Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Scott Lloyd]

Second, LDS love to mention how they are the only religion to have an "extermination order" given against its people. What they NEVER say is that Sidney Rigdon was the first to use the word "extermination" and the first to use it as a threat in his July 4th speech which was given weeks before the escalation to open violence. If they don't mention that, then they certainly don't mention that Joseph seemed to not only support this speech but actually published it among members, which inevitably led to non-member Missourians seeing it and not taking it so great.

 

 

I see an essential  distinction between pre-emptive and defensive sabre-rattling -- which is essentially what was going on with the Rigdon speech -- and an executive order issued by a chief executive misusing his governmental power in a wholesale violation of human rights.

 

Also, it's not true that Latter-day Saints never mention this. I've read it in publications written by LDS scholars and historians. And it's in the Church Educational System student text, Church History in the Fulness of Times, prepared for use in college-level courses for Church members. See page 192. This text, of course, is published by the Church itself.

 

Third, while I have seen this mentioned a couple of times, it has never been by LDS leaders or membership while relating the story of Haun's Mill. I am referring to the evidence that the word "extermination" primarily meant something non-lethal in the days of the Missouri conflicts. Instead, it seems, it's primary use was "driving out".

 

 

 

 

 

Then you are obviously unacquainted with the work of Alexander W. Baugh. He is a professor of Church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University and probably the Church's foremost expert on the Missouri period of Church history.

 

He has made the very point you present here, and he has done it several times over the years that I have observed. Here is an exemplary instance:

 

Baugh also argues that contrary to popular belief by many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and even some Mormon historians, Missouri Gov. Lilburn W. Boggs' Oct. 27, 1838, Extermination Order did not intend to authorize the state militia or its citizens to openly kill or eradicate Latter-day Saints.

 

Although Boggs did not like Mormons, he did not condone the unnecessary taking of human life. In a report issued to the Missouri House of Representatives, Boggs explained that he called up the militia "to prevent the effusion of blood."

 

"What I found is that everybody thinks this Extermination Order is 'go kill everybody.' But Boggs doesn't have that mindset. He's not trying to kill people, he wants them removed," Baugh said in an interview. "He wants them out of the state, and he wants someone else to deal with them."

 

 

Alex is a friend of mine and a brilliant scholar. And though I don't necessarily agree with him on this point, he does make a strong case. And he is an example that falsifies your insinuation here that "LDS leaders or members" have never mentioned evidence about an alternate meaning for exterminate.

 

 

Fourth, there is no evidence that the men who perpetrated Haun's Mill Massacre actually had received the Executive Order 44. The evidence indicates that they were acting on suspicions most probably based on unfounded rumors.

 

Alex has made this point as well.

 

By the way, because of meticulous research by Professor Baugh, we now know that the correct spelling of Jacob Hawn's last name is H-A-W-N. As a result, in the latest edition of the LDS scriptures, the map of Missouri contains that spelling for Hawn's Mill.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

However:

"It is interesting that Gov. Wilburn Boggs in his infamous Extermination Order not only tried to drive the saints out of Missouri but included language to “intercept them at the border.” That is, to not merely push them out, but punish them for following the dictates of their own conscience as explained I in his own Missouri Constitution."

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-perception-and-reality-then-and-now

You can read the whole text here:

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Extermination_Order

the quote is wrong, it should be "intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the north" I believe.

I would really like to know why the governor wanted the Saints intercepted when they were on their way out already.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

However:

"It is interesting that Gov. Wilburn Boggs in his infamous Extermination Order not only tried to drive the saints out of Missouri but included language to “intercept them at the border.” That is, to not merely push them out, but punish them for following the dictates of their own conscience as explained I in his own Missouri Constitution."

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-perception-and-reality-then-and-now

As I said, I don't necessarily agree with Alex on this point. I think he is giving a charitable reading to the facts and trying to give Boggs the benefit of the doubt.

[Russell C McGregor]

Then, Russel C McGregor, you agree with me.

Mr Valentine, I will tell you what I agree with, and you shall refrain from taking it upon yourself to do my thinking for me.

Thankyouverymuch.

 

Just as you have reasoned here - that it would be wrong for "anti-Mormons" to speak of Rigdon's July 4th/extermination speech without mentioning the context of the "Five. Years." - it is also wrong for the LDS Church and members to speak of Bogg's "Extermination Order" without mentioning the context of the events of just half a year before the order.  Thank you for proving my point.

Can you find any competent authority -- anti-Mormon propaganda mills don't count -- who is prepared to claim that the Boggs Extermination Order was a response to Sidney Rigdon's 4th of July bombast?

If you can, can you please explain why you think a somewhat intemperate speech provides valid justification for a pogrom?

 

[jkwilliams]

Mr Valentine, I will tell you what I agree with, and you shall refrain from taking it upon yourself to do my thinking for me.

Thankyouverymuch.

 

Can you find any competent authority -- anti-Mormon propaganda mills don't count -- who is prepared to claim that the Boggs Extermination Order was a response to Sidney Rigdon's 4th of July bombast?

If you can, can you please explain why you think a somewhat intemperate speech provides valid justification for a pogrom?

I thought the extermination order resulted from a Mormon attack on a state militia unit.

[Deborah]

I have a hard time accepting that the things one learns later in life would have been more acceptable early in life. In fact I think that those who may learn these things early don't really pay attention or don't care about them at the time anyway and therefore hearing them later in life will have the same result. How many youth do you know who really want the ins and outs of church history.

 

I further think the essays if they are causing people to leave are a tool in the sifting of the wheat and tares, much like the Kirtland Bank in the early days of the church.

[cinepro]

Can you find any competent authority -- anti-Mormon propaganda mills don't count -- who is prepared to claim that the Boggs Extermination Order was a response to Sidney Rigdon's 4th of July bombast?

If you can, can you please explain why you think a somewhat intemperate speech provides valid justification for a pogrom?

 

 

As jkwilliams pointed out, no "competent" authority would make that claim because in order to be considered "competent", they would know it was a response to the Battle of Crooked River.

 

 

 

Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Extermination Order,^[1][2] was a executive order issued on October 27, 1838 by the Governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs. The order was issued in the aftermath of the Battle of Crooked River, a clash between Latter Day Saints and a unit of the Missouri State Guard in northern Ray County, Missouri, during the 1838 Mormon War. Claiming that Latter Day Saints had committed open and avowed defiance of the law and had made war upon the people of Missouri, Governor Boggs directed that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44

 

The 4th of July "Salt Sermon" was given almost four months earlier, so it would be hard to blame it solely and directly.

Edited August 12, 2015 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

As jkwilliams pointed out, no "competent" authority would make that claim because in order to be considered "competent", they would know it was a response to the Battle of Crooked River.

 

 

 

 

The 4th of July "Salt Sermon" was given almost four months earlier, so it would be hard to blame it solely and directly.

The "salt sermon" is not what is being referred to here. It is the Independence Day speech.

 

The salt sermon was delivered June 17, 1838, not July 4.

[cinepro]

I have a hard time accepting that the things one learns later in life would have been more acceptable early in life. In fact I think that those who may learn these things early don't really pay attention or don't care about them at the time anyway and therefore hearing them later in life will have the same result. How many youth do you know who really want the ins and outs of church history.

 

I further think the essays if they are causing people to leave are a tool in the sifting of the wheat and tares, much like the Kirtland Bank in the early days of the church.

 

Every youth I know wants the "ins and outs" of Church history.  I've substituted for several Seminary and Sunday School classes in the past year, and it's amazing to see how interested the students get when you actually teach them something....interesting.

 

I've often wondered what the status should be of someone in the Church who is only attending and believing because they don't know something about Church doctrine or history.

 

For example, suppose you were visiting with a Church investigator and they said to you "I love the Mormon Church.  I love how inclusive it is.  My mother's Church in Atlanta had a history of segregation and treating black people differently, and I promised myself I would never join a Church that had that in its history.  That's one of the things I love about your Church, and I can't wait to join!"

 

What would you do?  Would you tell the WML and missionaries that they need to explain the Priesthood ban to this investigator?  Suppose they didn't, and 10 years from now she discovers the Priesthood ban and is shocked and disturbed and ends up leaving.  Would you say that she was "sifted", or that she never should have joined in the first place, and it's her fault for not discovering it before she joined?

[cinepro]

The "salt sermon" is not what is being referred to here. It is the Independence Day speech.

 

The salt sermon was delivered June 17, 1838, not July 4.

 

 

 

The July 4th Oration is often confused with the Salt Sermon.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigdon%27s_July_4th_oration

 

Edited August 12, 2015 by cinepro

[Guest]

In the recently locked Joseph Smith's Promise Made To Helen Mar Kimball thread there was some spirited discussion, and not just the typical critic vs apologist kind. It seemed that there were some (who I would classify as faithful LDS) that were uncomfortable with some of the information in the plural marriage essay.

 

I'm curious to learn the opinions about the recent essays on lds.org of those who post on this board.

Seth Payne has been saying forever that we should own our history instead of the antis owning it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought the extermination order resulted from a Mormon attack on a state militia unit.

Whoa! Who attacked whom?

 

The battle of Crooked River was a direct result of anti-Mormon Samuel Bogart's men attacking the homes of Mormons, ordering them to leave the state, and taking three Mormon men prisoners.

 

Like a cropped photo, an out-of-context recitation of history can mislead.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So you turn to Wikipedia for absolution from your errors then.

 

If something is "often confused," that's excuse enough for perpetuating the confusion, I take it.

[Deborah]

What would you do?  Would you tell the WML and missionaries that they need to explain the Priesthood ban to this investigator?  Suppose they didn't, and 10 years from now she discovers the Priesthood ban and is shocked and disturbed and ends up leaving.  Would you say that she was "sifted", or that she never should have joined in the first place, and it's her fault for not discovering it before she joined?

Well it was never explained to me and I survived. If someone really has a testimony confirmed by the Holy Ghost they should be able to overcome these types of obstacles. In fact we had one family who joined the church and the sister found about plural marriage and readily accepted it as she was truly converted.

[Deborah]

I might add that the doctrine I learned in the missionary lessons was so powerful and so different from what my other church taught and so in line with what I already believed that some of this other stuff didn't really matter because where else could I find this.

[cinepro]

Well it was never explained to me and I survived. If someone really has a testimony confirmed by the Holy Ghost they should be able to overcome these types of obstacles. In fact we had one family who joined the church and the sister found about plural marriage and readily accepted it as she was truly converted.

 

The point being that a part of our faith is the faith that there isn't something that we don't know about that would destroy the rest of our faith. 

 

The road to Zion is littered with the spiritual bodies of people who were 100% sure (as you probably are) that there is nothing they could learn that would damage (or destroy) their faith. 

 

The Church has no doubt done a very considered cost/benefit analysis for the essays, with the conclusion being that they were losing more people by not getting the info out there than they were by hiding it and hoping no one found out.

[Deborah]

The Church has no doubt done a very considered cost/benefit analysis for the essays, with the conclusion being that they were losing more people by not getting the info out there than they were by hiding it and hoping no one found out.

 

I take exception to your "hiding it" remark. They weren't hiding it; they were just not talking about it because you can only cover so much in SS and Priesthood/RS and the emphasis has always been on basic doctrine.

[ALarson]

Whoa! Who attacked whom?

 

The battle of Crooked River was a direct result of anti-Mormon Samuel Bogart's men attacking the homes of Mormons, ordering them to leave the state, and taking three Mormon men prisoners.

 

Like a cropped photo, an out-of-context recitation of history can mislead.

How did the burning of the town of Gallatin, Missouri by the Mormons fit in here?

[Scott Lloyd]

How did the burning of the town of Gallatin, Missouri by the Mormons fit in here?

Read this from Jeff Lindsay:

 

With the capitulation of the Mormons in DeWitt, the wrath of the mob was hardly abated. The illegal forces in Carrol County now began massing toward Daviess County, hoping for yet more victories in the war of expulsion against the Mormons. Governor Boggs surely should have recognized the likelihood for terrible violence in that county, for "General Atchison, Mormons, rank and file in the settlers' party, and bystanders all said that illegal forces freed by the Carroll capitulation would now move against Daviess County Mormons" (Anderson, p. 41). General Atchison wrote to Governor Lilburn Boggs on 16 Oct., 1838, warning that "A portion of the men from Carroll County are on their march for Daviess County, where it is thought the same lawless game is to be played over, and the Mormons to be driven from that county and probably from Caldwell County" (Anderson, pp. 41-42).

Hyrum Smith describes the atrocities of the mob against Mormons in Daviess County and elsewhere, including the burning of Agnes Smith's home, who had to flee through the cold night with her babies and wade across a river to find safety. Colonel Lyman Wight was outraged. He asked General Parks what should be done:

Mormon leaders felt that their actions in Daviess County were approved by General Parks, though it is difficult to confirm what the General really intended. In any case, from the Mormon perspective, their use of troops in Daviess County to drive out the mob was legal and justified.

General Parks told him that he "should take a company of men, well armed, and go and disperse the mob wherever he should find any collected together, and take away their arms." Colonel Wight did so precisely, according to the orders of General parks, and my brother, Joseph, made no order about it.

(Statement of Hyrum Smith before the Municipal Court, Nauvoo, June 30, 1843, in Lucy Mack Smith, p. 376)

 

Some critics depict the following events in Daviess County as purely aggressive, as if men from Caldwell County illegally marched into a neighboring county without cause and chased away the non-Mormons. But many Mormons lived in Daviess County, and mobs composed of many Daviess County settlers and settlers from other counties were massing there to drive out the Mormons from that county and, if they succeeded, perhaps from Caldwell County as well. A couple of Mormons captured by the mob moving into Daviess County boasted that they would use their canon to drive Mormons from Daviess County to Caldwell County, and "from Caldwell to hell" (Edward Partridge, as cited by Anderson, p. 42). Other evidence clearly points to an active expulsion effort in Daviess County, with several counties providing forces to drive out the Mormons (Anderson, p. 43). Immediate, forceful action was needed to protect the Saints there.

Up to mid-October, the Saints had cooperated fully with civil and military authorities and had shown great respect for the law, though no such respect was afforded them. The "Mormon War" was about to begin when the Saints would try to establish a defensive perimeter for their people (Anderson, p. 42), using their own militia and risking conflict with the civil and military powers that had long abandoned them. With armed vigilantes from multiple counties were flocking to Davies County and boasting of their plans to drive the Mormons away, the situation was desperate: "Regional war had been declared, and not by the Mormons" (Anderson, p. 44).

Joseph Smith had limited options. Winter was approaching, and the Saints had lost much food from assaults of mobs. He could attempt to lead his Saints away from their homes, which would bring abundant risks. He could wait for further attacks, risking the forced expulsion of more Saints into the depths of winter. Or he could strike against the mob and seek to stop their assaults and perhaps regain food and supplies needed for his people. While Avard and his band might have been thirsting for vengeance, survival was the immediate need. Joseph chose to expel the mob from Daviess County, where the Mormons were now a majority and where the brunt of mob action was to take place. He seems to have understood that the action was approved by General Parks and not in violation of the law, and in any case it was motivated by the need to defend Mormon settlers. Thus, the Armies of Israel went into Daviess County, and several different groups went to different areas to drive out the mob while Joseph apparently stayed with the Saints in Adam-ondi-Ahman, the largest Mormon settlement in Daviess County.

In this hour, one could argue that there was no time for patience with dissenters and the timid: Mormons unwilling to oppose the mob were threatened with the loss of property to support those who would (Autobiography of Warren Foote, pp. 29-30). Property, not lives, was threatened. Here is Warren Foote's account of the events, which contains several statements that critics of the Church love to quote:

Foote provides evidence that some of the homes burned in Daviess County were burned by Missourians to further inflame anger against the Mormons, but Foote was not an eye-witness to such burnings and may have simply heard rumors started by guilty Mormons to shift blame. He also describes the wartime plundering or foraging for food that occurred, noting that the Saints needed to sustain themselves. Danite efforts may have resulted in excesses in this regard as well, with unnecessary items taken and, as Avard had taught his men, brought to the storehouse to be "consecrated" to the Saints.

[October] 14th. [1838] Sunday. Mr. Barnard, and I went to Far West to meeting. Joseph Smith preached. He said that those who would not turn out to help to suppress the mob, should have their property taken to support those who would. He was very plain and pointed in his remarks, and expressed a determination to put down the mob or die in the attempt. The report was, that they had gathered in Daviess County to the number of 400 or 500. Just as meeting closed, there was an alarm given, that a company of armed men were approaching the town from the south. The men immediately ran for their guns, so as to be in readiness should they prove to be enemies. But they proved to be a company of militia, who had been ordered to Daviess County, (they said,) to quell the mob. Joseph said that he wanted all the people (men) of Caldwell County to assemble at Far West tomorrow, in order to find out who will fight, and who will not. He said that the Mormons would have to protect themselves, as they could not put any dependence in the militia of the state; for they were mostly mobocrats. On our way home from meeting, we met several families from DeWitt, just getting in, amongst whom was S. Markham, and company, whom we left in Illinois. They were among those that were detained at DeWitt by the mob. During the skirmish there, Markham was shot at several times, but not hurt.

[October] 21st. [1838] The "Mormons" assembled at Far West last monday, according to appointment, and about 300 volunteered to go to Daviess County, with Joseph Smith, to assist their brethren, while the rest were to stay, and guard this town. On the 17th the snow fell about six inches, and the men at Far West were permitted to return home. I shall merely give a brief account of our troubles in this war, (for it cannot be called any thing else) as it is likely a full account will be published in the Church History. The company who went with J. Smith Jr., assisted by those living in Daviess County, dispersed the mob, and found their cannon buried in the road. In their flight they were unable to take it with them, and they buried it in the road, so that the wagons passing over it would obliterate all signs of any thing being buried there. The report is, that a sow had rooted it up, so that the Mormons discovered it, and took it away with them. Now in order to sustain themselves, the Mormons took their enemies corn, cattle, hogs, etc., according to the usages of war. This so enraged the mobbers, that they swore that they would kill every Mormon in the state. They set their own houses afire, and ran into the adjoining counties, and declared that the "Mormons" had driven them out, and burned their houses etc. This they done to excite the people against the Mormons, in order to get them to join them in their persecutions. There were several Missourians living in Daviess County, and they had become jealous of the "Mormons", who were filling up the county very rapidly. They were also very much prejudiced against their religion.

(Warren Foote autobiography, pp. 24-25)

 

It must be emphasized, however, that the efforts in Daviess County were not directed by the Danites. As discussed above, Avard's secretive Danites and the "public Danites" - meaning the entire Mormon armies, the Armies of Israel - were separate organizations, and the leaders of the Armies of Israel were not the leaders of the Danites, though some of them were Danites. Avard was not in power, but had been removed from office and asked to serve as a surgeon.

This results of the Daviess County episode of the "Mormon War" and the offenses of some troops are summarized by Anderson:

Mormon operations lasted about ten days, took no lives, failed to engage several hundred canny irregulars, burned perhaps three dozen buildings of potential use against Saints' settlements, and foraged for supplies for the beginning winter. Counterstrikes then destroyed additional Mormon dwellings and property. Mormon patrols perhaps exceeded instructions in forcing some Daviess citizens to leave if they did not declare neutrality or cooperation. But fear of Mormons and anticipation of anti-Mormon hostilities certainly emptied more homes than did confrontation. The legislative petition of the Presiding Bishop and senior apostles admitted using defensive force in mid-October:

That instances have been of late, where individuals have trespassed upon the rights of others, and thereby broken the law of the land, we will not pretend to deny. But yet we do believe that no crimes can be substantiated against any of the people who have a standing in our Church of an earlier date than the difficulties in Daviess County. And when it is considered that the rights of this people have been trampled upon from [time] to time with impunity, and abuses heaped upon them almost innumerable; it ought in some degree to palliate for any infraction of law which may have been made on the part of any of our people. [Partridge, et. al., petition, 218; see also HC 3:222. For a review of mid-October Mormon operations in Daviess County, see Anderson, "Atchison's Letters," 25-31.]

(Anderson, pp. 44-45)

During these actions, it is my understanding that Joseph Smith was not a commander of the militia and did not participate in or direct the military acts of the militia (History of the Church, 3:280). But there is little doubt that he ordered the Armies of Israel to drive out the mob, which action then took place under the direct military leadership of Colonel Lyman Wight and other militia leaders.

 

[ELF1024]

I don't know if the essays are backfiring, but it would appear that the church is in the position of being d@mned no matter what. Had it not published the essays, they'd be d@mned, and since they have, they are d@mned.

 

It would be nice if the Antis didn't hold all the cards.

[jkwilliams]

Whoa! Who attacked whom?

 

The battle of Crooked River was a direct result of anti-Mormon Samuel Bogart's men attacking the homes of Mormons, ordering them to leave the state, and taking three Mormon men prisoners.

 

Like a cropped photo, an out-of-context recitation of history can mislead.

The point is that Governor Boggs did not know about Bogard's activities. All he knew was that the Mormons had attacked a unit of the militia. Russell would have us believe that it happened in a vacuum, as if Boggs woke up one day and decided to kill all the Mormons. My family was among those driven out of Missouri, and there certainly is no excuse for what Boggs did, but it is best seen as the last in a series of escalations from both the Mormons and the Missourians.

[Scott Lloyd]

The point is that Governor Boggs did not know about Bogard's activities. All he knew was that the Mormons had attacked a unit of the militia. Russell would have us believe that it happened in a vacuum, as if Boggs woke up one day and decided to kill all the Mormons. My family was among those driven out of Missouri, and there certainly is no excuse for what Boggs did, but it is best seen as the last in a series of escalations from both the Mormons and the Missourians.

Boggs had a history of antipathy for Mormons. He lived in Independence while it was the headquarters of the Church, before they were eventually driven from there. I've seen his house in Independence.

 

Whether or not he knew specifically of Bogart's misdeeds, I don't think he gets a pass. I believe he knew more than you're giving him credit for and he was all too eager to believe the blame went entirely to the Mormons.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Boggs had a history of antipathy for Mormons. He lived in Independence while it was the headquarters of the Church, before they were eventually driven from there. I've seen his house in Independence.

 

Whether or not he knew specifically of Bogart's misdeeds, I don't think he gets a pass. I believe he knew more than you're giving him credit for and he was all too eager to believe the blame went entirely to the Mormons.

I'm not giving him a pass. I'm just saying it didn't happen out of nowhere. And in no way am I saying the Mormons brought it on themselves or deserved it.

[Okrahomer]

Thank you!

 

 

The part I took offense at was the following:

 

 

I took umbrage with "at least attempt to understand", which indicated that I was not trying or have not in the past tried to understand how LDS view doctrines and teachings. I can't help but find that offensive, as it assumes negatively about me. I have discussed Mormonism with Mormons of all types, many are my friends. I also believe I was quite clear about my understanding that "doctrine" and "teaching" are not the same, anywhere, not just in Mormonism. So this bit of snark seemed unfounded.

I do not believe that offending people is your goal, Okrahomer.

 

 

All of these seem appropriate for me, except the "simply". I enjoy a bit of mental and verbal fencing. I am all about learning. And I enjoy my fellow human beings and interacting with them.

 

 

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Personally, I believe sincere people sincerely communicating, sincerely debating, sincerely exploring, and sincerely learning make for excellent correspondents, whatever their specific positions on issues, as long as they are charitable to one another.

 

 

Again, I do not think that who I am, what I believe, or what my purposes for being here should have too much to bear on whether we can communicate well and beneficially, unless one of us has the purpose of not speaking to certain people no matter their civility, insight, humor, or sincerity simply because we don't like who they are, what they believe, or what their purpose is for being here. Although, if your time here is limited, then priorities are understandable.  

Time permitting, I hope to learn more about you from your comments, ideas, and manner.  I prefer to represent myself by my comments, ideas, and manner, more than by any summary, baggage-laden labels, or team-patriotism. Again, time permitting, hopefully we will become good correspondents.

 

Thank you, Okrahomer.

Sincerely,

Joshua Valentine

 

P.S. - My wife and I love your handle and associated quotes.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Nevo]

They set their own houses afire, and ran into the adjoining counties, and declared that the "Mormons" had driven them out, and burned their houses etc.

 

Why was this bolded?