This month's Smithsonian magazine has an excellent article by Kenneth C. Davis, debunking the myth that America's history is characterized by religious tolerance.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html

Toward the end, however, he uses the example of the Mormons' persecution to bolster his thesis. It simply parrots the Mormon myth that the Mormon persecutions were caused by their religious doctrines.

I sent the following letter to the editor:

> Kenneth C. Davis' excellent article "God and Country" debunks well the American myth that our history is one of religious tolerance. However, he (perhaps unwittingly) accepts another myth promulgated by the Mormon church (officially the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) about Mormon persecutions in the 19th century.

> The tarring and feathering of Mormon founder Smith was done not by an anti-Mormon mob, but by his own followers, led by the brothers of a young woman to whom Smith had made improper sexual advances. Governor Boggs' order to drive the Mormons from his state was the direct result of an inflammatory sermon by Mormon leader Sidney Rigdon in which Rigdon declared a "war of extermination" against non-Mormon Missourians, who were rightly fearful of the Mormon assertion that God had given them Missouri as a "land of inheritance." The massacre at Haun's Mill must be seen in comparison with the Mormon burning and looting of Gallatin, Missouri, during the "Mormon War," in which historians such as Stephen LeSueur (The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, Univ. of Missouri, 1990) place blame on intolerance (political, not religious) on both sides. And Smith's murder by a mob in 1844 at Carthage jail was a result of Smith's own intolerance for dissent, since he had been arrested and imprisoned for destroying a dissident newspaper that had exposed his abuses of power and his illegal and secret practice of polygamy.

> Thus the Mormons' claims of persecution were the result of their own intolerance and their political (not religious) ambitions. Davis could also have mentioned the frequent persecution of "Gentiles" and Mormon dissenters in Utah under Brigham Young, to balance the picture.

Great letter. Right to the point.

And post the text here, if you're so inclined.

I certainly hope they print your reply in a subsequent issue, and that they post your letter online.

The Smithsonian has a large readership. It's not right to let them get away with promulgating myths as facts. Sloppy.

I especially like your ending, specifically your sentence

"Thus the Mormons' claims of persecution were the result of their own intolerance and their political (not religious) ambitions."

That one may introduce some complexity and ambiguity, but I'm always in favor of full disclosure (even though I'm a relative dilettante in this area of Mormon history).

The "Mormonites" don't appear to have done overwhelming damage to this Wiki article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crooked_River

As I said, I'm not up to speed on this stuff; I note that one of the factors mentioned that probably fueled the controversy was the arrival of a number of Mormon dissidents in Ray County...

>These dissenters, including David Whitmer, William Wines Phelps, John Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery had been the leaders of the Latter Day Saint church in Missouri. They relocated their families to Richmond and Liberty, the county seats of Ray and Clay, respectively, and claimed that their lives had been threatened and their property had been stolen by the Mormons.

What happened at Crooked River was that the Mormons did launch the initial attack on the Missouri forces, and that, in addition to Rigdon's Salt Sermon Speech, were huge factors in the violence that followed.

Although I do believe that you brought up some good points, things like this always go like a game of telephone, exaggerating and exaggerating way out of proportion, until there are two sides to the equation that sound like they are talking about two entirely different times. So although there is some truth in what you are saying, the real story lies somewhere in the middle. We Mormons are not perfect, but we are not the downright murderous lawbreakers this puts us to be. I hope you will listen to my argument and at least think a little about it, it may just change your opinion a little.

Mormon Messenger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We Mormons are not perfect, but we are not the
> downright murderous lawbreakers this puts us to
> be.

The fact remains: They committed treason by attacking and killing members of a detachment of the Missouri State Militia.

I'm thinking the Baker and Fancher families might not think "we Mormons" are so nice either.

"This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind." --Brigham Young

Mormon Messenger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We
> Mormons are not perfect, but we are not the
> downright murderous lawbreakers this puts us to
> be.

Factual history of past events has nothing to do with you, or your beliefs, or today's mormon church. You seem to have taken this personally, as if the bad acts of people long dead who were also mormons is some reflection of what YOU are today. That's not the case.

And factual history shows that many of the mormons involved *were* downright murderous lawbreakers at the time. For some, there were no doubt "spiritual" motivations -- they thought they were doing "god's will." That doesn't change what they did. And they did do it.

Some of the ones doing it were my ancestors. I'm none too pleased to learn that some of my ancestors were murderous lawbreakers. But I'm not going to pretend they weren't just because they were my ancestors.

It is obvious that some facts have been left out. I did some research myself and found that the reason there was a battle at Crooked River to start with was that three Morman men(some named Pinkham), and four of there 4 horse had been taken captive by mobs from Far West and they were going to kill them. This had happened after many families in Far West had been harrassed and some of there animals stolen. So when this was found out by the Mormon community in Far West, a call for assistance to go after them was made at midnight. 75 men assembled and left in a hurry to try and get these Mormons back. As they were walking near the encampment of the mobs near Crooked River a shot was fired by the mobs at them and one of them was killed instantly. The battle ensued. The Mormon men who came in from the East hill down to the forge with the sunrise at there back were easily seen by the mob at the West river bank in the dark who were hiding in the bushes and trees near the river. Many of the Mormons were killed or injured. I have been to the area and it seems so sad that such a trajedy happended. Another important thought on the matter. Back in that time of history, if you homesteaded a piece of ground you had to show considerable improvement on it and then the government would let you keep it. Mormons were very industrious and it is possible that the local homesteaders could see the advantage of kicking or pushing them off the land that the Mormons had homesteaded and improved so they could claim it themselves. I live in Missouri and it is not an easy place to tame land. If you don't mow, you will have thorny trees, poison ivy etc. growing. There is always reasons why greedy people do things that may not be for the real reason. Could it be possible that they were using religion as a way to get them off the already build up city and crops that the Mormons were developing. Haun's Mill was a another terrible slaughter of Mormons where they were industrious. I hope we never go back to such intolerance and deceptive intentions as these.

Are you trying to say that mormons were more industrious with the land and better at growing crops than their neighbours, so their neighbours just wanted to steal the land for themselves?

I do not believe this to be the case - this is just another fable like the case of the milk strippings in nauvoo leading to dissension.

Mormons would have been no better nor worse than the surrounding homesteaders were at managing land - in fact, the recent convert migrants may have been worse at working the land than the locally born since they were unfamiliar with the land.

Your argument is mere speculation. I believe that when the religious migrants kept coming in greater numbers the locals got scared, just as is happening now in europe with waves of migrants coming to claim their 'rights' but not adapting their behaviour to allow the natives their own 'rights'. I can understand the locals getting together putting a stop to this new alien religion growing so quickly around them and threatening to swallow them up.

The sermons the mormons preached back then was not all peace and love and charity, but instead was about preparing for the impending judgement of the world and return of christ when only THEY (mormons) would be saved. If I was a locally born resident, I would be scared of their growing power. They were not persecuted: the locals acted in self defence against an unconstitutional power.

It's not one-sided, considering LDS organized violence on those of other religions, even more aggressive today than during the women's conferences of Seneca Falls.

soundbite.

Well done.

Great one, I hope they publish it!