The Stone Cut From The Mountain...

[Uncle Dale]

But my questions are still unanswered.

OK, here was the next one, in order of presentation...

Are there any other ways to view the situation?

Of course -- there is also the consensus view, arrived at after many a contributor each adds

his/her own discoveries and interpretations.

While such agreements of historical opinion may be superfically correct, they are also subject to

the same "watering-down" of the output as is any product of a committee --- that is, they usually

sanitize the old history by relegating controversial interpretations to the footnotes.

Here is one "other way" that some might view the 1838 "situation" --->

"The earth and the fullness thereof are God's" and he has given it an "an inheritance" to his Saints.

(see JD vols. 14 & 15, as well as many earlier Mormon publications)

If God gave Zion to the Mormons as their eternal inheritance, then they have the same rights and

authority as Joshua and the Israelites when they entered and took possession of the Land of Canaan.

Well -- you asked for "other ways to view the situation," didn't you?

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

OK, here was the next one, in order of presentation...

Of course -- there is also the consensus view, arrived at after many a contributor each adds

his/her own discoveries and interpretations.

While such agreements of historical opinion may be superfically correct, they are also subject to

the same "watering-down" of the output as is any product of a committee --- that is, they usually

sanitize the old history by relegating controversial interpretations to the footnotes.

Here is one "other way" that some might view the 1838 "situation" --->

"The earth and the fullness thereof are God's" and he has given it an "an inheritance" to his Saints.

(see JD vols. 14 & 15, as well as many earlier Mormon publications)

If God gave Zion to the Mormons as their eternal inheritance, then they have the same rights and

authority as Joshua and the Israelites when they entered and took possession of the Land of Canaan.

Well -- you asked for "other ways to view the situation," didn't you?

UD

Indeed, that seems to be the same view you advanced before with different wrapping paper.

I've addressed the "method" of the saints' inheriting the earth in several quotes in this thread. I would add this is the same thing Jesus taught, in that the meek shall inherit the earth. But as some wise man once said, it will not be by the sword that the Kingdom rolls forth. The wicked can give each other enough problems. You seem to want to make the Church out to be a coup of despots waiting to overthrow the government. I disagree.

[Uncle Dale]

I disagree.

Ever read the D&C section, written after the ejection of the Mormons from Missouri, which addresses

the little matter of why God allowed them to be so harshly cast out?

When Joseph Smith and the Caldwell Co. Mormons were hunckered down behind the barricades

all along the outer edges of Far West, armed with muskets and facing the surrounding Missouri

militia, you have to ask yourself exactly what God's will was at that point.

Evidently God did not intend the Saints to go through with a war of extermination between

themselves and the Missourian Gentiles, eh?

Uncle "The way has been opened for the saints to escape -- a ram in the thicket was caught" Dale

[USU78]

Rigdon's treasonable address to the assembled Mormons at Far West was made on the 4th of July for a reason -- and that reason was that the LDS First Presidency was declaring its own independence from civil law. Henceforth the topmost Mormon leaders would determine for themselves what exactly constituted a "mob" and what legal cases brought against them were valid or a "vexation."

Returning to my Brigham Young theme, this family of events is depicted cinematically as, first, a "privy council" meeting attended by many of the Twelve, the Patriarch, and, of course, Porter Rockwell, with JSJr pronouncing revelation after a moment of gazing out an upstage window, followed by JSJr sitting at the Bar, while a prosecutor harangues the all-Gentile jury at JSJr's treason trial. It's not quite historically accurate, but it presents a fair view of what happened as viewed through 1939 American Jewish eyes.

What were the motivations for the warning shot fired off by Rigdon? Just what did they then know, or think they knew? Records are scanty, but people generally don't behave as they behaved for no reason. We may well decry the tone and provocatory nature of Rigdon's independence day address, but might it not be justified by intelligence possessed by the very folks my dear Rabbi refers to as "topmost Mormon leaders?"

In a nutshell, the three men who then headed the Mormon Church made Caldwell Co., Missouri an independent state and a miniature nation unto itself. President Rigdon's threat to carry a war of extermination into Gentile homes and to the innocent members of families within those Gentile homes was not just idle rhetoric. The LDS First Presidency sat as a quorum on the podium in the public square at Far West that day and expanded the power its three leaders had exercised over their own "apostates" in President's Rigdon's recent "salt sermon," to impose the same upon the neighboring Gentiles.

I seem to recall that the "threat" was a conditional one: if you do X, we'll do Y. Moreover, the threat to set up a shadow government was a response to past experience of an utter failure of civil government south of the river to protect them as it should. When civil order breaks down because civil authority refuses to or cannot act, just what must an oppressed population do, if not protect itself by providing the services civil authority refuses to or cannot?

Just as the LDS leaders had taken it upon themselves to determine which members were "salt which had lost its savor," and must be trodden under foot, on July 4, 1839 they also took it upon themselves to determine which Gentile homes might be entered, looted, burned and the inhabitants murdered with impunity, under their own alleged divine authority.

Setting aside the conditional nature of the "threat," events showed what actually took place: the Saints left town. Did they always act with circumspection? Of course not. No serious reader of history would claim such. Were they the aggressors (which some, but not '78, might take from Unk's choice of rhetorical tool)? Who dares say it? The notion is laughable. The 2nd Missouri Mormon War was already upon them, IMHO. Just how are they supposed to respond?

What had been the proper authority of constituted law and elected government, the LDS First Presidency took into their own hands. Henceforth they would determine for themselves whether a Gentile constable serving a trial summons, or an arrest warrant, or a notice for jury duty had proper authority, or was a "mob" of one. This was the same Mormon arrogance that prompted the same First Presidency to refuse to pay their Gentile creditors four years later, when they all declared bankruptcy at Nauvoo, a disregard for non-Mormon society that had its start on July 4th, 1838 in neighboring Missouri.

Arrogance is never the proper response. But when you've been forced to leave New York, Ohio, Missouri south of the river and Missouri north of the river over a period of 5-6 years, how better to buck up the troops than to engage in a little braggadoccio? A quick note: I've seen few debtors in my few years in the Middle Kingdom who, all things being equal, wouldn't have been happier to pay their debts. The psychology of the effects of crushing debt is such that one often tapdances like crazy to appear more together and more important than objective facts would support. Why rob somebody of his attempts to save face? What point ultimately gets proved?

Following that Mormon declaration of independence and publicly proclaimed threat of a war of Gentile extermination, Joseph Smith, Jr. had the July 4th address published on the LDS Church's press, in the office of the official Church publication where he was the managing editor.

Yep. Which proves nothing more than he did not seek to suppress it. It is, on the other hand, evidence he may well have approved of its contents in advance.

Following the Mormon declaration of independence and publicly proclaimed threat of a war of Gentile extermination, Joseph Smith, Jr. extended the Mormons' realm of political power to neighboring Daviess County, where Mormons from Caldwell attempted to cast votes in a Daviess election. Within weeks Apostle Lyman Wight was plundering and burning the homes of my Broadhurst ancestral relatives at Gallatin, the county seat of Daviess.

Just what made Daviess County immune from infestation by Mormons? Stories differ as to what happened and who started it on election day. Once again, however, we have an objectively establishable fact that should help us better understand what happened: Mormons in Daviess County were refused access to the ballot box. The Gentile officials can claim all they want that Mormons weren't supposed to be there, but that answers nothing. Why should Mormons be denied the franchise? Did the State of Missouri have a religious test for access to the ballot?

Here, then, is an historical example of the sort of thing we can expect when the powers of church and state are joined in a single ruler (or in a quorum of three such rulers) over whom no external checks and balances can be brought to bear --------- unless they be the armed militia of the State of Missouri.

And I, respectfully (because I know the nature of the welt on the side of my melon which will follow the pitching of a pineapple hither) disagree on what happened.

USU "And my folks, not even my horse-thieving great-great-great uncle, weren't even Mormons yet" 78

[LifeOnaPlate]

Interesting post, USU.

[Cold Steel]

I have not attended its Sunday meetings, to any mentionable extent, since 1979-81. So you are correct -- I do not know what the leaders are saying today (other than what I might happen to catch in conference talks put on local TV by BYU-Hawaii). But even 30 years ago, I still did not know much. I once asked an LDS friend with some degree of Church responsibilty back in Ohio, "What activities do The Brethren plan and execute behind closed doors?" His answer: "Do you think they tell us THAT? We just trust they are doing the

Lord's work and look to their guidance."

That sounds plausible. But getting back to the issue at hand, there are two ways of approaching it. When one addresses a believer, whether only in the early days or going all the way to the present, one can go back to the early scriptures and make a case for what the church believes today. But if one believes that all the revelations and guidance were either fraudulent or imagined, that person sees trends, forks and dead ends. Looking at it from a sociological standpoint, one can make predictions based upon how one believes.

I wonder what would happen today if the church told the saints to gather at predetermined places throughout the United States, Canada and elsewhere. Would they go? Like Laman and Lemuel, the choices would be difficult. Some would be frightened and they would go because of their faith. Many others (yes, including Senators Reid and Hatch) might be conflicted. How could they just walk away from their jobs, their pensions and their expensive homes? And still other members of the church would find the notion patently absurd. We also expect these gathering places to be open to non-members of the church, and this is something that was emphasized early on.

"Behold vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth; a day of wrath; a day of burning; a day of desolation; of weeping; of mourning and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. And upon my house shall it begin; and from my house shall it go forth saith the Lord, First among those among you saith the Lord; who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house saith the Lord."

In the Times & Seasons, Volume 6, Number 12, this prophecy is cited, followed by: "Be faithful and patient, then, saints, and He that said to the flood 'come,' and make an end of wickedness, will say also 'go,' to the elements, and sweep the earth with the besom of destruction till it is fit for Paradise again, and then my people shall inherit the kingdom. Watch and pray."

To my knowledge this has never been fulfilled or withdrawn. It is still in our scriptures and so we continue to expect it. My own personal opinion is that this may come in the very near future.

"Our survival" ????? ----- Mormons care about surviving themselves, but not their Gentile neighbors,

relatives, co-workers, fellow political campaign workers, students, patients, and MB correspondants? The thermonuclear bombs from Iran begin to fall on Hill Air Force Base, and the Mormons say "well, we've got 'our survival' taken care of...... too bad about the kids in that non-LDS orphanage next door." Hopefully not -- hopefully a Mormon would give up his last crust of bread to a starving Samaritan, if the Holy Spirit so prompted him.

It's not so much dying. Even some Latter-day Saints will die in the ensuing judgments. It's the state in which one dies. I'm sure there were innocent people killed when Rome put down the revolt in Jerusalem. The reason the Lord will extend His hand to protect the saints is because they have a work to do, which is building up Zion. In every flood, fire, tsunami where people die, there are innocents who die also. Women, children, babies and others. When plagues ravage the Earth, there will be innocents who die. But it's not so much the dying part as it is how the person has lived. We don't keep guns to shoot our gentile neighbors when they get hungry or thirsty; we keep them to help maintain order. When there are no police, no firefighters, no emergency hospital care, no medications, the breakdown of society is a given. That's why the Lord, knowing these things were upon us, decided to speak.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Just what made Daviess County immune from infestation by Mormons? ...

Well, up until the summer of 1838, I would say it was due to the level-headedness of the

Presidency and High Council in "Zion." Going back and looking over the old reports from

1835-early 1838, we see difficulties between Missouri Mormons and Missouri Gentiles, but

difficulties which were addressed with some circumspection on both sides and which were

generally resolved in peaceable ways.

Max H. Parkin has written an excellent MA thesis on this period, entitled "History of the LDS in

Clay. Co., Missouri." I have also posted numerous old newspaper reports from the same

period on-line for public perusal. From such sources we can see that the Mormon settlement

in Caldwell Co. (a county especially created for their benefit) was not terribly controversial

up through the dissolution of the High Council in Zion, after JS's early 1838 arrival from Ohio.

It was then that contentions between the Mormons and Gentiles began to heat up very quickly.

An examination of documents in the Missouri State Archives shows a sudden upsurge of legal

cases brought against the Caldwell Mormons -- often involving non-payment of debt. Money

was scarce. One of the charges brought against Oliver Cowdery at that time, was that he had

sold his "inheritance in Zion" for filthy lucre -- but all the Mormons were doing the same. (The

land in and around Nauvoo was mostly paid for with such land transfers in Missouri.) In other

words, unless they had property to sell, the Mormons could not pay their debts and they were

getting nickel-and-dimed with "petty law suits" over non-payment, property disputes, etc.,

which they found to be "vexing."

At the same time, the newly arrived First Presidency began to comprehend the limitations imposed

upon them by the landlocked prairies of Caldwell -- they needed timber from adjacent Daviess,

and they needed access to the Missouri river traffic in adjacent Ray and Carroll. They also

needed water power for saw and grist mills, not generally available in Caldwell (hence the matter

of a remote Hawn's Mill).

But, as I said, the Mormons were out of cash -- they could not easily interact with their often

hostile and suspicious Gentile neighbors, who recalled that the Mormons were restricted to

Caldwell as a "gathering" and who wanted cash and not credit for lumber, etc.

Joe Smith & Co. had two possible choices -- to slowly disperse individual Mormon families and

business enterprises into the adjacent counties (which would have been acceptable, under the

agreed-to terms for setting up Caldwell as a Mormon refuge) -------> or, they could plant colonies

in the adjacent counties and speedily take possession of at least a portion of their resources and

politics. Thus we have "Diahmen" and other Mormon colonies springing up outside of Caldwell.

Read Bushman's new book --- he cannot figure out what was going on in JS's mind at that period.

Bushman finds JS to be seemingly distant and disconnected with events transpiring all around him.

At Nauvoo, the Saints in retrospect would blame a great deal of their Missouri trials on Rigdon's bad

leadership ---- which only begs the question of why Rigdon was so often calling the shots there.

Had the Mormons gone a bit more slowly, they might have found political allies in Daviess, like

they did among the Jacksonian Democrats (and once with the Whigs) a few years later in Hancock.

But the Democrats were an undivided majority in Daviess in 1838 and they had nothing to gain by

becoming political allies with the invading incoming flow of Caldwell Mormons.

The 1838 local election at Gallatin was a "testing of the waters" for Lyman Wight's band of newcomers.

They were seen as carpet-baggers from Caldwell, and thus began the hostilities.

Where was the all-seeing eye of Eloheim in all of this?

Uncle "or even a modicum of good old common sense" Dale

... the Lord, knowing these things were upon us, decided to speak.

OK -- sounds reasonable to me.

UD

.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, up until the summer of 1838, I would say it was due to the level-headedness of the

Presidency and High Council in "Zion." Going back and looking over the old reports from

1835-early 1838, we see difficulties between Missouri Mormons and Missouri Gentiles, but

difficulties which were addressed with some circumspection on both sides and which were

generally resolved in peaceable ways.

Max H. Parkin has written an excellent MA thesis on this period, entitled "History of the LDS in

Clay. Co., Missouri." I have also posted numerous old newspaper reports from the same

period on-line for public perusal. From such sources we can see that the Mormon settlement

in Caldwell Co. (a county especially created for their benefit) was not terribly controversial

up through the dissolution of the High Council in Zion, after JS's early 1838 arrival from Ohio.

It was then that contentions between the Mormons and Gentiles began to heat up very quickly.

An examination of documents in the Missouri State Archives shows a sudden upsurge of legal

cases brought against the Caldwell Mormons -- often involving non-payment of debt. Money

was scarce. One of the charges brought against Oliver Cowdery at that time, was that he had

sold his "inheritance in Zion" for filthy lucre -- but all the Mormons were doing the same. (The

land in and around Nauvoo was mostly paid for with such land transfers in Missouri.) In other

words, unless they had property to sell, the Mormons could not pay their debts and they were

getting nickel-and-dimed with "petty law suits" over non-payment, property disputes, etc.,

which they found to be "vexing."

At the same time, the newly arrived First Presidency began to comprehend the limitations imposed

upon them by the landlocked prairies of Caldwell -- they needed timber from adjacent Daviess,

and they needed access to the Missouri river traffic in adjacent Ray and Carroll. They also

needed water power for saw and grist mills, not generally available in Caldwell (hence the matter

of a remote Hawn's Mill).

But, as I said, the Mormons were out of cash -- they could not easily interact with their often

hostile and suspicious Gentile neighbors, who recalled that the Mormons were restricted to

Caldwell as a "gathering" and who wanted cash and not credit for lumber, etc.

Joe Smith & Co. had two possible choices -- to slowly disperse individual Mormon families and

business enterprises into the adjacent counties (which would have been acceptable, under the

agreed-to terms for setting up Caldwell as a Mormon refuge) -------> or, they could plant colonies

in the adjacent counties and speedily take possession of at least a portion of their resources and

politics. Thus we have "Diahmen" and other Mormon colonies springing up outside of Caldwell.

Read Bushman's new book --- he cannot figure out what was going on in JS's mind at that period.

Bushman finds JS to be seemingly distant and disconnected with events transpiring all around him.

At Nauvoo, the Saints in retrospect would blame a great deal of their Missouri trials on Rigdon's bad

leadership ---- which only begs the question of why Rigdon was so often calling the shots there.

Had the Mormons gone a bit more slowly, they might have found political allies in Daviess, like

they did among the Jacksonian Democrats (and once with the Whigs) a few years later in Hancock.

But the Democrats were an undivided majority in Daviess in 1838 and they had nothing to gain by

becoming political allies with the invading incoming flow of Caldwell Mormons.

The 1838 local election at Gallatin was a "testing if the waters" for Lyman Wight's band of newcomers.

They were seen as carpet-baggers from Caldwell, and thus began the hostilities.

Where was the all-seeing eye if Eloheim in all of this?

Uncle "or even a modicum of good old common sense" Dale

OK -- sounds reasonable to me.

UD

Dale, how do you feel about selective history? Good, bad, or neither?

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, how do you feel about selective history? Good, bad, or neither?

I think that history is a mosaic -- a mosaic to which we each bring our respective

contributions, and hope that those additions to the over-all picture will somehow "fit in."

Sometimes they do fit, and we all can see things a bit more clearly.

Sometimes they do not fit --- and like oddball pieces in a jig-saw puzzle, we put them

to one side and work with the pieces that we can make fit.

A hundred years later -- or a thousand years later, perhaps -- other people

will see the assembled picture with more pieces in place than we can now.

That is -- unless you subscribe to the notion of "revealed history." In that case, just read

the Standard Works and all the problems I've been pointing to are immediately solved.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

That is -- unless you subscribe to the notion of "revealed history." In that case, just read

the Standard Works and all the problems I've been pointing to are immediately solved.

UD

OR ask God. James 1:5.

[Uncle Dale]

OR ask God. James 1:5.

When I applied to theological seminary, I had to write a short essay giving my reasons

and expectations for wanting to engage in such difficult and demanding studies.

My reply was concise -- I quoted I Kings 3:5-10 and James 1:4-6

Uncle Dale

[kamenraider]

President John Taylor is quoted as saying: "The Kingdom, or nothing!" And so long as I draw breath,

I will do all that I can do to see that it is his second option, and not his first, that comes to pass.

And so long as I draw breath, I'll do all I can do to see that it is his first option, and not his second, that comes to pass.

Edit: "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

[Uncle Dale]

And so long as I draw breath, I'll do all I can do to see that it is his first option,

and not his second, that comes to pass....

I'll keep an eye out for you, whenever I wander through crowded places, then.....

UD

[kamenraider]

I'll keep an eye out for you, whenever I wander through crowded places, then.....

O..kayy...

Kamen "I think that God and His Kingdom will get along just fine with or without either Uncle Dale's opposition or Kamenraider's support" Raider

[USU78]

Whenever folks bring up the Missouri or Illinois troubles and the inevitable accusations of insipient or out-and-out treason by JSJr, I cannot but reflect upon Aaron Burr's famous trial in 1807, where he had been prejudged in the press by the then-sitting president, but not only had the treason charged dismissed as being legally insufficient, but was also acquitted on lesser charges.

Burr, you see, sought to foment insurrection in and about Tejas in 1805/06. It never came to anything.

One cannot but compare the relatively civilized treatment of Burr and his alleged co-conspirators and the brutalization of JSJr. and the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois 30 odd years later.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Whenever folks bring up the Missouri or Illinois troubles and the inevitable accusations of insipient or out-and-out treason by JSJr, I cannot but reflect upon Aaron Burr's famous trial in 1807, where he had been prejudged in the press by the then-sitting president, but not only had the treason charged dismissed as being legally insufficient, but was also acquitted on lesser charges.

Burr, you see, sought to foment insurrection in and about Tejas in 1805/06. It never came to anything.

One cannot but compare the relatively civilized treatment of Burr and his alleged co-conspirators and the brutalization of JSJr. and the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois 30 odd years later.

While I agree with you, some will say "Ah, yes, but did Burr have an associate like Rigdon?!" I anticipate such questions.

History is largely in the eye of the beholder, so it behooves us to always consider the source.