all know what unsavory characters can inhabit internet discussion forums!). Furthermore, this tendency to want to lock people up in the stocks and begin spitting may be more a product of Puritan-rooted American culture, or even, simply, human nature.
However, my concern here is for LDS culture. If we are more judgmental than the rest, then we need to repent. If we are equally judgmental than the rest, then we need to repent. Is the tendency toward judgment and condemnation a by product of a community that upholds high moral standards? Perhaps, but only if the qualities of mercy and forgiveness and compassion are considered separate and distinct from the category of “high moral standards.” Unfortunately, I think that’s how it works. We think of high morality as things like not drinking, not swearing, no R movies, perfect chastity, perfect honesty, etc… I have no problem with this list, but what if “high propensity to forgive” or “high degree of mercy for others’ shortcomings” were also part of that list of high standards?
Obviously people need to be held accountable for crimes, and dangerous criminals need to be prevented from doing further harm. But most of the stone throwing has little to do with desire for justice and everything to do with lust for vengeance. And, by the way, this post has nothing to do with the tension between mercy and justice. The kind of angry condemnation I’m talking about has nothing in common with justice.
Satan has been called the great accuser, and it makes sense that this tendency to accuse and condemn is proportionate to our own sinful nature. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Do we really believe that or is it a nice throw away line, a half-hearted attempt at humility? H.G. Wells once said that “Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.” When we see the sin in others, do we gawk in a combination of voyeurism and indignation as we see (with a tinge of jealousy) someone who actually carried out the very sins that we commit daily in our hearts? Do we look at the scandalous headlines and see our reflection staring back, and so turn in anger and disgust, denying ourselves and others the mercy of Christ? I think this is why repentance and forgiveness of others are so inseparably connected. The truly repentant will look upon the sins of others with compassion and desire to lift. Knowing that he or she is not without sin, the repenting soul will not be tempted to pick up the nearest stone.
By g.wesley
The short:
Given his ownership of William Hone’s controversial Apocryphal New Testament, Joseph Smith had access to a fair amount of ancient Christian literature, including texts that discuss the fate of deceased non-Christians.
The long:
William Hone was a London pamphleteer and bookseller whose name was in many circles synonymous with blasphemy. In 1820 he published a compilation of early Christian texts, with a brief preface and two appendices, the full title of which ran, The Apocryphal New Testament, Being All The Gospels, Epistles And Other Pieces Now Extent, Attributed In The First Four Centuries to Jesus Christ, His Apostles, And Their Companions And Not Included In The New Testament By Its Compilers. Translated From The Original Tongues, And Now Collected Into One Volume. For the bulk of the book Hone combined the work of two eighteen-century scholars, Jeremiah Jones’ English translation of New Testament apocrypha, and William Wake’s Apostolic Fathers. The preface, the only part Hone could claim as his, began with a question: “After the writings contained in the New Testament were selected from the numerous Gospels and Epistles then in existence, what became of the Books that were rejected by the compilers?” As a selection of those very books Hone presented Apocryphal New Testament. “He who possess this and the New Testament, has in the two volumes,” he wrote, “a collection of all the historical records relative to Christ and His Apostles, now in existence, and considered sacred by Christians during the first four centuries after His birth.” Hone’s opponents were quick to point out his plagiarism of Jones and Wake, and this, along with the popularity of the first edition, which sold out in a few months, prompted him to prepare a second edition in 1821, featuring increased annotation, a second preface, third appendix, and an additional ancient Christian text he had overlooked. In subsequent years Apocryphal New Testament saw numerous (pirated) printings and editions, and it remains in print today.
Read more »
By g.wesley
A lengthy volume, just published, on the Book of Moses has got me thinking about the Joseph Smith Translation again. Going on five years now, I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is no place for the Inspired Version in the study of the ancient world in general, textual criticism of the Bible in particular. If the JST is
to be studied academically, it is within the context of the nineteenth century. Such have been my tortured thoughts.
Of the various types of criticism of the Bible and other ancient literature, textual criticism is the most scientific, the least interpretive, the most elitist. It is the domain of the scholar’s scholar: introductions to many critical editions are written in Latin, even today. Based on available witnesses, through reconstruction of
fragmentary passages, and perhaps with recourse to the occasional emendation, the main objective of this type of criticism is to restore the text to read as it did when it left the author’s hand. Or as close to that as possible. Right?
Read more »
By Sheldon Lawrence
Enough about Christmas, let’s talk about death and destruction. Excited? Well, it seems a lot of people are. I know folks who just can’t pass up an opportunity to point out that we are in the last days—the great end of times. Usually the reference comes up in relation to some grave concern expressed about the fate of our country—a nation in the hands of the conspiratorial communists currently in the White House plotting the destruction of everything our Found Fathers held so dear. Yes, the Constitution is hanging by a thread, (but a pretty resilient thread, it turns out, since the same thread has apparently been sustaining said document since McCarthy’s and Skousen’s 1950’s). I remember when Clinton won office in 1992 and 1996; the right heralded both events as the downfall of America. Then Bush’s double election signaled the decline of Western civilization to the left. Now Obama—no, this one’s for real this time—stands with scissors and thread firmly in hand. Fifty gallon water storage containers are on sale…quick!
Read more »
By TT
It is my pleasure to introduce g. wesley as the latest guest blogger at FPR. G. wesley has been a sometime commentor and a recent friend and we are pleased to welcome welcome him to hear what he has to say.
By Chris Henrichsen
David H. Sundwall (my favorite bloggernacle Republican) reports over at A Soft Answer that the church will be revising the three-fold mission of the Church. It will be changing from the three missions to the four purposes of the Church. It sounds as though the three missions will still be represented, but the new forth purpose is of particular interest to me.
According to David’s report, Bishop Richard Edgley, counselor in the Presiding Bishopric, commented at a stake conference that the forth purpose would be “to care for the poor and the needy.”
Has anyone else heard any details or rumblings about this? I had heard somewhere that changes where coming to the three-fold mission, but I had not heard any further details.
I am excited about this. Issues related to poverty and inequality are central to my philosophical work and also drive my religious-interests.
Such an addition to the missions of the Church has been discussed at FPR by smallaxe almost two years ago (not only is he super nice, he is prophetic). I look forward to seeing how this is presented and discussed in coming Ensign magazines and General Conference addresses.
Now, this does not necessarily signal a radical change in the policies and practices of the Church. Bishop David H. Burton gave an account of the Church’s global humanitarian effort not long ago in General Conference. There has also been a focus on the perpetual education fund. Lest we forget, today is the day we give fast offerings.
However, I have long found that when it comes to matters of wealth and economics, there is no greater friend to inequality than Mormons (speaking of the general membership and not the leadership of the Church). What does inequality have to do with caring for the needy and the poor? Conditions of extreme inequality create and maintain poverty.
Like Hugh Nibley, I find that Mormons generally hold views consistent with Social Darwinism. The poor are poor because they deserve it. If only they worked harder and were more righteous they would not be poor. Like Nibley (see his lectures on the Book of Mormon), I find that most treat King Benjamin’s discussion of the beggar as outdated. If anything, King Benjamin’s discussion of the beggar is evidence that the Book of Mormon was written for our day.
While we seem more likely to give thought of the poor and needy at this time of year, it is a good time to give thought to how our actions (and inaction) year round contribute to poverty and the conditions of the poor.
Jacob 2:17: Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.
By Sheldon Lawrence
I appreciate Chris for inviting me here, or doing his reactivation work. I have been a less active member of the bloggernacle for a couple years, after an initially enthusiastic start. I also appreciate the Thoreau reference, now if only I could grow one of those cool chin beards.
Anyway, I thought I’d start off with something light and festive.
I have noticed a direct correlation between the strength of my testimony and how much I feel that nebulous thing called “the Christmas Spirit.” There was a time when I descended quite low into humbugism. I pointed out the pagan origins of December 25, sneered at the commercialism, and smugly embraced a just-another-day attitude. Not coincidentally, this was also a spiritually low point in my life. Having children has played a significant role in returning me to the fold of Christmas. (Brining the tree in the other day was nearly a Pentecostal experience for my kids.) However, the greater factor has been that my testimony of the gospel has waxed in recent years. Nothing adds to the enjoyment of Christmas like, well, actually having faith Christ, and even more, embracing the magical worldview of Mormonism.
Some years ago as a guest blogger at Times and Seasons, Damon Linker argued that Mormonism restores “enchantment” to Christianity. Linker states:
“Mormons believe, for example, that every human being who has ever lived is the literal spirit child of an embodied God who actually resides on a planet in the visible universe — and that after we die we will literally be reunited with Him. If that’s not an enchanted world, I don’t know what is.”
Now to speak of magic and enchantment is not to deny an ultimately naturalistic universe governed by physical laws, but it does posit a universe that, however “natural,” is more radically alive and responsive and intelligent than we currently comprehend. Mormonism places things like angels and golden plates and seer stones smack dab in the middle of modernity. Angels pushed handcarts in the age of the railroad and now warn people of imminent danger in the age of the I-Phone.
So what does this have to do with Christmas? Maybe not much, but once you believe in a universe of angels and gods worlds without end, a universe where animals and trees and the very earth possess some kind of spirit, the image of angels and shepherds and starry nights take on—if the term isn’t paradoxical—a magical reality. Once we accept the angel at Cumorah, there is nothing problematic about angelic beings stepping it up during the Christmas season, declaring glad tidings and whispering promptings of peace on Earth and goodwill toward men, now, in 2009.
In his second post on Mormon enchantment, Linker wonders, given this magical worldview, how we would respond to the challenge “that has always been leveled against biblical religion — namely that it’s just wishful thinking, fairytales, Santa Clause writ large, Disneyland Christianity, etc.” There may be many and varied responses to this challenge, but among them I hope not to find too much back peddling or touting the rationalistic credentials of Mormonism. Santa Claus and fairytales resonate with people because they point to something true about God and the universe. Disenchantment turns the magical into something called reality. I prefer the approach of the restored gospel, which makes reality magical.
By Chris Henrichsen
Sheldon Lawrence has kindly agreed to do a bit of guest blogging here at FPR. Sheldon is a latter-day Thoreau, in that he is a scholar and an outdoorsman (we need another person around here who can talk guns with Mogget).
By day, Sheldon teaches at BYU-Idaho. He is also a father of four and husband of one. Somewhere in between he is also working on his dissertation in English.
Please give Sheldon a warm welcome. We look forward to his posts.
