The 1838 "Mormon War" in Missouri

[USU78]

City boys. There is more to the improvement of raw land into farm land than building stuff on it. clearing such trees as might be there, smoothing out the contours, cutting into the topsoil with a plow, disking, taking the big rocks out, and such would have been far more significant to farm folks than the few fences and whatnot might have been burned down in the rush to "shoot me a Marman."

Besides, the violence and misery a generation later during the Kansas and Missouri troubles leading up to the Civil War didn't arise out of nothing. There was a tradition of rapine, murder, theft, bigotry, and whatnot out of which that better documented and later misery grew.

Just sayin', Unk.

[jwhitlock]

As you can see, the committee specifically denies that the Mormons' religious practices are a cause for the expulsion, though they do take the opportunity to ridicule them. And the black issue comes up, but it is not Mormon abolitionism that was the problem but rather the supposed invitation to free negroes to enter the state (which the settlers elsewhere explained might corrupt their slaves and cause an uprising). The key concern here is self-preservation. The settlers feared ongoing Mormon immigration, and what would happen if Mormons were allowed to achieve a majority and to rule the county. Mormons had been fairly open about their intentions to "take possession of this county," and so the old residents felt they had to take action to prevent that from happening.

The Missourians were speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Denying that the religious practices are cause for expulsion, while simultaneously ridiculing them makes that clear.

It's interesting to note that the NIMBY factor is a time-honored tradition here in the U.S. People in an area always want to limit outsiders coming in, and to that end seek to regulate and control everything around them - to suit their own purposes - and marginalize those coming in. That's what the Missourians were doing. The situation with the Mormons is an interesting study in how violent that attitude can get in defense of its own, eventually evolving into a "its for the public good" claim.

It's why, to some extent, laws in our day have been passed to preserve the rights of "outsiders" from being trampled on by the "natives".

Perhaps much of what the Missourians used against the Mormons was simply an excuse. Certainly as we look back at the results of the expulsion, the Mormons got the worst of it, and the Missourians did commit many atrocities. As UD asks, what is the real reason for all of this? As I look for explanations, I think that it just got out of control. If anything, "mobbing" describes very accurately what happened to the saints; by the time things get to the mob stage, any reasons for the action have usually been pretty well obscured.

I think it's instructive to look at what happened later in Missouri during the Civil War. The anarchy and mob destruction came to a fever pitch during that time. It seems to be evidence of the general attitudes among the Missouri settlers and their willingness to engage in an "end justifies the means" kind of action, which included mobbing.

[Uncle Dale]

...

that better documented and later misery grew.

...

Actually, I think that the Missouri period is fairly well "documented." Among other

"documents" available from that time, we have:

Rigdon's "Oration" (1838)

John Corrill's "History" (1839)

Senate Document 189 (1841)

Document... in Relation to the... Mormons (1841)

John Whitmer's "History," etc. etc.

-- as well as dozens (hundreds?) of contemporary newspaper articles, letters, journals,

public documents, real estate records, Church records, etc.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/MO/Miss1838.htm

What I am primarily interested in right now, is whether or not the LDS First Presidency

was inspired by God in its 1838 leadership during the "Mormon War;" and whether or not

we can trust the honesty of that quorum's 1839 report (published at the beginning of 1840):

here:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1840RigA.htm

On page 67 of that article, the First Presidency asserts that the 1838 hearings and trials

resulting from the "Mormon War" were total lies --

Such was the course the Court and their armed body pursued during their settings till they got through; by such means they got men to swear for them, and to swear to most unhallowed falsehoods. It was indeed suborning witnesses to swear, to promise a man's life if he would swear, and death or imprisonment if he did not swear, and not only to swear, but swear to please them.

In other words, according to the LDS First Presidency, we cannot believe any of the testimony

recorded in the above referenced 1841 U.S. Senate Document and 1841 Missouri Legislature item.

The Mormon version of events even goes so far as to dismiss W. W. Phelps' testimony against

George W. Robinson, in the allegation of his having a purloined Gentile clock in his hands.

If we are not allowed to consult and believe a single non-Mormon source from that period,

then by what means are we to assess and weigh the "evidence" presented by the LDS leadership?

According to the Mormon report, the only decent, honest Gentile in all of Missouri was

Alexander W. Doniphan, Esq., who is noted on page 67 of the LDS report, as being the

Mormon's lawyer after the surrender of Far West. Actually, Doniphan (and probably Amos Reese)

had served as Joseph Smith's attorney all through 1838, and was the person who alleviated

the dangerous outcome of Smith's harassment of Justice Black --

Of course the LDS leadership does not tell us that Doniphan was on the LDS payroll all through

the "Mormon War," nor that he was Smith's mouthpiece when the fate of the Mormon prisoners

was being discussed, prior to the surrender of Far West.

My question is a simple one.

Was the LDS First Presidency carrying out God's holy will in its 1838 actions,

and was its 1839 article a thoroughly honest and godly report of those actions?

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

Why don't YOU tell US how it went down, since you obviously have better information and a more enlightened method of communicating it than did the people who were on the scene at the time?

I'm not quite sure how to begin.

If I quote John Whitmer's "History of the Church" or John Corrill's "History of the Church,"

I'll doubtless be accused of citing vicious apostate literature.

If I quote the U.S. Senate's 1841 document on the topic, or the Missouri Legislature's

1841 report on the topic, I'll be accused of citing the publications of governments

hostile to the Mormon people.

If I quote any contemporary news reports, letters to editors, etc., I'll be accused

of taking the side of the anti-Mormon Missourians.

All that I am left with, then, that modern LDS might take the trouble to listen to,

are my own family traditions from Caldwell and Daviess counties, in 1838-39 -- my

ancestors being among the very last Saints to leave Missouri in the exodus to Illinois.

But my ancestors admit to having been Danites -- and Mormons today sneer at me

whenever I mention the possibility that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon had anything

to do with "Danites" in Missouri in 1838.

So -- where should I begin, if I'm only allowed reference to official LDS sources?

UD

[ERayR]

I'm not quite sure how to begin.

If I quote John Whitmer's "History of the Church" or John Corrill's "History of the Church,"

I'll doubtless be accused of citing vicious apostate literature.

If I quote the U.S. Senate's 1841 document on the topic, or the Missouri Legislature's

1841 report on the topic, I'll be accused of citing the publications of governments

hostile to the Mormon people.

If I quote any contemporary news reports, letters to editors, etc., I'll be accused

of taking the side of the anti-Mormon Missourians.

All that I am left with, then, that modern LDS might take the trouble to listen to,

are my own family traditions from Caldwell and Daviess counties, in 1838-39 -- my

ancestors being among the very last Saints to leave Missouri in the exodus to Illinois.

But my ancestors admit to having been Danites -- and Mormons today sneer at me

whenever I mention the possibility that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon had anything

to do with "Danites" in Missouri in 1838.

So -- where should I begin, if I'm only allowed reference to official LDS sources?

UD

As with all other disputes neither account can be deemed wholly accurate. Those trying to justify their actions against the Mormons are going to report and record the events to reflect the best possible justification. Likewise those on the otherside are going to do the same. To me one way to shed some light on this is to look at what was actually done to people and at what point. While it is undeniable that there were some Danites that, for the most part, engage in acts of retaliation by far the greatest atrocities were committed against women and children by the Missouri mobs.

With that taken into account which side would resort to the greater embellishment in order to justify their actions?

It is tempting to say that we can look at these things through the eyes of history and get a better prospective on the events but I don't necissarily think that is true.

[Uncle Dale]

...

It is tempting to say that we can look at these things through the eyes of history and get a better prospective on the events but I don't necissarily think that is true.

As I understand it, the LDS leadership dropped off the "Appeal to the American People" in Cincinnati,

on their way east to meet with president Van Buren, and attempt to seek financial redress from the

U. S. Government, for the recent Mormon loss of life and property in the "Missouri War."

I suppose that the LDS First Presidency was pleased with the publication of its 1840 report, for

those leaders had it reprinted later that year in a slightly expanded edition, and then ran the

same report in a serialized version in the Nauvoo "Times and Seasons."

It thus became the official account of the LDS Church, and is so identified on its title-page.

Based solely upon the authority inherent in the priesthood "chain of command" in the Church, it

seems that we are to accept this 1840 text at a higher level of reporting from inspired leaders

then the contemporary reports from Pratt and Greene -- and certainly at a much higher level than

any modern book on the subject, written "through the eyes of history," and lacking the official

LDS Imprimatur.

But -- that is exactly what I am asking.

Does the 1840 text report God's will for the Saints' activities in Missouri?

Can we trust its reporting as being truthful and reliable communication from inspired prophets?

UD

[USU78]

Actually, I think that the Missouri period is fairly well "documented." Among other

"documents" available from that time, we have:

Rigdon's "Oration" (1838)

John Corrill's "History" (1839)

Senate Document 189 (1841)

Document... in Relation to the... Mormons (1841)

John Whitmer's "History," etc. etc.

-- as well as dozens (hundreds?) of contemporary newspaper articles, letters, journals,

public documents, real estate records, Church records, etc.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/MO/Miss1838.htm

What I am primarily interested in right now, is whether or not the LDS First Presidency

was inspired by God in its 1838 leadership during the "Mormon War;" and whether or not

we can trust the honesty of that quorum's 1839 report (published at the beginning of 1840):

here:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1840RigA.htm

On page 67 of that article, the First Presidency asserts that the 1838 hearings and trials

resulting from the "Mormon War" were total lies --

In other words, according to the LDS First Presidency, we cannot believe any of the testimony

recorded in the above referenced 1841 U.S. Senate Document and 1841 Missouri Legislature item.

The Mormon version of events even goes so far as to dismiss W. W. Phelps' testimony against

George W. Robinson, in the allegation of his having a purloined Gentile clock in his hands.

If we are not allowed to consult and believe a single non-Mormon source from that period,

then by what means are we to assess and weigh the "evidence" presented by the LDS leadership?

According to the Mormon report, the only decent, honest Gentile in all of Missouri was

Alexander W. Doniphan, Esq., who is noted on page 67 of the LDS report, as being the

Mormon's lawyer after the surrender of Far West. Actually, Doniphan (and probably Amos Reese)

had served as Joseph Smith's attorney all through 1838, and was the person who alleviated

the dangerous outcome of Smith's harassment of Justice Black --

Of course the LDS leadership does not tell us that Doniphan was on the LDS payroll all through

the "Mormon War," nor that he was Smith's mouthpiece when the fate of the Mormon prisoners

was being discussed, prior to the surrender of Far West.

My question is a simple one.

Was the LDS First Presidency carrying out God's holy will in its 1838 actions,

and was its 1839 article a thoroughly honest and godly report of those actions?

UD

.

So the Kansas/Missouri Border War and "Burning Kansas" arose out of thin air with no history upon which to base those later miseries?

Since nobody has any Kansans in his background, maybe we should just blame them, I suppose.

USU "Who knows a thing or two about the "other" Dunns of Nauvoo" 78

[Uncle Dale]

...

the Kansas/Missouri Border War and "Burning Kansas"

...

I don't recall who the "prophets" of that account were. My memory is hazy, perhaps.

According to the First Presidency's report, only ten Mormons were set upon

by "the mob" of several dozens of hostile Gentiles, at Gallatin on election

day in 1838. Or, at least only that few LDS are recorded as fighting back.

Why on earth would ten Mormons face up against a "mob" of more than a hundred

of their supposedly avowed enemies, in such a situation?

1. Were those ten LDS residents of Caldwell or Daviess?

2. How long had they been in Daviess?

3. What was Joseph Smith's counsel to them?

4. What were Lyman Wight's orders to them?

5. What was God's purpose in having them at Gallatin in the first place?

Or, perhaps God did not sanctify any of this lead-up to the "Mormon War," and

would have been just as pleased with His "Chosen People," had they integrated

into Daviess County in a less hurried and more cautious manner.

???

Conjectured conversation between Doniphan and Smith, the day before the election:

D: "Joe, I'm warning you -- those Daviess folks aren't going to like your people voting up there!"

S: "Don't worry, Alex -- God is on our side. We are commanded to occupy Adam's altar."

D: "But, Joe, you people haven't made an effort to make any allies up there."

S: "I'm sure that the Jacksonians will support us -- like they did in Ohio."

D: "Not likely, Joe. Daviess is only 20% Whig. The Democrats don't need your votes."

S: "That's OK. We'll send in hundreds of Saints, like Elder Wight, who'll vote Whig!"

D: "A plan for disaster, I assure you. After Rigdon's July 4th speech, they hate you."

S: "If there is a war, God will protect us. We'll take Jackson County back this year!"

D: "Well, I'm on my way to St. Louis. How do you want your obituary to read, Joe?"

S: "That's what I like about you, Alex -- always with the jokes! always with the jokes!"

UD

[ERayR]

As I understand it, the LDS leadership dropped off the "Appeal to the American People" in Cincinnati,

on their way east to meet with president Van Buren, and attempt to seek financial redress from the

U. S. Government, for the recent Mormon loss of life and property in the "Missouri War."

I suppose that the LDS First Presidency was pleased with the publication of its 1840 report, for

those leaders had it reprinted later that year in a slightly expanded edition, and then ran the

same report in a serialized version in the Nauvoo "Times and Seasons."

It thus became the official account of the LDS Church, and is so identified on its title-page.

Based solely upon the authority inherent in the priesthood "chain of command" in the Church, it

seems that we are to accept this 1840 text at a higher level of reporting from inspired leaders

then the contemporary reports from Pratt and Greene -- and certainly at a much higher level than

any modern book on the subject, written "through the eyes of history," and lacking the official

LDS Imprimatur.

But -- that is exactly what I am asking.

Does the 1840 text report God's will for the Saints' activities in Missouri?

Can we trust its reporting as being truthful and reliable communication from inspired prophets?

UD

Not having read that report and only going on what I have been told by others I don't think that it was presented as revelation from God. The report was composed from information given the First Presidency by others and from their own first hand experience. There is room for some self justification to have crept in. However, after reading some accounts of some of the attrocities I think it not unreasonable to accept it as the most correct account.

[Uncle Dale]

double posting

[Uncle Dale]

Not having read that report and only going on what I have been told by others I don't think

that it was presented as revelation from God.

Here's the URL:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1840RigA.htm

True, it is not presented as a revelation -- but it is presented as a review of the

very recent past, provided by God's inspired leaders for God's Chosen People.

The report was twice subsequently reprinted -- so if God had any displeasure in

this account of the activities of His Prophet and People, there was opportunity

for Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith and Sidney Rigdon to renounce any misinformation.

Those reprints were published during a time when the First Presidency purported

to be receiving continual direction and revelation from Heavenly Father.

But perhaps we should take note of the title -- it is directed as an appeal,

not to the Saints themselves, but to the Gentile American citizens. In part it

may have been an appeal for financial charity. But the timing of its publication

suggests that its contents were primarily meant for review by the administration

of Martin Van Buren in Washington, D.C. Perhaps Joseph Smith, in his meeting

with the President, handed him either a handwritten draft, or a copy of the first

edition (if it was off the press at that time).

An appeal to the Gentiles of America, and to the Jacksonian administration, would

be so designed to minimize assertions of God's guidance, corruption of Democratic

politicians, etc. The main "villain" of the report was a Whig. Martin Van Buren

was a Jacksonian Democrat, whose party had been allied with the Mormons for

several years previously. Still, Van Buren turned a deaf ear to Joseph Smith.

The report was composed from information given the First Presidency by others and

from their own first hand experience. There is room for some self justification to have crept in.

Perhaps so -- or, at least "partisan" views, in the wake of what had been a very

hostile and divisive conflict. But again, if these were God's chosen leaders for

God's Chosen People, directed all through the 1830s by continual revelation, we

are left to wonder how the account can possibly read as it does. Is it honest?

However, after reading some accounts of some of the attrocities I think it not

unreasonable to accept it as the most correct account.

On that point I do agree. I do not challenge the assertion that most (or even all)

of the conflicts described in the report actually happened.

I do, however, challenge such assertions as the report saying that the Baptist

Rev. Isaac McCoy was part of "the mob." McCoy was then (and has continued to be)

highly regarded as a very moral and self-sacrificing man. He pointedly challenged

the Mormon depiction of him as their persecutor and a mob leader. All through

the 1840 text, the Mormon leadership pictures the local Protestant ministers as

vicious, bloodthirsty instigators of rape, murder and horrid persecution.

And yet contemporary accounts of these same Missouri preachers do not single

them out to be such terrible hypocrites. Two or three lay ministers may have

been involved in occasional hostilities with the Mormons, but certainly not

all of the Christian pastors in western Missouri were then tools of the Devil.

There is something in the tone of the LDS reporting that strikes me as unreal --

as the compilation of largely true happenings, presented in a fictional way,

for something akin to a political purpose.

I cannot believe that God sanctioned such an account -- or sanctions it today.

UD

.

[notHagoth7]

City boys. There is more to the improvement of raw land into farm land than building stuff on it. clearing such trees as might be there, smoothing out the contours, cutting into the topsoil with a plow, disking, taking the big rocks out, and such would have been far more significant to farm folks than the few fences and whatnot might have been burned down in the rush to "shoot me a Marman."

Yep. It was called honeycombing.

Besides, the violence and misery a generation later during the Kansas and Missouri troubles leading up to the Civil War didn't arise out of nothing. There was a tradition of rapine, murder, theft, bigotry, and whatnot out of which that better documented and later misery grew.

Yep. Jesse James was raised on the ashes of that conflict. And...surprise...the locals considered his murders (both during and after the Civil War) as somehow heroic.

From the world of wiki:

"The Clay County provost marshal reported that both Frank and Jesse James took part in the Centralia Massacre in September, in which guerrillas killed or wounded some 22 unarmed Union troops; the guerrillas scalped and dismembered some of the dead. The guerrillas ambushed and defeated a pursuing regiment of Major A.V.E. Johnson's Union troops, killing all who tried to surrender (more than 100)."

[USU78]

Yep. It was called honeycombing.

Yep. Jesse James was raised on the ashes of that conflict. And...surprise...the locals considered his murders (both during and after the Civil War) as somehow heroic.

From the world of wiki:

"The Clay County provost marshal reported that both Frank and Jesse James took part in the Centralia Massacre in September, in which guerrillas killed or wounded some 22 unarmed Union troops; the guerrillas scalped and dismembered some of the dead. The guerrillas ambushed and defeated a pursuing regiment of Major A.V.E. Johnson's Union troops, killing all who tried to surrender (more than 100)."

Except that to Rabbi Dale's point, a First Presidency announcement that may have been steeped in hyperbole (as opposed to the current-day cooly considered offerings), the points you and I are making are quite beside the point.

And it's an interesting point: Should the First Presidency of G-d's Church engage in hyperbole and, perhaps, numbers fudging typical of the day?

Or is Dale engaged in presentism?

Or is something else up?

[Uncle Dale]

...

And it's an interesting point

...

I have a theory about all of this -- but we have to go ahead in time

a couple of years, in order to gain the "presentism" of the 1840s,

looking back at the 1830s.

Shall I continue...

???

Yer Unk

[notHagoth7]

I have a theory about all of this...

Shall I continue...

???

Yes.

[notHagoth7]

...And it's an interesting point: Should the First Presidency of G-d's Church engage in hyperbole and, perhaps, numbers fudging typical of the day?

Or is Dale engaged in presentism?

Or is something else up?

If Joseph's views on slavery during his later run for presidency are seen as part of (or an extension of) the gospel message, and if just government is also seen as part of that message, one would be accurate in stating that the conflict in Missouri traced to opposition to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. In such a context, wouldn't it be hyperbole to claim the earlier First Presidency statements were hyperbole?

[Uncle Dale]

Yes.

My theory is that the 1839 report (published at the beginning of 1840) was the LAST

important thing Rigdon did for the Church, before his fall from grace at Nauvoo,

and that Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith had very little input. It thus may be a mistake

to call the account an official report by the First Presidency.

Rigdon was called upon to go east, to Washington, D. C., to seek redress from

the Van Buren administration, for Mormon losses in Missouri. The idea was then

not so far-fetched as it now appears to be. The Democrats' administration

had interfered in the State's affairs in Florida, to the benefit of new settlers

there (who were impinging upon Indian lands). The hope that Van Buren would

involve the U. S. Government in Missouri matters was at least a possibility.

But Rigdon dithered away most of 1839. He was late in writing the report and

late in starting out for Washington, D. C. In the meanwhile, Joseph Smith had

some time to reflect upon Rigdon's role in Missouri -- on his July 4, 1838

challenge of a war of extermination to the Missourians -- on his scoring an

early release from Liberty Jail -- on his mismanagement of Church business

after his moving to Illinois -- on his dithering away precious time and not

going to Washington. At last, Smith decided to go along with Rigdon, and to

monitor the man's activities and mental stability, while on that trip.

My theory is that Smith was not very impressed with Rigdon, and then began

to see him as one of the causes for the Saints' troubles in Missouri. As things

turned out, Rigdon never even made it into Van Buren's office -- it was Smith

who had to do everything for the Church.

So, I don't think we can rely upon that report as expressing the full and

unreserved views and recollections of Joseph Smith, jr. -- nor of Hyrum.

UD

.

[volgadon]

I think land was a big issue closely related to fear and xenophobia. Here are outsiders with strange ways taking our land away from our children.

[volgadon]

My theory is that the 1839 report (published at the beginning of 1840) was the LAST

important thing Rigdon did for the Church, before his fall from grace at Nauvoo,

and that Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith had very little input. It thus may be a mistake

to call the account an official report by the First Presidency.

Rigdon was called upon to go east, to Washington, D. C., to seek redress from

the Van Buren administration, for Mormon losses in Missouri. The idea was then

not so far-fetched as it now appears to be. The Democrats' administration

had interfered in the State's affairs in Florida, to the benefit of new settlers

there (who were impinging upon Indian lands). The hope that Van Buren would

involve the U. S. Government in Missouri matters was at least a possibility.

But Rigdon dithered away most of 1839. He was late in writing the report and

late in starting out for Washington, D. C. In the meanwhile, Joseph Smith had

some time to reflect upon Rigdon's role in Missouri -- on his July 4, 1838

challenge of a war of extermination to the Missourians -- on his scoring an

early release from Liberty Jail -- on his mismanagement of Church business

after his moving to Illinois -- on his dithering away precious time and not

going to Washington. At last, Smith decided to go along with Rigdon, and to

monitor the man's activities and mental stability, while on that trip.

My theory is that Smith was not very impressed with Rigdon, and then began

to see him as one of the causes for the Saints' troubles in Missouri. As things

turned out, Rigdon never even made it into Van Buren's office -- it was Smith

who had to do everything for the Church.

So, I don't think we can rely upon that report as expressing the full and

unreserved views and recollections of Joseph Smith, jr. -- nor of Hyrum.

UD

.

That is certainly an interesting theory, one I think ought to be explored more.

[Uncle Dale]

That is certainly an interesting theory, one I think ought to be explored more.

Richard Bushman concludes that Joseph was strangely detached and distant from the

action throughout much of the "Mormon War." Of course he was not in Missouri until

its final year, and was preoccupied with building up Far West, planning for the

construction of a temple there.

Latter Day Saints have always argued that Joseph was mostly uninvolved in the 1838

Danite activities -- and that it was Avard who conducted any and all secretive

activities for that group. But the very testimony that Rigdon warns his readers

not to believe, is the testimony that ties Rigdon very closely to the Danites.

Could it be that Joseph Smith relied upon Sidney Rigdon too much in 1838-39,

and that by 1840 he had begun to realize how much his confidence had been misplaced?

Such a viewpoint might at least begin to help explain the oddities of the 1840

LDS report -- which I think contains both some falsehoods and mis-statements.

UD

.

[notHagoth7]

...But the very testimony that Rigdon warns his readers

not to believe, is the testimony that ties Rigdon very closely to the Danites.

Could it be that Joseph Smith relied upon Sidney Rigdon too much in 1838-39,

and that by 1840 he had begun to realize how much his confidence had been misplaced?

Things that make you go "huh."

[Uncle Dale]

Things that make you go "huh."

On the other hand, there is a problem with my theory.

My Mormon ancestors in Missouri in the 1830s totally believed, so long as they

were faithful to their covenants with God, that they would prosper upon the land.

I'm fairly certain that leaders like David Patten and Lyman Wight believed

this as well. It was their expectation that the Mormons would prevail in

1838. That, if they did not win over the entire state of Missouri, they

would at least "redeem Zion," and return in great numbers to the "Zion"

of Jackson County.

And yet, my ancestors did not prosper upon the land.

Even though Bushman concludes that President Smith was largely detached from

the daily activities of the struggle, we all know that Smith took the lead in

the 1834 Zion's Camp expedition. He also took the lead in taking an armed body

of men across the county line into Daviess, to confront Justice Black. He was

on the podium during Rigdon's infamous "Salt Sermon," and was again there at

Rigdon's side during the inflammatory July 4th proclamation at Far West.

Smith could not have been unaware of all that was going on around him.

Either God willed that the Saints occupy Daviess county and secure Adam-ondi-Ahmen,

or He did not. Either God upheld His end of the covenant and was prospering the

Saints upon the Land of Promise, or.......

Or, what?

UD

.

[jwhitlock]

Could it be that Joseph Smith relied upon Sidney Rigdon too much in 1838-39,

and that by 1840 he had begun to realize how much his confidence had been misplaced?

This is certainly a possibility.

Joseph, in many respects, was a very trusting individual when it came to his fellow saints.

[jwhitlock]

My Mormon ancestors in Missouri in the 1830s totally believed, so long as they

were faithful to their covenants with God, that they would prosper upon the land.

We have the same problem in the Church today. While one can make the claim that this originates from the top, from my perspective, our leaders take a cautious approach to this. It's not uncommon to have a certain amount of euphoria surrounding the gospel that becomes tempered after time and experience have matured the new convert.

I think it's evident from the historical record that such euphoria led some of the saints to look past the foundations of the gospel and assume things that were not intended.

[notHagoth7]

And yet, my ancestors did not prosper upon the land.

You're implying that occasional setbacks disprove the promise that they would prosper.

All things work to the good of those who love God.

Even temporary setbacks.

If they're endured well.