1838 executive order to exterminate Mormons!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

ttribe and MRSR, my opinion is formed only by my inability to see any better, real-world solutions.

In other words, "the Extermination Order was the worst possible solution, except for all the others" (admitting that even Boggs should have worded it as an "expulsion" order.)

If you can think of any other realistic options that Governor Boggs had in that time and place, I'd be interested to hear them.

Maybe he could have arrested people that broke the law. WOuld that have been easier? No. But it would have been much much more just and rational.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How many people died from skirmishes between Mormons and non Mormons after the order issued?

How many people died from skirmishes before the order issued?

How would you suggest that he put an end to the skirmishes?

Geeze, Jaybear are you attempting to justify Boggs decision? It looks as if you are. I dunno how about not an extermination order. How about with warrents for arrest? Something other then a blanket judgment on a mostly innocent people. I say mostly because some Mormons at the time were not being lawful. They should be prosecuted under the law. Did that happen? No. So why did Boggs go to an unjustifiable extreme?

[ERayR]

Geeze, Jaybear are you attempting to justify Boggs decision? It looks as if you are. I dunno how about not an extermination order. How about with warrents for arrest? Something other then a blanket judgment on a mostly innocent people. I say mostly because some Mormons at the time were not being lawful. They should be prosecuted under the law. Did that happen? No. So why did Boggs go to an unjustifiable extreme?

Jaybear, the women and children too? It really would solve the problem, just kill em all and the problem is solved.

[Storm Rider]

Thanks for the quote, I just find it interesting that the war of words is documented in history to have been started by Mormon leaders way before Governor Bogg's statements

Damn those Mormons! I just hate it that a people pushed from here to there cannot just sit and keep taking it. Frankly, it is annoying and it is...well it is just pride on the part of those dirty Mormons. Look, those buggers moved to our area, worked hard and grew too fast; they are just too industrious forcing good Christian folk to be envious and you know that is a sin. They just got what they were asking for. The government should always issue extermination orders when a group gets too uppity for their own good. Yup, they should accept our treatment or they should just be killed. I just hate Mormons.

Yes, two sides there are. Right and wrong.

[Jaybear]

Geeze, Jaybear are you attempting to justify Boggs decision?

No, I just asked a few relevant questions.

ERAYR: Jaybear, the women and children too? It really would solve the problem, just kill em all and the problem is solved.

I simply asked how many people were killed, before and after the order issued.

Yet you construe that to suggest that I advocate killing women and children? Wow. You, my friend, have a serious persecution complex.

[ERayR]

No, I just asked a few relevant questions.

I simply asked how many people were killed, before and after the order issued.

Yet you construe that to suggest that I advocate killing women and children? Wow. You, my friend, have a serious persecution complex.

No, but you have a serious problem with trying to blame mormons for everything. A perusal of your posts shows it no matter how clever you think you are at rationalizing and sidestepping.

[USU78]

No I didn't. I asserted that prospectively the two can easily be conflated. Bear in mind Rigdon was speaking prospectively.

Your words: "Yeah, that sounds pretty terrible to me. Especially if the "predation" and "mobs" that Rigdon referred to included the Missouri state militia acting on lawful orders."

First off, Rigdon's words are in the subjunctive voice and were not spoken "prospectively." Subjunctive means their reality in the universe is not assumed, just as attacks by mobsters is not assumed. His words are, further, conditional. Conditioned upon "X" happening, the Mormons will do "Y."

You first asserted Rigdon's conditional, subjunctively couched language was "pretty terrible." What nonsense! Especially in the context of XIXth Century oratory. You next asserted the words were especially terrible because the mobs that might be predating would be militiamen. Militia means authorized by elected officials. Militia are supposed to follow a chain of command. Officers keep track of who ordered what and with what authority from above.

Since you plainly misunderstand both conditionality and the subjunctive voice, it is plain that you took Rigdon's "Never Again" language, which was based upon both prior and current mob action in Missouri and prior and current mob action in Ohio to have been authorized by the chain of command and to have been carried out by militiamen. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from your statements.

To the extent, however, that you were referring to then current and later actions by those claiming to be militiamen acting under authority through the chain of command and/or actual militiamen acting under authority through the chain of command, then you are ignoring the obvious and often-cited problem facing Mormons in Missouri: any schmuck with a gun that wanted to predate Mormon land, goods, and people could claim militiaman status. How the heck were people supposed to know the difference?

But please don't insult me, by suggesting that I would think or say that Mormons deserved it.

Yet that's what it always comes down to with JB: JSJr had it coming because he was too political; exterminated Mormons had it coming in Missouri; Mormons fleeing Johnston's Army had it coming because they were polygynists . . . except when they weren't. With you it's ever and always the Mormons' fault wherever they go and whatever they do.

[blueadept]

Yes, two sides there are. Right and wrong.

Now your sounding like my wife............

[Jaybear]

Yet that's what it always comes down to with JB: JSJr had it coming because he was too political; exterminated Mormons had it coming in Missouri; Mormons fleeing Johnston's Army had it coming because they were polygynists . . . except when they weren't. With you it's ever and always the Mormons' fault wherever they go and whatever they do.

Your persecution complex is showing again.

[Skylla]

Your persecution complex is showing again.

Knock it off. You're out of the thread and you can take a break for a week.

Skylla

[Skylla]

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.

Stick to the topic please.

Skylla

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Your persecution complex is showing again.

Oh brother Jaybear. You really have out done yourself this time.

I see you have been removed.

[Pahoran]

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.

Not only does it not match with reality, this "traditional narrative" of yours doesn't match with any narrative I've actually read or heard from Church sources.

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.

I see. "My, that religious leader gave a really inflammatory sermon didn't he? Better exterminate his entire following. But it's not religious persecution! Wink, wink."

Having never heard the supposedly "traditional narrative" you reference above, I am increasingly seeing a new revisionist narrative: that no Mormons anywhere have ever been subjected to religious persecution.

Because, let's face it: if it didn't happen in Missouri, then it really didn't happen anywhere.

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

Yes, it's so remarkably mature to play the "persecution complex" card whenever someone disagrees with you about LDS history.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nevo]

From another thread (as to not derail it)

Governor Boggs and the signed executive order to exterminate Mormons....

Anything else you could share to help folks like me (slightly ignorant)gain some historical knowledge and perspective?

Hi Ceeboo,

As usual the discussion so far on this thread has generated more heat than light. But I would like to clear up a few points.

Governor Boggs's "Extermination Order" was essentially a removal order. He wasn't ordering the mass-killing of Mormons. In fact, the whole point of the order was to prevent further bloodshed and to restore order. The only way Boggs could see to do that was to expel the Mormons from the state. And, frankly, it worked. I suspect many more Mormon (and Missourian) lives would have been lost had the Mormons stayed where they were.

Of course, forcefully expelling people from their homes strikes us as an egregious abuse of people's rights

[USU78]

Governor Boggs's "Extermination Order" was essentially a removal order. He wasn't ordering the mass-killing of Mormons.

[Nevo]

You make the same error Alex Baugh makes. The order is conditional, with either/or consequences: Either the Mormons are removed from the State or they must be exterminated. Alex' position on Boggs is wholly unconvincing: the phrase "or removed" does not modify or refine "exterminated," it provides for an alternative remedy to the problem of Mormons' presence on or off the Missouri reservation. Any other conclusion is wishful thinking that ignores plain language.

Baugh of course argues that "exterminated" here has the sense of "forcibly expelled" since one of the definitions of "exterminate" in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary was "to drive from within one's borders." I don't think anyone is questioning that the threat of a violent "or else" was intended. He didn't just invite them to leave. But "extermination order" in the aftermath of the 20th century has for us a decidedly more sinister ring than may be warranted in this case.

I think the Hawn's Mill massacre, occurring as it did immediately after the order was issued, has tended to reinforce the idea that Boggs was basically declaring open season on Mormons. But as Baugh has argued

[Brenda]

Excuse me please. Does anyone have a link to Sidney Rigdon's (inflammatory) speech?

Thanks.

[USU78]

Baugh of course argues that "exterminated" here has the sense of "forcibly expelled" since one of the definitions of "exterminate" in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary was "to drive from within one's borders." I don't think anyone is questioning that the threat of a violent "or else" was intended. He didn't just invite them to leave. But "extermination order" in the aftermath of the 20th century has for us a decidedly more sinister ring than may be warranted in this case.

I think the Hawn's Mill massacre, occurring as it did immediately after the order was issued, has tended to reinforce the idea that Boggs was basically declaring open season on Mormons. But as Baugh has argued

[USU78]

Excuse me please. Does anyone have a link to Sidney Rigdon's (inflammatory) speech?

Thanks.

It went on for a couple of hours. I'm unaware of anything that looks both accurate and complete.

Here's the WIKI.

[Storm Rider]

Reconstructionist historians are the bane of all history. When has extermination ever been interpreted as "please move along now". I almost gag when I read this type of claptrap writing. You have people that have been persecuted wherever they went, but this was just a loving encouragement to move on by a good Christian man. If that is a Christian man, please show me what the pagan would have done. Heck, even Muslims treated Christians better than that. This is so bizarre. It seems pervansive for this quasi historians to conclude, "those damn Mormons just deserved". I suppose Jews deserved it; or the Cherokee people deserved it; or any group that is out of favor and really just is more bother than they are worth. After all, they are sub-human creatures that eat babies, have wild sexual orgies, and believe differently than me. More importantly, those Mormons even want to free their black brethren and sisters. Get out or I will kill you, is not and never has been a Christian act.

[mfbukowski]

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

How dare you?

After Haun's Mill, you dare say that? I have found in life that we reap what we sow.

[Nevo]

Reconstructionist historians are the bane of all history.

LOL.

Get out or I will kill you, is not and never has been a Christian act.

As my newest favorite author, David Bentley Hart, remarked after noting that Pope Gregory XIII reportedly had a commemorative medal struck to honor the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of thousands of French Protestants: "human beings frequently disappoint."

[mfbukowski]

Reconstructionist historians are the bane of all history.

"Objective" history is a fantasy.

[thesometimesaint]

History is nearly always written by the winners.

[USU78]

History is nearly always written by the winners.

Which was actually true until the Mensheviki named themselves Bolsheviki.