1838 executive order to exterminate Mormons!

[ERayR]

Food for thought. There's two sides to the executive order issue.

blueadept I agree that, as far as the disagreements were concerned, there were some provocations on both sides but that is another discussion. What I will Not agree to is that there was any justification to order the wholesale killing of anybody and especially from a sitting governor of a state. This order IMNSHO led the the death of hundreds of men, women and children from exposure when forced to evacuate with virtually the clothes on their back and little else in the middle of the winter.

But that's just me.

[ttribe]

blueadept I agree that, as far as the disagreements were concerned, there were some provocations on both sides but that is another discussion. What I will Not agree to is that there was any justification to order the wholesale killing of anybody and especially from a sitting governor of a state. This order IMNSHO led the the death of hundreds of men, women and children from exposure when forced to evacuate with virtually the clothes on their back and little else in the middle of the winter.

But that's just me.

It's not just you.

[the narrator]

FYI. Leland Gentry's landmark dissertation on the Missouri persecutions (updated and revised by Todd Compton) will shortly be available from Greg Kofford Books. I have only had time to briefly skim through it, but it does a fine job at sorting out the myths and controversies of this time, showing how actions by both sides led to the many atrocities.

Also, I believe The Story of the Latter-day Saints by Allen and Leonard spends some time pointing out the problem of narratives of completely innocent Mormons being persecuted.

[USU78]

FYI. Leland Gentry's landmark dissertation on the Missouri persecutions (updated and revised by Todd Compton) will shortly be available from Greg Kofford Books. I have only had time to briefly skim through it, but it does a fine job at sorting out the myths and controversies of this time, showing how actions by both sides led to the many atrocities.

Also, I believe The Story of the Latter-day Saints by Allen and Leonard spends some time pointing out the problem of narratives of completely innocent Mormons being persecuted.

I'm delighted to hear that only the wholly innocent are entitled not to be exterminated.

[ttribe]

I'm delighted to hear that only the wholly innocent are entitled not to be exterminated.

+1. That was my initial reaction as well.

[the narrator]

I'm delighted to hear that only the wholly innocent are entitled not to be exterminated.

I never implied anything close to that. Grow up.

[blueadept]

blueadept I agree that, as far as the disagreements were concerned, there were some provocations on both sides but that is another discussion. What I will Not agree to is that there was any justification to order the wholesale killing of anybody and especially from a sitting governor of a state. This order IMNSHO led the the death of hundreds of men, women and children from exposure when forced to evacuate with virtually the clothes on their back and little else in the middle of the winter.

But that's just me.

I'm not trying to justify Governor Boggs decision and believe he should have rescinded the order.

But place it in context to receiving poor field reports that his militia was defeated in a battle (it's hard to call it that, a handful of shots) and then reflecting on the negative portions of Rigdon's speech made on July 4th, I believe he honestly feared a Mormon takeover of his state. In reality, it's the only reasonable explanation of why Governor Boggs would make the 1838 executive order to exterminate Mormons.

...but it's hard to know why any insane governor would make such an extreme order (unjustly in my opinion)

[The_Monk]

Ceeboo asked what happened to all the properties and such left behind. They were a loss. I sometimes think, when we talk about slavery reparations (which I neither advocate nor argue against here), that if the Government decides to do that when the claims can't be made in specific, then the government of Missouri should certainly offer reparations for all they took from the Mormons, which has been documented in detail.

See the Mormon Redress Petitions.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6138

[USU78]

I never implied anything close to that. Grow up.

I'm sorry that there nerve I hit is so tender.

A little Fels-Naphtha ought to help that.

[ttribe]

Grow up.

"Physician...."

[ERayR]

FYI. Leland Gentry's landmark dissertation on the Missouri persecutions (updated and revised by Todd Compton) will shortly be available from Greg Kofford Books. I have only had time to briefly skim through it, but it does a fine job at sorting out the myths and controversies of this time, showing how actions by both sides led to the many atrocities.

Also, I believe The Story of the Latter-day Saints by Allen and Leonard spends some time pointing out the problem of narratives of completely innocent Mormons being persecuted.

A state sposored genocide program and the only thing you can say is the mormons were not completly innocent? What won't you excuse?

[Jaybear]

If you are dismissive about all of the relevant facts, then you are right, we can have no meaningful discussion.

The only relevant fact is whether Rigdon's statement inflamed the situation.

Oh, and I've never said anything about Sidney Rigdon's comments not being inflammatory. They were ill-timed and ill-advised.

So you neither admit nor deny that it was inflamatory. But by having expressed and explained my opinion that it was inflamatory, I offended you.

That does not surprise me.

Then don't say things that create that impression.

Right, its my fault. I said something that you don't necessarily disagree with. So I left you with no choice but to restate my opinion to something you find offense.

[the narrator]

A state sposored genocide program and the only thing you can say is the mormons were not completly innocent? What won't you excuse?

I didn't excuse anything. I was just merely pointing out that the traditional narrative of evil Missourians killing hippie peace-loving Mormons just doesn't match with reality.

The extermination order, though wrong, was not religious persecution. Many Mormons did some pretty terrible things. After Rigdon's volatile sermon, they were understood as a violent threat to the state.

We can either grow up and accept reality, or we can cry and whine about our persecution complex.

[Skywalker]

I never implied anything close to that. Grow up.

Oh? Nothing close to that?

Also, I believe The Story of the Latter-day Saints by Allen and Leonard spends some time pointing out the problem of narratives of completely innocent Mormons being persecuted.

I'm not necessarily of the opinion that you believe that only the wholly innocent are entitled to not be persecuted (I can't read your mind), but this sentence is pretty close to saying that very thing.

I didn't excuse anything. I was just merely pointing out that the traditional narrative of evil Missourians killing hippie peace-loving Mormons just doesn't match with reality.

...

We can either grow up and accept reality, or we can cry and whine about our persecution complex.

And you were there, at that time, to dictate to everyone what "reality" actually was? Please, how old are you? You must be well over 170 years old.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I didn't excuse anything. I was just merely pointing out that the traditional narrative of evil Missourians killing hippie peace-loving Mormons just doesn't match with reality.

The extermination order, though wrong, was not religious persecution. Many Mormons did some pretty terrible things. After Rigdon's volatile sermon, they were understood as a violent threat to the state.

We can either grow up and accept reality, or we can cry and whine about our persecution complex.

Absurd. What you are atempting to do is justify (mayeb this is not the best word but it is all that comes to mind) the extermination order. You claim it was wrong and then give reasons why Missouri was justified in doing what they did.

And I have never see any one argue that the Missourians were evil for wanting to kill hippie peace-loving Mormons. No wonder you have a skewed view of things. Did the Mormons do somethings that went against the gospel? Yeah. But extermination order? And I disagree with your assessment that it was not religious persecution. They didn't do the order because they loved our beleifs.

I think you are the one ignoring certain things in history.

[the narrator]

Oh? Nothing close to that?

Saying that the Missouri Mormons weren't complete innocent and saying that it is only wrong to exterminate the completely innocent are two completely different things. Take a logic class.

I'm not necessarily of the opinion that you believe that only the wholly innocent are entitled to not be persecuted (I can't read your mind), but this sentence is pretty close to saying that very thing.

Again, not even close. take a logic class. And a reading class.

And you were there, at that time, to dictate to everyone what "reality" actually was? Please, how old are you? You must be well over 170 years old.

I read books. History books. By real historians. It's not that difficult. You should give it a try.

[ERayR]

I didn't excuse anything. I was just merely pointing out that the traditional narrative of evil Missourians killing hippie peace-loving Mormons just doesn't match with reality.

The extermination order, though wrong, was not religious persecution. Many Mormons did some pretty terrible things. After Rigdon's volatile sermon, they were understood as a violent threat to the state.

We can either grow up and accept reality, or we can cry and whine about our persecution complex.

So you are now equating Sydney Rigdon's oratory warning to the mobs who were robbing and raping to an executive order by a sitting governor that literally gave those mobs a license to not only rob and rape but now to kill?

Pardon my persecution complex.

Oh and by the way I read "real" history books too. Maybe even more than you.

[the narrator]

Absurd. What you are atempting to do is justify (mayeb this is not the best word but it is all that comes to mind) the extermination order. You claim it was wrong and then give reasons why Missouri was justified in doing what they did.

I was never justifying it. It's like Joseph destroying the Expositor press. Wrong? yes. Understandable? given the times and situation, perhaps.

Did the Mormons do somethings that went against the gospel?

I'm pretty sure that mobbing innocent Missourians, burning their homes, etc., counts as being against the gospel.

[the narrator]

So you are now equating Sydney Rigdon's oratory warning to the mobs who were robbing and raping to an executive order by a sitting governor that literally gave those mobs a license to not only rob and rape but now to kill?

Nope. I'm not. Read my posts again. I never equated them. I just said that there were altercations on both sides that led up to the extermination order.

BTW, i don't think the order gave anyone "license to rape."

[ttribe]

The only relevant fact is whether Rigdon's statement inflamed the situation.

Explain to me how this doesn't look like you think this whole thing wasn't the Mormons' fault?

So you neither admit nor deny that it was inflamatory. But by having expressed and explained my opinion that it was inflamatory, I offended you.

They were inflammatory. However, we seem to disagree on whether there were other contributing factors. Furthermore, I don't believe Sidney Rigdon's commentary represents a justifiable basis for a government issued extermination order.

That does not surprise me.

Oh just stop. The day you have the moral high ground on fair-mindeness is the day you can call me out.

Right, its my fault. I said something that you don't necessarily disagree with. So I left you with no choice but to restate my opinion to something you find offense.

Then clarify. You've neither "admitted nor denied" either; just gotten all huffy because I pointed out how your words came across.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So you are now equating Sydney Rigdon's oratory warning to the mobs who were robbing and raping to an executive order by a sitting governor that literally gave those mobs a license to not only rob and rape but now to kill?

Pardon my persecution complex.

Amen!

[Skywalker]

Saying that the Missouri Mormons weren't complete innocent and saying that it is only wrong to exterminate the completely innocent are two completely different things. Take a logic class.

My logic is sound. Let's look at what you said:

Also, I believe The Story of the Latter-day Saints by Allen and Leonard spends some time pointing out the problem of narratives of completely innocent Mormons being persecuted.

You said this with an agenda.

Mormons claim that the Mormons in Missouri were completely innocent, therefore the persecution was unjust.

You claim Missouri Mormons weren't completely innocent, therefore the persecution must be just.

Again, not even close. take a logic class. And a reading class.

That's pretty close.

I read books. History books. By real historians. It's not that difficult. You should give it a try.

As do I. Many more than you've read, I'm sure. My opinion of a "real historian" does not only encompass authors who write for Signature Books.

Since you were not there, in Missouri, at this time, you do not know what reality was anymore than any other person who "reads history books."

[Glenn101]

I didn't excuse anything. I was just merely pointing out that the traditional narrative of evil Missourians killing hippie peace-loving Mormons just doesn't match with reality.

The extermination order, though wrong, was not religious persecution. Many Mormons did some pretty terrible things. After Rigdon's volatile sermon, they were understood as a violent threat to the state.

We can either grow up and accept reality, or we can cry and whine about our persecution complex.

Please provide some documentation or link to back up your statement that many Mormons did some pretty terrible things. I don't think anyone here has tried to paint the LDS as lily white saints. There were some speckles. But by and large they were a very industrious community and wherever they went, they turned to with a gusto to build up their community. They, at first were not clannish lot, and settled in and among the neighbors. Some of the bad feeling that ensued was due to jealously on the part of some of the people who saw the "Mormons" accomplish in a few years as much or more than they had accomplished in a life time.

Almost assuredly there were a few who took 0n the LDS name with an eye to exploitation, i.e. to see what they could gain from this new thing, this new religion. But they were the exception, rather than the rule.

Another of the problems was the Jackson County being Zion revelation. I do not know how the LDS made it known to the long timers in the area, but I doubt that no matter how it was made known, it did not set well with most of the Missourians in the area that they were going to lose their lands.

Is there a chicken and egg story here? A first cause story? Did things start out fairly well and little incidents escalate to the boiling point?

I do believe so. And I believe that a lot of the initial suspicion was due to the "new religion". Missouri has hardly the reputation for being a bastion of religious and racial tolerance. I think this suspicion about adherents to this new religion was exacerbated with each unpleasant incident. Until better proof is produced, I have no reason to believe that the main of the LDS community were anything less than an honest, industrious lot.

Glenn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I was never justifying it. It's like Joseph destroying the Expositor press. Wrong? yes. Understandable? given the times and situation, perhaps.

I'm pretty sure that mobbing innocent Missourians, burning their homes, etc., counts as being against the gospel.

You have opened up a can of worms brother.

[ttribe]

I'm pretty sure that mobbing innocent Missourians, burning their homes, etc., counts as being against the gospel.

I'm pretty sure the number of incidents of these things perpetrated by any actual Mormons doesn't justify misleading blanket statements.