Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Thinking]

Give me a break.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Quite right, and thus why I never said any such silly thing.

I'm glad.

It's just that after you had made a show of appropriating my source as ammunition against my friend Russell, I felt obliged to point out that my source does not do for you what you think it does.

[JulieM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nkcVz1mad0

Edited August 14, 2015 by JulieM

[Joshua Valentine]

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 was able to avoid some of Russell C McGregor's traps, but I seem to have slipped into this one for a bit.

 

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.

 

Ah, perhaps I did not read carefully enough, or else I would have explicitly marked McGregor's trap and avoided it, reiterating my original point he was still avoiding. I apologize.

 

No, I did not mean to imply that this CES statement said that the Order was a direct response to Rigdon's speech. Rather, I do believe it likely that Boggs heard of Rigdon's speech and it may have influenced his choice of words. My point with Russell C McGregor was always that Rigdon's use of the word "exterminate" (especially with his clarification of what he meant, "blood" and all) puts Boggs' use of it in a different light. And that if you understand the contemporary definition of "exterminate" (especially with his clarification immediately following the word, "driven" and all. Let alone what actually happened - no mass killings by the order) then the Order takes on quite a different color and comes across quite differently than it does as related by LDS that I have spoken with about it. 

 

 

I'm glad.

It's just that after you had made a show of appropriating my source as ammunition against my friend Russell, I felt obliged to point out that my source does not do for you what you think it does.

 

The source is not "ammunition". And it does, in my opinion, show that the CES also recognizes that Rigdon's speech added to tensions and attitudes that were certainly part of the violence. Insofar as the speech added to the escalation of events, it is part of what led to the Order. Insofar as the Order is talked about by LDS to make it sound like it was license to holocaust, necessarily excluding these details of Rigdon's speech and the contemporary definition in order to make it sound like such a license (let alone any detail of LDS retaliation and violence), it is not right, to say the least.

[Joshua Valentine]

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"?

 

I think my device is fighting me. Let's see... Hawn's Mill. Nope, guess it's just an old habit. It will take some time getting used to, I guess. No offense or insincerity intended. Thanks for the heads-up. 

[Nevo]

Here's an appendix from Alex Baugh's dissertation that itemizes "hostilities" against Daviess and Livingston County citizens by the Mormons:
 

APPENDIX F: HOSTILITIES DOCUMENTED TO HAVE TRANSPIRED AGAINST DAVIESS AND LIVINGSTON COUNTY CITIZENS BY THE MORMONS, OCTOBER 1838

 

Jesse Adamson

Millport store plundered and burned. (JHMH, n.p.)

 

Adam Black

Residence in Grand River township plundered and burned. (DOC, 56.)

 

William Bone

Taken prisoner, threatened. (DOC, 132-33.)

 

Elisha Camron

Taken prisoner, oxen team confiscated. (DOC, 136.)

 

Mr. Compton

Millport store (co-owned with Jesse Morin) plundered and burned. (JHMH, n.p.)

 

Philip Covington

Threatened. (DOC, 3.) Covington lived just south of Gallatin. (See JHMH, n.p.)

 

Milford Donaho and wife

Millport blacksmith shop burned. (HDC, 205; HNM, 446; JHMH, n.p.; MJFJ, 21-22.) Donaho's wife was reported to have been driven from her home and at the time she was expecting and delivered prematurely resulting in permanent damage to the infant. (HDC, 205.) Another source indicates both she and the infant died shortly after being expelled due to exposure. (MM, 37.) She is possibly the woman referred to in the affidavit of Samuel Venable. (See DOC, 44.)

 

Jonathan J. Dryden

Taken prisoner, several personal items stolen. (DOC, 45, 56.)

 

William (?) Dryden

Two saddles and one pair of saddle bags stolen. His son and his nephew were also taken prisoner. (DOC, 56.)

 

Ira Glaze

Taken prisoner, threatened. (DOC, 133.)

 

Marshall L. Howell

Gallatin residence burned. (JHMR, n.p.)

 

Thomas Jacobs

Millport store (co-owned with Lomax) plundered and burned. (HDC, 442; HNM, 446; JHMH, n.p.; MJFJ, 22.)

 

Andrew J. Job

Taken prisoner, threatened. (DOC, 132-33.)

 

Robert Job

Residence plundered. (DOC, 133.)

 

Jesse Kelly

Taken prisoner, four guns and personal property stolen. (BCCCR, #5; DOC, 137.)

 

Henry Lee

Threatened. (DOC, 55.)

 

Patrick Lynch

Gallatin resident, cloth goods and personal items stolen. Since Lynch was the clerk of Stollings' store, the items may have been part of the store inventory. (BCCCK #6; DOC, 145; SGRC, 12.)

 

Mr. Lomax

Millport store (co-owned with Jacobs) plundered and burned. (HNM, 446; JHMH, n.p.; MJFJ, 22.)

 

Solomon McBier

Residence plundered and burned. (MU, 56, 72, 88-89.)

 

Joseph H. McGee

Gallatin tailor shop plundered and burned. The building used by McGee for his shop was owned by Worthington. (DOC, 141; HDC. 551; JHMR. n.p.; SGRC, 12-13.)

 

Wilson McKinney

Millport store (co-owned with Worthington of Gallatin) plundered and burned, furniture from his residence taken, some of which was "rifled." (DOC, 52; HDC, 457; JHMH, n.p.)

 

William L. McHaney

Property taken. (Cited as McLaney in DOC, 125.)

 

Man (unnamed)

Grindstone Fork resident, several personal articles taken. (RPM, 21.)

 

Thomas J. Martin

Livingston Counry resident, taken prisoner. (DOC, 46, 56.)

 

David Miller

Two saddles and other goods stolen. (BCCCR, #5.)

 

William Morgan

A slave owned by Morgan was reported to have been abducted by the Mormons. The report is questionable. (DOC, 52-53.)

 

Mrs. Morgan

Furniture stolen. The woman, a widow, later took several household items from Lyman Wight's home, claiming they were hers. (DOC, 146-47.)

 

Jesse Morin

Millport store (co-owned with Compton) plundered and burned. (JHMH. n.p.) Morin was a brother of Josiah Morin who was a friend of the Mormons. Other sources indicates Josiah was the co-owner. (HNM, 446; MJFJ, 21-22.)

 

James Netherton

Residence burned. (HDC, 862.)

 

Thomas Odie

Threatened. (DOC, 130.)

 

William Osborn

Residence plundered, animals taken. (DOC, 56.)

 

Robert Peniston, Jr.

Millport residence burned. (BCCCR, #3.)

 

Robert Peniston, Sr.

Millport residence burned and mill dismantled. (BCCCR, #3; DOC, 52; HDC, 441.)

 

William Peniston

Two Millport residences burned. (BCCCR, #3; DOC, 43-44.)

 

Addison Price

Taken prisoner, several personal items taken. (BCCCR, #5; DOC, 137-38.)

 

Mr. and Mrs. Pugh

Family forced to leave their home. Pugh's wife and a child were reported to have died as a result of having to flee at the time she was ill. (MM, 37.)

 

John Raglin

Residence plundered and burned, property stolen. (DOC, 130.)

 

Mrs. Smith

Driven from residence, gave birth to baby shortly after being driven. (DOC, 44.)

 

Jacob Stollings

Gallatin store and house plundered and burned. (BCCCR, #3, #5, #7; DOC, 43, 47, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 59, 99; HDC, 457; JHMR, n.p.; MOR, 185-86; SGRC, 12.)

 

James Stone

Residence plundered. (DOC, 45.) Stone lived south of Gallatin in Union or Monroe townships. (JHMH, n.p.)

 

James Taylor

Grindstore Fork residence plundered and burned. (MLR, 38-39, 42-45.)

 

Marcus White

Livingston County resident, house plundered, animals taken. (DOC, 44-45, 46, 56.)

 

John A. Williams

Millport grocery store plundered and burned. (HNM, 446; HDC, 441, 457; JHMH. n.p.; MJFJ, 21-22.)

 

George W. Worthington

Residence near Gallatin plundered and burned. Millport store (co-owned with McKinney) plundered and burned. Worthington also owned the cabin used by McGee for his tailor shop. (BCCCR, #9; DOC. 49.56; HDC, 457; HNM, 446; SGRC, 12.)

 

Mr. Yale

Gallatin residence plundered and burned (DOC, 142; JHMR, n.p.) Note: Yale was the father of Porter Yale below.

 

Porter Yale

Gallatin resident taken prisoner. (DOC, 142-43.)

— Alexander L. Baugh, "A Call to Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri" (Ph.D diss., Brigham Young University, 1996), 399–403.

 

Of course, this sort of thing happened on both sides, but Church members generally only hear about Missourians burning and plundering. As Professor Baugh acknowledges, Mormons also "did a considerable amount of house-torching and plundering." Although "the extent of the hostilities perpetrated by both sides is impossible to determine," based on the above list, Baugh's "conservative" estimate is that around twenty-five homes and stores were burned by Mormons. Historian Stephen LeSueur believes the number was closer to fifty (see Baugh, "Call to Arms," 214–215). Thus, a recent Joseph Smith Papers volume notes: "Current scholarship estimates that between twenty-five and fifty Daviess County buildings were burned by the Latter-day Saints" (Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, and David L. Whittaker, eds., Histories, Volume 2: Assigned Histories, 1831–1847, vol. 2 of the Histories series of The Joseph Smith Papers [salt Lake City: Church Historian's Press, 2012], 179n177).

Edited August 14, 2015 by Nevo

[jkwilliams]

Here's an appendix from Alex Baugh's dissertation that itemizes "hostilities" against Daviess and Livingston County citizens by the Mormons:

 

 

Of course, this sort of thing happened on both sides, but Church members generally only hear about Missourians burning and plundering. As Professor Baugh acknowledges, Mormons also "did a considerable amount of house-torching and plundering." Although "the extent of the hostilities perpetrated by both sides is impossible to determine," based on the above list, Baugh's "conservative" estimate is that around twenty-five homes and stores were burned by Mormons. Historian Stephen LeSueur believes the number was closer to fifty (see Baugh, "Call to Arms," 214–215). Thus, a recent Joseph Smith Papers volume notes: "Current scholarship estimates that between twenty-five and fifty Daviess County buildings were burned by the Latter-day Saints" (Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, and David L. Whittaker, eds., Histories, Volume 2: Assigned Histories, 1831–1847, vol. 2 of the Histories series of The Joseph Smith Papers [salt Lake City: Church Historian's Press, 2012], 179n177).

 

Thank you for that. It was certainly an ugly period in American history. I think of my ancestors walking to Illinois in cold weather having left almost everything they had behind, and I struggle to imagine that it happened in the United States. But it did.

[ALarson]

Here's an appendix from Alex Baugh's dissertation that itemizes "hostilities" against Daviess and Livingston County citizens by the Mormons:

 

 

Of course, this sort of thing happened on both sides, but Church members generally only hear about Missourians burning and plundering. As Professor Baugh acknowledges, Mormons also "did a considerable amount of house-torching and plundering." Although "the extent of the hostilities perpetrated by both sides is impossible to determine," based on the above list, Baugh's "conservative" estimate is that around twenty-five homes and stores were burned by Mormons. Historian Stephen LeSueur believes the number was closer to fifty (see Baugh, "Call to Arms," 214–215). Thus, a recent Joseph Smith Papers volume notes: "Current scholarship estimates that between twenty-five and fifty Daviess County buildings were burned by the Latter-day Saints" (Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, and David L. Whittaker, eds., Histories, Volume 2: Assigned Histories, 1831–1847, vol. 2 of the Histories series of The Joseph Smith Papers [salt Lake City: Church Historian's Press, 2012], 179n177).

Thanks for posting this, Nevo.  This is what my research has shown too.  I'll add this to my sources!

[JulieM]

Here's an appendix from Alex Baugh's dissertation that itemizes "hostilities" against Daviess and Livingston County citizens by the Mormons:

Of course, this sort of thing happened on both sides, but Church members generally only hear about Missourians burning and plundering. As Professor Baugh acknowledges, Mormons also "did a considerable amount of house-torching and plundering." Although "the extent of the hostilities perpetrated by both sides is impossible to determine," based on the above list, Baugh's "conservative" estimate is that around twenty-five homes and stores were burned by Mormons. Historian Stephen LeSueur believes the number was closer to fifty (see Baugh, "Call to Arms," 214–215). Thus, a recent Joseph Smith Papers volume notes: "Current scholarship estimates that between twenty-five and fifty Daviess County buildings were burned by the Latter-day Saints" (Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, and David L. Whittaker, eds., Histories, Volume 2: Assigned Histories, 1831–1847, vol. 2 of the Histories series of The Joseph Smith Papers [salt Lake City: Church Historian's Press, 2012], 179n177).

Well, these sources added to what ALarson posted (references and statements) certainly show that the Missourians did not burn their own homes and businesses. That always sounded crazy to me. Thank you, Nevo (I love it when you post). I'm still reading through the other numerous statements in the Missouri archives and they are very informative too. Edited August 14, 2015 by JulieM

[carbon dioxide]

Well, these sources added to what ALarson posted (references and statements) certainly show that the Missourians did not burn their own homes and businesses. That always sounded crazy to me. Thank you, Nevo (I love it when you post). I'm still reading through the other numerous statements in the Missouri archives and they are very informative too.

I think that would be expected.  I can say that if someone was to burn my house down that I probably would return the favor.  Especially if "law enforcement"  did not seem to care.   I think there are others like me out there.  I am glad I did not have to live during those days.  The worst of me probably would have come out.

[ALarson]

I think that would be expected.  I can say that if someone was to burn my house down that I probably would return the favor.  Especially if "law enforcement"  did not seem to care.   I think there are others like me out there.  I am glad I did not have to live during those days.  The worst of me probably would have come out.

I agree.  I think the worst came out for many on both sides.  Nothing is so black and white as this has been portrayed by some.  There are always two sides to any event and it's important to study the subject and find the most reliable sources.  Again, this is an interesting (and very tragic) part of Mormon history to study.

[Russell C McGregor]

I was able to avoid some of Russell C McGregor's traps, but I seem to have slipped into this one for a bit.

 

 

Ah, perhaps I did not read carefully enough, or else I would have explicitly marked McGregor's trap and avoided it, reiterating my original point he was still avoiding. I apologize.

 

No, I did not mean to imply that this CES statement said that the Order was a direct response to Rigdon's speech. Rather, I do believe it likely that Boggs heard of Rigdon's speech and it may have influenced his choice of words. My point with Russell C McGregor was always that Rigdon's use of the word "exterminate" (especially with his clarification of what he meant, "blood" and all) puts Boggs' use of it in a different light. And that if you understand the contemporary definition of "exterminate" (especially with his clarification immediately following the word, "driven" and all. Let alone what actually happened - no mass killings by the order) then the Order takes on quite a different color and comes across quite differently than it does as related by LDS that I have spoken with about it. 

 

 

 

The source is not "ammunition". And it does, in my opinion, show that the CES also recognizes that Rigdon's speech added to tensions and attitudes that were certainly part of the violence. Insofar as the speech added to the escalation of events, it is part of what led to the Order. Insofar as the Order is talked about by LDS to make it sound like it was license to holocaust, necessarily excluding these details of Rigdon's speech and the contemporary definition in order to make it sound like such a license (let alone any detail of LDS retaliation and violence), it is not right, to say the least.

 

"Trap?"

 

If you think there was any bad faith or manipulation in my post, then you are clearly projecting.

[Russell C McGregor]

If "anti-Mormon's" version of events without context is "polemics", then the LDS Church and membership's version of events without context is, indeed, propaganda.

I look forward to the day -- yet future -- when you actually deign to discuss this matter, or any other, in good faith.

We don't need to resort to propaganda. The truth is on our side.

 

I'm afraid your position - that Executive Order 44 was an "extermination order" as we would understand it today, as an order to kill Mormons - "is clearly false" because of just one truly irrefutable fact: the Mormons were not killed, en masse, exterminated to any degree by the men who were given this order.  Taking a note from your writing: You don't "exterminate" a people by not killing them. Anyone from today would be smart enough to know that.

Yes, the extermination order wasn't carried out because the Saints were disarmed and the leaders of the Church were captured, illegally arrested, and illegally incarcerated. The anti-Mormons considered that their pogrom was thus successful.

Much to your delight, no doubt.

 

You can make claims to understand the only reason to close off the north and you can make claims about what the commanding officer thought, but the actually irrefutable fact is that the Mormons were outnumbered, outmaneuvered, and outgunned, and, yet, they were most definitely NOT exterminated, according to our definition. They were, on the other hand, driven out from the state of Missouri, just as the contemporary definition of the word would indicate.

It is an assertion clearly contrary to fact that "driven out" was "THE contemporary definition of the word." It was merely a comment on the etymology of the word.

Here is the actual and complete 1828 Webster's entry on the word:

 

Exterminate

EXTERM'INATE, verb transitive [Latin extermino; ex and terminus, limit.]

Literally, to drive from within the limits or borders. Hence,

1. To destroy utterly; to drive away; to extirpate; as, to exterminate a colony, a tribe or a nation; to exterminate inhabitants or a race of men.

2. To eradicate; to root out; to extirpate; as, to exterminateerror, heresy, infidelity or atheism; to exterminate vice.

3. To root out, as plants; to extirpate; as, to exterminate weeds.

4. In algebra, to take away; as, to exterminate surds or unknown quantities.

Note that it gives "extirpate" as a synonym in three of those definitions. Here, then, is the contemporary entry for that word:

 

Extirpate

EX'TIRPATE, verb transitive [Latin extirpo; ex and stirps, root.]

1. To pull or pluck up by the roots; to root out; to eradicate; to destroy totally; as, to extirpate weeds or noxious plants from a field.

2. To eradicate; to root out; to destroy wholly; as, to extirpate error or heresy; to extirpate a sect.

3. In surgery, to cut out; to cut off; to eat out; to remove; as, to extirpate a wen.

And just so we know how the word was regularly used, here is another of your friendly anti-Mormons, Thomas C. Sharp, who was also a contemporary of Boggs. Just under six (6) years after the Extermination Order, this is what he wrote:

"Resolved, that the time, in our opinion, has arrived, when the adherents of Smith, as a Body, should be driven from the surrounding settlements, into Nauvoo. That the Prophet and his miscreant adherents, should then be demanded at their hands, and if not surrendered, a war of extermination should be waged to the entire destruction, if necessary for our protection, of his adherents."

What was this proposed "war of extermination" supposed to lead to, Joshua?

Is, or was, "destruction" a synonym for "expulsion?"

Or perhaps not?

The purpose of the Extermination order was not merely the expulsion of the Saints from Missouri.  That much is obvious.  If it had been, the militia would have been ordered to chase the Mormons out instead of cutting off their retreat.  Its purpose was the entire destruction of the Latter-day Saints as a people.

 

Therefore, given the result, it was a rather ignominious failure.

[Bernard Gui]

Well, these sources added to what ALarson posted (references and statements) certainly show that the Missourians did not burn their own homes and businesses. That always sounded crazy to me. Thank you, Nevo (I love it when you post). I'm still reading through the other numerous statements in the Missouri archives and they are very informative too.

It may sound crazy, but it is a fairly common practice in propaganda leading up to warfare. Agents provocateurs are used by military, insurgents, governments, and law enforcement all the time.

For example, World War ll was precipitated by the Nazi's false flag "Operation Himmler" in which German soldiers in Polish uniforms attacked German facilities and killed other Germans in order to inflame feelings against the Poles and justify their invasion and destruction of Poland. Crazy indeed. (No fair claiming Godwin's law).

Edited August 18, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[jkwilliams]

It may sound crazy, but it is a fairly common practice in propaganda leading up to warfare.

For example, World War ll was precipitated by the Nazi's false flag "Operation Himmler" in which German soldiers in

Polish uniforms attacked German facilities and killed other Germans in order to inflame feelings against the Poles and

justify their invasion and destruction of Poland. Crazy indeed. (No fair claiming Godwin's law).

 

Actually, the only people the Germans killed were prisoners, which they had dressed in Polish uniforms.

[Bernard Gui]

Actually, the only people the Germans killed were prisoners, which they had dressed in Polish uniforms.

For the purposes of propaganda, it did not matter, because it was the perception that counted. German properties were destroyed by German soldiers. And Germans were killed in an attack at a customs post.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Joshua Valentine]

Yes, the extermination order wasn't carried out because the Saints were disarmed and the leaders of the Church were captured, illegally arrested, and illegally incarcerated. The anti-Mormons considered that their pogrom was thus successful.

You have argued:

1. It was obviously a kill-all "extermination" order because they cutoff the north and if they were looking to relocate the LDS, then they wouldn't have cutoff the north. (please note that this unjustifiably assumes there is no possible motive for a controlled relocation or even just that they didn't want them to relocate north)

2. It was a kill-all "extermination" order because the man in charge of the LDS captured and disarmed believed that he was to "summarily execute" them.

3. The Missourians didn't perform the ORDERED kill-all "extermination" order because they had already arrested leaders and disarmed the followers.

I might be able to understand all of this if you were assuming that the "exterminate or drive out" order was an exterminate if they fight and drive out if they don't order. But your use of the blocking of the north, as ONLY possibly done for killing purposes, threw me off the possibility that this more reasonable position was your position. Please let me know if, despite my interpretation of your blocking north point, you do actually consider it a "kill all if fight or drive out if don't fight" order.

If not, then 1 is obviously specious. And 2 and 3 directly contradict. And, as I have already said, the truly undisputable fact is that they were not killed by those with the order. They were rounded up, they were disarmed, and they were not killed.

I really hope you believe it was a "kill if fight, drive out if don't fight". It's the only way for 2 & 3 to co-exist.

 

It is an assertion clearly contrary to fact that "driven out" was "THE contemporary definition of the word." It was merely a comment on the etymology of the word.

Huh? How do you get "comment on the etymology of the word" from:

"4.Lilburn W. Boggs letter to John B. Clark, Oct. 27, 1838, Mormon War Papers, Missouri State Archives. One contemporary meaning of the word exterminate was “to drive from within the limits or borders.” (Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language [New York: S. Converse, 1828], s.v. “exterminate.”)"

 

Here is the actual and complete 1828 Webster's entry on the word:

So the note in the LDS.org essay is just badly written? You're right, the church's historians are wrong? 

 

Note that it gives "extirpate" as a synonym in three of those definitions. Here, then, is the contemporary entry for that word:

We could go line by line, but I'll summarize instead. All of the definitions have multiple meanings, each of them has a non-lethal meaning along with a lethal meaning. Most of the examples for the different uses do not have things that can be killed (colonies, ideas, sects). The closest is the "race of men" but it is coupled with "inhabitants" which lends itself more to driving out than it does killing. You drive out inhabitants. If they meant killing they could have more precisely said just "humans" or people, instead of "inhabitants".

The dictionary doesn't seem to clarify the word meaning at all.

So, if the dictionary is ambiguous, and we don't understand the society enough, what do we really have to go on? What actually happened.

They did not get killed. So either it was a "drive out" order (with "exterminate" being used for its non-lethal meaning and "driven out" as a synonym [perhaps to clarify which meaning was being used - especially given the ambiguity of the contemporary dictionary] or it was a "kill if resist or drive out if comply" order. The ambiguity and list of unknowns in this issue alone should keep the LDS Church from trying to use it for anything.

 

And just so we know how the word was regularly used, here is another of your friendly anti-Mormons, Thomas C. Sharp, who was also a contemporary of Boggs. Just under six (6) years after the Extermination Order, this is what he wrote:

"Resolved, that the time, in our opinion, has arrived, when the adherents of Smith, as a Body, should be driven from the surrounding settlements, into Nauvoo. That the Prophet and his miscreant adherents, should then be demanded at their hands, and if not surrendered, a war of extermination should be waged to the entire destruction, if necessary for our protection, of his adherents."

What was this proposed "war of extermination" supposed to lead to, Joshua?

Is, or was, "destruction" a synonym for "expulsion?"

Or perhaps not?

All of this is irrelevant - different person, different place. We already know how it could be used b/c of the contemporary dictionary. But, as I have indicated, those definitions, uses, and examples are consistently, almost humorously ambiguous.

 

The purpose of the Extermination order was not merely the expulsion of the Saints from Missouri.  That much is obvious.  If it had been, the militia would have been ordered to chase the Mormons out instead of cutting off their retreat.  Its purpose was the entire destruction of the Latter-day Saints as a people.

False. Obviously false. If you "only" cut off a retreat when you are going to kill, then why didn't they kill? It wasn't because they had guns, it wasn't because they didn't give up their guns. Is there any other possible reason to block the north? Maybe because a controlled, organized expulsion is much more effective and easier than just letting them run loose in all directions over the entire state?

 

Therefore, given the result, it was a rather ignominious failure.

After you said this, I don't think my hope for "kill if resist, drive out if comply" being your position has a prayer.

So, let me get this straight:

1 - they blocked the north for the only reason possible - to kill them, definitely not to expel them.

2 - The leader in charge of the surrendered LDS believed he was ordered to kill them.

3 - They all surrendered and their leaders were all incarcerated.

4 - They had no means of escape or to fight.

5 - Yet, the Missourians defied the order to kill and changed their own blood-thirsty minds, and settled for "driving out"

All of this makes sense to you, Russell? (Glad we are on a first name basis - feels more familiar and less to type.). And you gloat that they "failed"?

How could they fail?!!!!! They had no weapons, no fight, no escape. And you still interpret their motives as killing, and when they don't its NOT because they actually weren't planning on killing but because, despite everything being in their favor and being ordered and wanting to kill, they "failed" to.

I feel like everything you've said should make it obvious to you that your interpretation is wrong. It is a strain on my powers of charitable dialogue, but I have to assume there is a bunch of stuff in your understanding and position that you haven't divulged, if this is going to make any sense, let alone support your position that the order was a kill order and, apparently, only a kill order.

[Joshua Valentine]

 

I look forward to the day -- yet future -- when you actually deign to discuss this matter, or any other, in good faith.

Let's take a look at some of your comments in this conversation. Interestingly, you began questioning my good faith.



 

I have long observed that those who are quickest to assume bad faith on the part of others are the least likely to be showing good faith themselves.

Or, in the words of Gandalf, "The treacherous are ever mistrustful."

You're not making a very positive first impression, Joshua.

My response to this was to point out how I was speaking from experience over years with LDS that I had heard from, while you posted this knowing next to nothing about me. Who was “quickest to assume bad faith” about whom, Russell C McGregor?

 

 

FYI - that "small number of people" (approx. 120) was killed and was a greater number than the LDS killed in Missouri conflicts (approx.50+).

But I understand your point.

A possibly intriguing thought though... If the LDS Church does teach some history, like persecution, like Haun's Mill, in Sunday School, then MMM becomes not only fair game, but other related contextual history to events like Haun's Mill become required. Or else it's just propaganda.

Well, you would know about that.

 

What did you mean by this? Did you say it “in good faith”?


 

Russell C McGregor, what is the "that" of which you claim I "would know"? Considering that you and I don't know each other nearly at all, I find it difficult not to take this sentence as insincere and, probably, contentious. Is there a fault with my statement? And which one?


...

I personally find that Haun's Mill is often taught without key historical details that are not only essential to giving a historically respectable version of events but that it is told over and over without the key elements that might give the story a quite different reception by the membership. Memorialized history that is missing key details that might make the event less desirable to memorialize nears the status of propaganda.

I think I am being pretty even handed here, even as I present an unpopular opinion.

But what did you mean "you would know about that"?


 

The "that" is propaganda.

Really? You do not even know me. You could not. And you are smearing me with "you would know about propaganda"! How is that in "good faith", Russell C McGregor?



Later in the same comment you continue.


 

 

2) "but other related contextual history to events like Haun's Mill become required"


#2 was meant to be a separate point. #1 states that a church that starts teaching, emphasizing, memorializing non-essential historical events takes on the responsibility of what particular non-essential events it chooses to do so with and which it does not choose. #2 states that once a particular historical event is taught by leadership, then that leadership takes on the responsibility of teaching that event justly.

Meaning what? That the victims deserved it?

 

What?! How?!



Where did you get that as a possible meaning of what you quoted?


Is this supposed to be representative of your discussing this issue "in good faith"?



 

 

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?

 

I replied to this one, pointing out that just after complaining about me supposedly telling you what you think, you do it here against me!


"Good faith"?


Reasonable?


Productive?


Let’s finish up:
 

 

If "anti-Mormon's" version of events without context is "polemics", then the LDS Church and membership's version of events without context is, indeed, propaganda.

I look forward to the day -- yet future -- when you actually deign to discuss this matter, or any other, in good faith.

 

Tell me, what is wrong with what you quoted of me there? I am simply using your own charged language and critique but in relation to a similar act of the LDS Church. If you see that as not "good faith" than whose lack of good faith are you seeing, mine against the LDS Church regarding this topic, or yours for the LDS Church regarding this topic? Considering their similarity (renditions of events without context to bring about a desired reaction to the rendition), how would your fault finding with critics or me not also be applicable to your own church?


But you weren’t finished, yet, exemplifying “discussion in good faith”, were you?

You continued in this comment:


 

 

I'm afraid your position - that Executive Order 44 was an "extermination order" as we would understand it today, as an order to kill Mormons - "is clearly false" because of just one truly irrefutable fact: the Mormons were not killed, en masse, exterminated to any degree by the men who were given this order. Taking a note from your writing: You don't "exterminate" a people by not killing them. Anyone from today would be smart enough to know that.

Yes, the extermination order wasn't carried out because the Saints were disarmed and the leaders of the Church were captured, illegally arrested, and illegally incarcerated. The anti-Mormons considered that their pogrom was thus successful.


Much to your delight, no doubt.

 

"Much to [my] delight, no doubt."? Now your are insinuating/accusing me of being "delighted" with the actions of the Missourians? Really?


"Meaning the victims deserved it?" Really?


"don't do [your] thinking for [you]"? Really?


" would know about propaganda." Really?



Apparently, really.

To close I could use your own words against you in an attempt to show you how self-destructive your reasoning and barbs are. But I've already tried that several times.


Let's just say, I look forward to conversing with you in good faith, too. Anytime you’re ready.
 

[Joshua Valentine]

"Trap?"

 

If you think there was any bad faith or manipulation in my post, then you are clearly projecting.

 

See the above comment for examples of the following traps:

 

1- Insults and barbs - qualify as a "trap" in that they are meant to provoke emotions either just in the mind of the target to get them to not think clearly or to provoke an explicit response, either way "trapping" the target from the actual topic and progress toward it.

 

2 - Intentional misinterpretation & red herring to redirect the target off course (the authoritative source you asked for and the asking why I thought something I never indicated I thought).

 

BTW, "then you are clearly projecting" goes with 1 and it is another example of your "in good faith" history.

[Russell C McGregor]

You have argued:

1. It was obviously a kill-all "extermination" order because they cutoff the north and if they were looking to relocate the LDS, then they wouldn't have cutoff the north. (please note that this unjustifiably assumes there is no possible motive for a controlled relocation or even just that they didn't want them to relocate north)

2. It was a kill-all "extermination" order because the man in charge of the LDS captured and disarmed believed that he was to "summarily execute" them.

3. The Missourians didn't perform the ORDERED kill-all "extermination" order because they had already arrested leaders and disarmed the followers.

I might be able to understand all of this if you were assuming that the "exterminate or drive out" order was an exterminate if they fight and drive out if they don't order. But your use of the blocking of the north, as ONLY possibly done for killing purposes, threw me off the possibility that this more reasonable position was your position. Please let me know if, despite my interpretation of your blocking north point, you do actually consider it a "kill all if fight or drive out if don't fight" order.

If not, then 1 is obviously specious. And 2 and 3 directly contradict. And, as I have already said, the truly undisputable fact is that they were not killed by those with the order. They were rounded up, they were disarmed, and they were not killed.

I really hope you believe it was a "kill if fight, drive out if don't fight". It's the only way for 2 & 3 to co-exist.

The wording of the order was "exterminated or driven from the state." It was an optional either-or.

Boggs himself issued the accompanying military order to cut of the retreat to the North. 

 

Huh? How do you get "comment on the etymology of the word" from:

"4.Lilburn W. Boggs letter to John B. Clark, Oct. 27, 1838, Mormon War Papers, Missouri State Archives. One contemporary meaning of the word exterminate was “to drive from within the limits or borders.” (Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language [New York: S. Converse, 1828], s.v. “exterminate.”)"

I get it from the actual dictionary definition, which I quoted in full.  Here, again, is the relevant portion:

 

EXTERM'INATE, verb transitive [Latin extermino; ex and terminus, limit.]

Literally, to drive from within the limits or borders. Hence...

"Ex" is Latin for "From" or "Out of" and "Terminus" means limits or borders. Thus, that bit about "to drive from within the limits or borders" is NOT offered as the definition of the word. It is the literal translation of the Latin roots of the word; IOW, a comment upon the etymology thereof.

You're welcome.

 

So the note in the LDS.org essay is just badly written? You're right, the church's historians are wrong?

That's a standard anti-Mormon manipulation tactic.

Bad faith in evidence again.

Bye.

[Joshua Valentine]

The wording of the order was "exterminated or driven from the state." It was an optional either-or.

 

Well, that's good to know you see it as an either/or, that gets rid of my concern about what were apparently contradictory points you made. Hopefully, you also see it as either IF they fight back or IF they don't. There's a nuance there between simply "either-or" open options and options conditional to the LDS response.

 

Boggs himself issued the accompanying military order to cut of the retreat to the North.

 

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point about blocking the North without actually engaging my responses to it. 

 

I get it from the actual dictionary definition, which I quoted in full.  Here, again, is the relevant portion:

 

"Ex" is Latin for "From" or "Out of" and "Terminus" means limits or borders. Thus, that bit about "to drive from within the limits or borders" is NOT offered as the definition of the word. It is the literal translation of the Latin roots of the word; IOW, a comment upon the etymology thereof.

You're welcome.

 

That's a standard anti-Mormon manipulation tactic.

 

Actually it is not, at all. It is just a miscommunication between us.

See, when I brought up the "drive out" definition it was in reference to the LDS Church's essay note about what the definition was. When you seemed to directly contradict that by saying it was just a "comment" on the etymology, I took you as saying that the essay's note was just a comment on the etymology. Since the essay note said "meaning" not etymology, I took it as offering a definition. When you seemed to contradict it, I couldn't see how you could read it so differently. So I came up with the option that you thought the essay writers should not have used the word "meaning" - thus the "badly written" question. I also couldn't see how you could be saying that. I figured you were going by something completely different then the note in the essay, so then I asked if you thought you were right and the essay writers were just completely wrong with their note.  That is not a tactic, it is a logical concern to have given the context.

 

It is an assertion clearly contrary to fact that "driven out" was "THE contemporary definition of the word." It was merely a comment on the etymology of the word.

Here is the actual and complete 1828 Webster's entry on the word:

 

It turns out you were referring to the dictionary definitions when you made the etymology claim. Since you hadn't even mentioned the definitions yet I thought you were still referring to the essay note. So that is the misunderstanding. Now I know where you were coming from. I still wonder how you see the essay note and am curious how you relate to the writer of it since your position seems opposed to the note.  I also still wonder what you meant by "It was merely a comment on the etymology".  Since the essay note did not say anything about Latin or etymology, but only "meaning", it could not be the "it" you are referring to.  So you must be referring to your definitions, but that doesn't seem to work. So I still wonder about the whole thing.  Miscommunication, nothing hostile.

 

Bad faith in evidence again.

Bye.

 

So, no, this is not bad faith, just a misunderstanding.

However, it seems quite clear - from the many evidences I supplied above AND your refusal to answer that evidence AND your leap to "bad faith" again in your last comment AND your repetition of the North cut-off without any engagement of my input on the matter - that you are set on refusing discussion (like of the North cut-off's other possible purposes) and, instead, set on being offensive (see list above of your insults and barbs) and being offended (jump to "bad faith" instead of miscommunication).

Refusal to discuss, insults, and assuming the worst of the other - Contentious seems the only word for it.  And it is all you seem to be here for.

So, good day to you, as well. I will hope for better next time.

 

May God bless you as He knows best, Russell C McGregor,

In the name of Jesus the Christ,

Joshua Valentine