1838 executive order to exterminate Mormons!

[the narrator]

My logic is sound.

Haha!

You said this with an agenda.

And what agenda is that?

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.

I didn't say that though. I (a Mormon) was merely saying that traditional narratives which depict the Mormons as completely innocent victims in Missourri (see Legacy, for example) are problematic when measured against the facts.

Regardless, your logic is not sound.

Here is your argument:

I - > U (if innocent, then unjust)

~I -> ~ U (if not innocent, then not)

That is not logically sound. Take a logic class to find out why.

As do I. Many more than you've read, I'm sure.

Actually, I doubt that. But I really don't want to go into a counting match.

My opinion of a "real historian" does not only encompass authors who write for Signature Books.

Don't buy into DCP's neurotic generalization of Signature Books.

I'm interested though, what historians have you read concerning the Missouri persecutions?

BTW, the Gentry book (Fire and Sword), which comes out shortly, was written as a dissertation at BYU.

[Jason]

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

Is that the "terrible things" you mentioned earlier?

So destroying a press is justification for exterminating every member of a particular religion in your state?

[ttribe]

Note to Ceeboo - in case you hadn't noticed, this is an emotionally charged topic. Sorry you got yourself in the middle of a firestorm.

[the narrator]

Please provide some documentation or link to back up your statement that many Mormons did some pretty terrible things.

I don't have the time to look up everything. Gentry and Comptons, Fire and Sword will go into about as much detail as can be done on it. I also suggest David Grua's recent master's thesis at BYU,

[the narrator]

Is that the "terrible things" you mentioned earlier?

So destroying a press is justification for exterminating every member of a particular religion in your state?

No the destruction of the Expositor happened years later in Nauvoo. I was referring to Mormon mobs who violently beat innocent Missourians, burned their homes, stole their property, etc.

[blueadept]

You have opened up a can of worms brother.

I believe Ceeboo unintentionally did. I'm not surprised at how this thread has progressed.

[ERayR]

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."

Try this

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.

showing how actions by both sides led to the many atrocities - sounds like you equate them here.

The order to exterminate pretty much gives aquesience to anything.

[the narrator]

showing how actions by both sides led to the many atrocities - sounds like you equate them here.

Except that I don't even come close to equating them.

The order to exterminate pretty much gives aquesience to anything.

Actually it doesn't.

[frankenstein]

Hi USU,

Thanks for sharing!

In regard to the evacuation, what happened to all the Mormon owned properties that were obviously left behind?

Peace,

Ceeboo

I asked a Professor who teaches property law and knows a little about Mormons this same question. If I recall correctly, he stated something along the lines that Missouri legislature or some Constitutional body passed a law or resolution which would prevent rightful title holders from reclaiming their land.

Otherwise, I would say a person who still holds legal title to a piece of land, could go claim, with a slight possibility that "adverse possession" could be used against them post resending of the Order.

[frankenstein]

Actually it doesn't.

a people with a license to kill, are highly unlikely to punish one of their for engaging in a act before killing the person they have state approval to kill which in turn is acquiescence.

[the narrator]

a people with a license to kill, are highly unlikely to punish one of their for engaging in a act before killing the person they have state approval to kill which in turn is acquiescence.

Are you claiming that the US military gives it's soldiers license to rape?

[rockslider]

Hey CeeBoo, also note that a similar thing happened in Jackson County, where they were driven from their homes, left all possessions, except for what they had on their backs. And of course the exodus from Nauvoo, they carried a bit more of their possessions, but left homes/lands.

[ERayR]

Are you claiming that the US military gives it's soldiers license to rape?

Why do you continue to make excuses for governor Boggs and the Missouri mobs? I only ask to help me understand the mindset of excusing pillage and murder? You seem to me to be saying that because the LDS talked of and took drastic action against the mobs that they brought it on themselves. To me thats like saying that if the store owner had not had cash in his store he wouldn't have been robbed and if he had just handed over the money more quickly he wouldn't have been shot.

[ERayR]

Are you claiming that the US military gives it's soldiers license to rape?

Apples and oranges. The US military is not a mob.

[the narrator]

Why do you continue to make excuses for governor Boggs and the Missouri mobs?

I'm not excusing it. I already said it was wrong. I was just saying that it was not unprovoked. If someone were to call your wife terrible things, it would still be wrong to beat him. While undeserving of being beaten, the "victim" of your attack wasn't entirely innocent.

You seem to me to be saying that because the LDS talked of and took drastic action against the mobs...

Actually I said that some Mormons took drastic actions against innocent Missourians who did nothing to the Mormons.

...that they brought it on themselves.

I never said they brought it on themselves. I was saying that they did they helped in provoking Boggs' response.

To me thats like saying that if the store owner had not had cash in his store he wouldn't have been robbed and if he had just handed over the money more quickly he wouldn't have been shot.

More bizarre logic. It's much more akin to the example above.

[Skywalker]

And what agenda is that?

It is obvious that you are not taking an objective approach to this. As much as you think that LDS, and the film Legagy take a subjective (faith promoting) approach, you are guilty of also taking a subjective (non-faith promoting) approach. If actual events could be observed, by someone being there (again, you were not present), at that time, then we could get close to a totally objective viewpoint. Until that time, you, or the "real historians" you read are no more correct than I, or the historians I read.

I didn't say that though. I (a Mormon) was merely saying that traditional narratives which depict the Mormons as completely innocent victims in Missourri (see Legacy, for example) are problematic when measured against the facts.

See above. The facts are subjective until we can go back in time and observe events.

Regardless, your logic is not sound.

Here is your argument:

I - > U (if innocent, then unjust)

~I -> ~ U (if not innocent, then not)

That is not logically sound. Take a logic class to find out why.

I was merely pointing out your agenda.

Actually, I doubt that. But I really don't want to go into a counting match.

Neither do I, but I don't think you can go around touting that "I read books, therefore my opinions are correct."

Don't buy into DCP's neurotic generalization of Signature Books.

It's not just DCP's opinion, I assure you.

I'm interested though, what historians have you read concerning the Missouri persecutions?

Although I didn't claim to be an expert on the subject, I have read a few books by:

Thomas Morris Spencer

Parley P. Pratt

Richard Bennett

In addition, articles in scholarly journals by:

Clark V. Johnson

Davis Bitton

Donald Godfrey

[the narrator]

Apples and oranges. The US military is not a mob.

you are the one who said:

a people with a license to kill [uS military], are highly unlikely to punish one of their [uS soldiers] for engaging in a act before killing the person they have state [uS] approval to kill which in turn is acquiescence.

[the narrator]

It is obvious that you are not taking an objective approach to this. As much as you think that LDS, and the film Legagy take a subjective (faith promoting) approach, you are guilty of also taking a subjective (non-faith promoting) approach. If actual events could be observed, by someone being there (again, you were not present), at that time, then we could get close to a totally objective viewpoint. Until that time, you, or the "real historians" you read are no more correct than I, or the historians I read.

This has nothing to do with faith. I'm an faithful Mormon. It just has to do with looking at the facts.

See above. The facts are subjective until we can go back in time and observe events.

Are you saying that historians (or anybody) can't say anything about past?

I was merely pointing out your agenda.

Don't try to back out. You were trying to provide an argument to show that your "logic is sound." Unfortunately it wasn't.

Neither do I, but I don't think you can go around touting that "I read books, therefore my opinions are correct."

I didn't say I was right because I read books. I was just explaining how I learned things.

It's not just DCP's opinion, I assure you.

I know. He's just the chief advocate of the view.

Although I didn't claim to be an expert on the subject, I have read a few books by:

Thomas Morris Spencer

Parley P. Pratt

Richard Bennett

In addition, articles in scholarly journals by:

Clark V. Johnson

Davis Bitton

Donald Godfrey

That's a good start. Now just keep on reading.

[Ceeboo]

I believe Ceeboo unintentionally did. I'm not surprised at how this thread has progressed.

I believe I have indeed UNINTENTIONALLY done just that (Sorry to many )

I dunno, clearly I have limited knowledge/perspective/ties to this event but I am indeed a human being and as such, I am deeply troubled and saddened to learn some of the things in this thread that happened to my fellow human beings.

For what it worth, I can think of EXACTLY ZERO circumstances where this "execution order" directed at a group of human beings would even be on the table for consideration (Let alone given by a sitting Governor of this Country) At the very least, it strikes me as a gross failure of Government on the most basic level.

A VERY sad and utterly pathetic part of our US history, to be sure.

Have you ever started a thread where you were no where near prepared for the coming posts? (I have)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[ttribe]

I believe I have indeed UNINTENTIONALLY done just that (Sorry to many )

I dunno, clearly I have limited knowledge/perspective/ties to this event but I am indeed a human being and as such, I am deeply troubled and saddened to learn some of the things in this thread that happened to my fellow human beings.

For what it worth, I can think of EXACTLY ZERO circumstances where this "execution order" directed at a group of human beings would even be on the table for consideration (Let alone given by a sitting Governor of this Country) At the very least, it strikes me as a gross failure of Government on the most basic level.

A VERY sad and utterly pathetic part of our US history, to be sure.

Have you ever started a thread where you were no where near prepared for the coming posts? (I have)

Peace,

Ceeboo

Next time you see someone accusing us of having a "persecution complex," think about the events you've just read about here.

Edited to add: BTW, thanks for your words on the issue. These are old, but open, wounds.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe I have indeed UNINTENTIONALLY done just that (Sorry to many )

I dunno, clearly I have limited knowledge/perspective/ties to this event but I am indeed a human being and as such, I am deeply troubled and saddened to learn some of the things in this thread that happened to my fellow human beings.

For what it worth, I can think of EXACTLY ZERO circumstances where this "execution order" directed at a group of human beings would even be on the table for consideration (Let alone given by a sitting Governor of this Country) At the very least, it strikes me as a gross failure of Government on the most basic level.

A VERY sad and utterly pathetic part of our US history, to be sure.

Have you ever started a thread where you were no where near prepared for the coming posts? (I have)

Peace,

Ceeboo

I would not worry about. Beside, now you have more perspective on the issues.

[ERayR]

you are the one who said:

a people with a license to kill [uS military], are highly unlikely to punish one of their [uS soldiers] for engaging in a act before killing the person they have state [uS] approval to kill which in turn is acquiescence.

oxygenadam

Not mine. I did not say that. If it started with something I said you have added to and distorted it beyond my recognition.

[volgadon]

Are you claiming that the US military gives it's soldiers license to rape?

Pretty much so. Whenever there was an action involving civilians, rape usually followed.

Most of my books on 19th century warfare and such are across the ocean, but I'll ty and track some things down.

[the narrator]

a people with a license to kill [uS military], are highly unlikely to punish one of their [uS soldiers] for engaging in a act before killing the person they have state [uS] approval to kill which in turn is acquiescence.

oxygenadam

Not mine. I did not say that. If it started with something I said you have added to and distorted it beyond my recognition.

My bad. That was frankenstein. Sorry.

And with that, I think I've run this thread to the ground and am bowing out.

Peace.

[Skywalker]

This has nothing to do with faith. I'm an faithful Mormon. It just has to do with looking at the facts.

How do you reconcile the negative facts you choose to read about, with your faith as an LDS member? Do you also read publications by LDS authors (and I don't mean Quinn).

Are you saying that historians (or anybody) can't say anything about past?

Not at all. Where did I imply that? I maintain that historians cannot be objective without actually being there, which is why it is important to read publications from both sides.

Don't try to back out. You were trying to provide an argument to show that your "logic is sound." Unfortunately it wasn't.

Let me put is this way: do you believe that it is right for any militia or mob to pillage and murder an innocent group of people? I am guessing that you don't. Do you therefore believe that it is right for any militia or mob to pillage and murder an non-innocent group of people? If the answer is still no, please tell me at what point or level of guilt is it okay for said militia or mob to murder a group of people. A 1 to 10 scale should work.

I didn't say I was right because I read books. I was just explaining how I learned things.

You maintain:

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. (emphasis added)

Then I asked:

And you were there, at that time, to dictate to everyone what "reality" actually was?

To which you said:

I read books. History books. By real historians.

So I have no choice but to conclude that because you "read books ... by real historians" you are clearly the authority on reality.

I know. He's just the chief advocate of the view.

Fair enough, he might be, I don't know.