Scott Lloyd Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Why was this bolded?Beats me. That's the way it is on the website. Perhaps it was underscored in the original source. Or perhaps Lindsay bolded it to draw attention to it.
Calm Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 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.That comes across as a very inaccurate interpretation of what Russell said.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 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. That comes across as a very inaccurate interpretation of what Russell said. Be it remembered that in 1833, Boggs, as lieutenant governor, had instigated the driving of the Mormons out of Jackson County, which forced them to settle elsewhere in Missouri. Obviously, this was a nasty habit he had.
Russell C McGregor Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) 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. Call for references, please. Where and when did Russell say or imply any such thing? Edited August 13, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Paradox_58 Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I read the essays for the first time in curiosity over this thread. I was mildly disappointed ther was nothing in them I hadn't read from B.H.Roberts History of the Church as a kid (no TV on Sunday in my family --had to find something to read!). As an adult I particularly enjoyed Orson Scott Card's treatment of Nauvoo plural marriage in his fictional wirk "Saints." It was able to give me a little insight into the possible motives and emotional struggles of participants in early plural marriage. I suppose since to me the information in these essays is old hat, I can't understand why they would "backfire".
Joshua Valentine Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 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. 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: 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. 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. Thanks for the last bit there, I appreciate proper names. Scott Lloyd, I perhaps will have to be more specific in the future. When I spoke of LDS that don't mention these things when they speak of Haun's Mill, I was speaking of the general membership and the Brethren in public speeches. I appreciate the specific reference to the CES publication. Thank you. I find it even worse, then, that so many renditions of Haun's Mill by members and leaders go without this information that the CES has provided. Certainly, whenever an LDS person complains with outrage and pride that their religion is the only one in America to have an "extermination order" called out against it, without mentioning these very pertinent details (Risdon's use, and the contemporary meaning of the word), then something rather unfortunate is occurring. That was my intended point.
Joshua Valentine Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 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.Quite right. I would never do such a thing, nor did I. What I said there is a literary device to emphasize that your logic against my point, instead, supports it. Obviously, I am not going to actually tell you what you agree with nor do your thinking for you. That would be rude; not my goal at all. 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?First, I never said that the order was in response to the speech. Second, even if Boggs had never heard or read the speech, it still would not completely abate my point that the one ought to be mentioned with the other to give proper perspective of events. Third, do you really think that both officious statements just happen to use the same term by coincidence?(Also, I see you have not dealt with my previous response to you at all.)Fourth, Scott Lloyd seems to have provided something (admittedly indirect, but still the same direction) of the non-" anti" mill "competent" source you were looking for: Sidney Rigdon’s Independence Day speech in 1838 added more fuel to the Mormon-Gentile conflict. As the Saints in Far West celebrated the nation’s birthday and laid the cornerstones of the temple, Sidney Rigdon’s oratory whipped them into high emotion. He thundered out the Saints’ own declaration of independence from any further mob violence or illegal activity. He warned potential mobs that the Church would no longer meekly bear persecution but would defend itself to the death. “It shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us.”22Copies of this inflammatory speech were imprudently published and circulated. Some copies reached the hands of Missouri officials and eventually provided the basis for charges of treason and violence against the Saints. - Church History in the Fullness of Times, p. 192 If you can, can you please explain why you think a somewhat intemperate speech provides valid justification for a pogrom?Who is telling whom what the other thinks now? Look back at that quote above and maybe you should ask your church's CES. Or maybe Brigham Young? (IIRC, he had some to say about the significance of this speech to the Missouri fallout) BUT This was never my point, nor the topic of our discussion. What are you doing?
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 That comes across as a very inaccurate interpretation of what Russell said. You're right. It's never a good idea to return hyperbole for hyperbole.
ALarson Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Read this from Jeff Lindsay: So, you believe the Missourians set fire to their own homes, gutted and burned their own businesses? That's not what witness accounts state. I believe there were atrocities that occurred on both sides. It is heartbreaking what occurred in Missouri and many suffered who were Mormon and non-Mormons too. I have ancestors who were killed or who died from their injuries and have read the journals of how they were driven out. Here is another account regarding what took place in Gallatin that I believe to be more accurate: Colonel Hinkle and Mormons of the Caldwell County militia were joined by church leaders including Joseph Smith and also by elements of the Danite organization.[53] On October 18, these Mormons began to act as vigilantes and marched under arms in three groups to the Missourian settlements of Gallatin, Millport and Grindstone Fork. The Missourians and their families, outnumbered by the Mormons, made their way to neighboring counties. Having taken control of the Missourian settlements, the Mormons plundered the property and burned the stores and houses. The county seat, Gallatin, is reported to have been "completely gutted" – only one shoe store remained unscathed.[53][55] Millport, Grindstone Fork and the smaller Missourian settlement of Splawn's Ridge were also plundered and had some houses burned.[56] During the days that followed, Latter Day Saint vigilantes under the direction and encouragement of Lyman Wight drove Missourians who lived in outlying farms from their homes, which were similarly plundered and burned.[57] According to one witness, "We could stand in our door and see houses burning every night for over two weeks... the Mormons completely gutted Daviess County. There was scarcely a Missourian's home left standing in the county. Nearly every one was burned."[58] The Missourians evicted from their homes were no better prepared than the Mormon refugees had been. After the stress of being expelled from Millport into the snow, Milford Donaho's wife gave birth prematurely, and the child was severely injured during the birth.[56] Even Missourians who had been friendly to the Mormons were not spared. Jacob Stollings, a Gallatin merchant, was reported to have been generous in selling to Mormons on credit, but his store was plundered and burned with the rest. Judge Josiah Morin and Samuel McBrier, both considered friendly to the Mormons, both fled Daviess County after being threatened. McBrier's house was among those burned.[56] When a Mormon band plundered and burned the Taylor home, one young Mormon, Benjamin F Johnson, argued his fellow vigilantes into leaving a horse for a pregnant Mrs Taylor and her children to ride to safety. Ironically, as a result of his kindness, he was the only Mormon who was positively identified to have participated in the home burnings. After several non-Mormons made statements to the authorities that Johnson had acted as a moderating influence on the Danites, he was allowed to escape rather than stand trial.[59] Many Latter Day Saints were greatly troubled by the occurrences. Mormon leader John Corrill wrote, "the love of pillage grew upon them very fast, for they plundered every kind of property they could get a hold of."[60] Some Latter Day Saints claimed that some of the Missourians burned their own homes in order to blame the Mormons.[61] None of these claims, however, purport to be eye-witness accounts. Overwhelmingly, these claims are contradicted by the majority of both Missourian and Latter Day Saint testimony (which implicate the Mormons in the burnings) and also by the evidence of the looted property found in the possession of Latter Day Saints.[56] Even Mormon leader Parley P Pratt conceded that some burnings had been done by Mormons.[62] Based on the available evidence, LeSueur estimates that Mormons were responsible for the burning of fifty homes or shops and the displacement of one hundred non-Mormon families.[56] 55 Office of the Secretary of State of Missouri 1841, pp. 43–46,53–54 56 LeSueur 1990, pp. 117–124 57 Thorp 1924, p. 91 58 McGee 1909, p. 13 59 eSueur 1990, pp. 193–194 60 Corrill 1839, p. 38 61 Foote, p. 25 62 Bushman 2007, pp. 363–365,370–372 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War#cite_note-Baugh2000p85-87-53 Edited August 13, 2015 by ALarson 2
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 So, you believe the Missourians set fire to their own homes, gutted and burned their own businesses? That's not what witness accounts state. I believe there were atrocities that occurred on both sides. It is heartbreaking what occurred in Missouri and many suffered who were Mormon and non-Mormons too. I have ancestors who were killed or who died from their injuries and have read the journals of how they were driven out. Yes, the account by Foote is kind of bizarre on the face of it. You can maybe imagine one person being so blinded with anti-Mormon rage that they would burn their own house down to incite violence against the Mormons, but even then, it's just not very believable. It makes more sense when you check his source, Warren Foote's autobiography: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/WFoote.html During the incidents described, Foote was near Far West in Caldwell County, digging a well with his father. The Mormon plunder of "corn, cattle, hogs, etc., according to the usages of war" and the house burnings took place in Daviess County, so it's obvious that Foote was describing rumors and accounts secondhand.
ALarson Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Yes, the account by Foote is kind of bizarre on the face of it. You can maybe imagine one person being so blinded with anti-Mormon rage that they would burn their own house down to incite violence against the Mormons, but even then, it's just not very believable. It makes more sense when you check his source, Warren Foote's autobiography:http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/WFoote.htmlDuring the incidents described, Foote was near Far West in Caldwell County, digging a well with his father. The Mormon plunder of "corn, cattle, hogs, etc., according to the usages of war" and the house burnings took place in Daviess County, so it's obvious that Foote was describing rumors and accounts secondhand.I agree. It's unbelievable that so many would burn their homes down, and loot & gut their own businesses. Even Parley P. Pratt admitted that the Mormon burned Missourian's homes.
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I agree. It's unbelievable that so many would burn their homes down, and loot & gut their own businesses. Even Parley P. Pratt admitted that the Mormon burned Missourian's homes. The story about the house burnings seems like the kind of thing you might make up if you had burned down some houses but didn't want to take the blame. 2
JulieM Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 The story about the house burnings seems like the kind of thing you might make up if you had burned down some houses but didn't want to take the blame.Yes. Maybe one person might burn their own house down and try to blame others, but 50? That's the number I read for the homes and businesses that were destroyed in Gallatin.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Quite right. I would never do such a thing, nor did I. What I said there is a literary device to emphasize that your logic against my point, instead, supports it. Obviously, I am not going to actually tell you what you agree with nor do your thinking for you. That would be rude; not my goal at all. First, I never said that the order was in response to the speech. Second, even if Boggs had never heard or read the speech, it still would not completely abate my point that the one ought to be mentioned with the other to give proper perspective of events. Third, do you really think that both officious statements just happen to use the same term by coincidence?(Also, I see you have not dealt with my previous response to you at all.)Fourth, Scott Lloyd seems to have provided something (admittedly indirect, but still the same direction) of the non-" anti" mill "competent" source you were looking for: Who is telling whom what the other thinks now? Look back at that quote above and maybe you should ask your church's CES. Or maybe Brigham Young? (IIRC, he had some to say about the significance of this speech to the Missouri fallout) BUT This was never my point, nor the topic of our discussion. What are you doing?The quote from the CES manual does not state that the Rigdon speech incited Boggs's extermination order, only that "some copies reached the hands of Missouri officials and eventually provided the basis for charges of treason and violence against the Saints." "Eventually" does not say it fell into Boggs's hands prior to his issuing the infamous order. And formal "charges of treason and violence against the Saints" would come later, after Joseph Smith and other Church leaders were betrayed into the hands of the Missouri mobbers-in-uniform and they were tried at Richmond, Missouri, before being imprisoned at the jail in Liberty for five months during the winter of 1838-39. I remind you again that Boggs already hated the Mormons, enough that when he was lieutenant governor, he instigated the driving of them out of Independence and Jackson County. To say that he was peaceable and conciliatory until he was set off by the Rigdon speech strikes me as a stretch indeed. Edited August 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) The story about the house burnings seems like the kind of thing you might make up if you had burned down some houses but didn't want to take the blame.The overall history of the oppression against the Latter-day Saints by Missouri mobs strikes me as incredible. I can scarcely imagine decent, civilized men and women behaving that way. As familiar as I am with it, I am still appalled whenever I read of it. So, once it is established that they did, it is not much of a stretch for me to conceive that a number of them would be so consumed by hatred that they would damage their own property just to frame the Mormons. This was a contentious and hateful lot. Hatred can do strange things to a person. Edited August 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the last bit there, I appreciate proper names. Scott Lloyd, I perhaps will have to be more specific in the future. When I spoke of LDS that don't mention these things when they speak of Haun's Mill, I was speaking of the general membership and the Brethren in public speeches. I appreciate the specific reference to the CES publication. Thank you. I find it even worse, then, that so many renditions of Haun's Mill by members and leaders go without this information that the CES has provided. Certainly, whenever an LDS person complains with outrage and pride that their religion is the only one in America to have an "extermination order" called out against it, without mentioning these very pertinent details (Risdon's use, and the contemporary meaning of the word), then something rather unfortunate is occurring. That was my intended point. I don't recall reading or hearing a Church member making that claim. Not saying it never happens, but if it were so constant and pervasive as you let on, I should think I would be more aware of it. I have a better-than-average acquaintance with the history of the Church of Jesus Christ as rendered by our own scholars, writers and leaders. I remind you that the CES manual was published by the Church itself. Incidentally, this is no big deal, but if you appreciate the information I've provided, why are you still writing it as "Haun's Mill"? Edited August 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) The whole history of the oppression against the Latter-day Saints by Missouri mobs strikes me as incredible. I can scarcely imagine decent, civilized men and women behaving that way. So, once it is established that they did, it is not much of a stretch for me to conceive that a number of them would be so consumed by hatred that they would damage their own property just to frame the Mormons. This was a contentious and hateful lot. Hatred can do strange things to a person. It doesn't sound believable to me (about as believable as saying the Fancher party killed themselves to make the Mormons look bad), and to boot based on hearsay. Edited August 13, 2015 by Gray 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) It doesn't sound believable to me (about as believable as saying the Fancher party killed themselves to make the Mormons look bad), and to boot based on hearsay. So in effect, you're saying you wouldn't put it past the Church members in Missouri to have lied about it. Well I wouldn't put it past murderous and violent Missouri mobbers of the 1830s to do whatever they thought necessary to frame the Latter-day Saints. I guess we're at an impasse. Edited August 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 So in effect, you're saying you wouldn't put it past the Church members in Missouri to have lied about it. I honestly believe that the majority of the church members who were in Missouri did not know what the truth was regarding what was really taking place. These are the members who suffered the most (as was the case with my ancestors). But to believe that there weren't atrocities taking place from both sides in very naive. Much provoking was going on from both the Mormon leaders (and their direct followers) and the Missourians. No one deserved to suffer like many did from either side and it's a very sad and tragic bit of history. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Here is another account regarding what took place in Gallatin that I believe to be more accurate:If you already had your own source on the so-called "burning of Gallatin," why did you ask me how it fit in?
ALarson Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 It doesn't sound believable to me (about as believable as saying the Fancher party killed themselves to make the Mormons look bad), and to boot based on hearsay. There are some very accurate, historical records (in the state archives of Missouri) of what the true history is regarding what occurred. It's very interesting reading. Neither side was guiltless or blameless and it escalated into something very ugly and heartbreaking. But as I just posted above, it's naive to think this was just one sided. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I honestly believe that the majority of the church members who were in Missouri did not know what the truth was regarding what was really taking place. These are the members who suffered the most (as was the case with my ancestors). But to believe that there weren't atrocities taking place from both sides in very naive. Much provoking was going on from both the Mormon leaders (and their direct followers) and the Missourians. No one deserved to suffer like many did from either side and it's a very sad and tragic bit of history.So if the Mormons just hadn't been so annoying, maybe they wouldn't have brought it upon themselves. Sounds like a rationalization from a typical domestic abuser.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) There are some very accurate, historical records (in the state archives of Missouri) of what the true history is regarding what occurred. It's very interesting reading. Neither side was guiltless or blameless and it escalated into something very ugly and heartbreaking. But as I just posted above, it's naive to think this was just one sided.Again, if you're already so well-versed in it, why did you ask me how "the burning of Gallatin" fit in? Edited August 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 It doesn't sound believable to me (about as believable as saying the Fancher party killed themselves to make the Mormons look bad), and to boot based on hearsay. Absurd comparison.
Gray Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) So in effect, you're saying you wouldn't put it past the Church members in Missouri to have lied about it. Well I wouldn't put it past murderous and violent Missouri mobbers of the 1830s to do whatever they thought necessary to frame the Latter-day Saints. I guess we're at an impasse. No, I'm saying the historical evidence for the Mormons looting Gallatin is strong, while evidence to the contrary seems to be based on heresay. The idea that an entire town would loot themselves (including people who had been friendly to Mormons) just to make Mormons look bad seems fantastical. Then again, maybe Nichole Brown Simpson killed herself to make O.J. look bad. The fact is that while members of the church were persecuted early on in Missouri, they added fuel to the fire by going out and doing some persecuting of their own. Edited August 13, 2015 by Gray 2
Recommended Posts