Another TBM on ARM posting as Lorin John a.k.a. Buzzard had repeated the nonsensical "The Extermination Order made it legal to kill Mormons on sight." But he admitted on this thread that some Mormons had remained in Missouri after the Extermination Order. I responded to him.
>Obviously, former LDS continued to live in MO, and after a while, especially
in the 20th century the LDS church had a presence there.
And that fact makes your line about "it was still legal to kill a Mormon in
Missouri until just a few years ago" silly.
>But the law remained on the books.
As I've already stated (which you apparently ignored), Boggs' "extermination
order" was typical of thousands of outmoded edicts that have remained on the
books of cities and states across the country, for the simple reason that they
no longer applied, and nobody bothered to remove them. The only reason the
"extermination order" was officially rescinded in 1976 was because church
leaders knew the move would make good PR press.
Boggs' "extermination order" N-E-V-E-R made it "legal to kill Mormons." Boggs
issued the order to address a specific circumstance, at a specific time:
"Twenty-four hours after the Crooked River fight, Boggs, armed with the
affidavits of Marsh and Hyde plus complaints from frightened settlers
describing a wholesale Mormon rebellion, ordered two thousand militiamen from
five divisions into the field...Then Boggs received a message confirming an
earlier report of Bogart's defeat but compounding the rumors of a
massacre...this report prompted Boggs to issue his infamous 'Extermination
Order' of October 27 to General John B. Clark. In effect, the order challenged
Sidney Rigdon's Fourth of July address in which he defied the Gentiles and
threatened a 'war of extermination.' It was more than coincidence that Boggs
chose that particular word in his instruction to General Clark."
("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," Harold Schindler, pp.
The fact that Boggs did not intend for the Mormons to be murdered en masse is
made obvious by the fact that only those Mormons who were identified as leaders
of the insurrection and mobbing were arrested, and the remainder were given
until the following spring to leave the state. However, I *DO* acknowledge
that if Smith had not surrendered his 800 or so men at Far West, then Boggs'
order gave General Clark the military authority to attack them---the Mormon
men, that is---but not women or children. Clark had the legal authority to
have Smith and his top leaders shot under martial law, but Alexander Doniphan
(Smith's lawyer) persuaded him not to do so.
Bottom line---Boggs' order did not call for the "extermination" of every living
Mormon in Missouri. Boggs only used that terminology to counter Rigdon's
threat of a "war of extermination," and to show the Mormons that he meant
business. It ONLY applied to the Mormon militia (a.k.a. Danites) who had
looted and burned non-Mormon towns and attacked the Missouri militia at Crooked
River. NOT A SINGLE MORMON WAS KILLED because of Boggs' order. Even the
Haun's Mill massacre was committed by an unauthorized band of militiamen who
were acting as vigilantes, avenging the Danites' looting and burning of
Millport, Gallatin, and Grinders' Fork; Boggs' order did not even reach
Missouri militiamen until AFTER the Haun's Mill tragedy, so Boggs' order cannot
be blamed for it.
> I wonder if a defense lawyer could have made use of it. Lucky for us LDS, it
was never made use of in the modern era.
Buzzard, you're an idiot. It had nothing to do with "luck." Nobody in
Missouri could have used Boggs' specific-need order to wantonly kill Mormons at
any time before 1976. Mormons have traveled through, and lived in Missouri
ever since the 1838 trouble. When you keep repeating such things, you're only
displaying your fanaticism and cluelessness.
>When I write about perspective, I am writing from the perspective of my own
ancestors, who were burned out of Missouri. If Mr. Jordan wants to think that
that is sanitized history, so be it.
Your ancestors' accounts, whatever they may say, do not magically wash away the
dozens of recollections, newspaper articles, sworn legal testimony, and journal
entries of numerous eyewitness participants to the events.
If you want to gain a good perspective of what happened in Missouri, I'd
suggest you read the following historical sources, for starters:
Senate Document 189 (under construction):http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1838Sent.htm
Bishop John Corrill's "A Brief History of the Church":http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1830s/1839Corl.htm
Benjamin Johnson's "My Life's Review":http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/BFJohnson.html
The "Reed Peck Manuscript":http://www.connect-a.net/users/drshades/reedpeck.htm
Ebenezer Robinson's "The Return":http://www.kingdomofzion.org/doctrines/library/journals/Robinson,Ebenezer.txt
David Whitmer's "Address To All Believers in Christ":http://www.helpingmormons.org/address.htm
David Whitmer's 1887 letter to Joseph Smith lll:http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/dw_let1.htm
John Whitmer's "History of the Church":http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/jw_hist.htm
>There was fault on both sides,
No one said there wasn't, but the Mormons started the troubles.
>but I'll stick to my statement that the church, both as an institution and
as an aggregate of its members, did not deserve or ask for the treatment
they recieved at the hands of Missouri and it's citizens.
And I'll stick to my statement that the church as an institution taught
concepts and enacted practices that were the root causes of their troubles in
Missouri. In that light, Mormon leaders "asked for" troubles which caused
their followers harm.
I have posted numerous citations from historical sources that lay out the
situation, beginning with Joseph Smith's 1832 "revelation" calling for the
"consecration" of the property of the "Gentiles unto those who are of the House
of Israel." (Book of Commandments 44:32.) I have provided accounts of such
Mormons as David Whitmer, John Whitmer, John Corrill, John Cleminson, Thomas B.
Marsh, George M. Hinkle, Reed Peck, and W. W. Phelps, as well as respected,
legitimate historians who have pointed to this "revelation" of Smith's as being
the root of the Missouri troubles. You have not even acknowledged, let alone
rebutted, this fact. Until you honestly deal with the actual facts, your
responses are just blather.
>Left out of this whole discussion is the fact that many of the Missourians
were afraid that the LDS would vote in Missouri as a non-slave state.
The slavery issue is "left out of this whole discussion" because it is nothing
more than a smokescreen created by Mormon apologists to hide the real reasons
for the Mormon troubles in Missouri. To begin with, you are once again showing
your cluelessness of the situation. Missouri became a state in 1821---ten
years before the first Mormon even settled there. Mormonism had only come into
existence in 1830, so your above statement is total nonsense. Missouri was
admitted as a slave state under the Missouri compromise, wherein every
other new state was admitted to the union as a slave state.
Slavery was an issue between Mormons and Missourians for only a few weeks in
1833, when W. W. Phelps, acting on his own, wrote an editorial in his "Evening
and Morning Star" which stated:
"Slaves are real estate in this and other states, and wisdom would dictate
great care among the branches of the church of Christ on this subject. So long
as we have no special rule in the church as to people of color, let prudence
guide; and while they, as well as we, are in the hands of a merciful god, we
say: shun every appearance of evil."
Some Missourians mistook Phelps' editorial to be an endorsement of the entry of
"free people of color" into the State, which they thought might lead to an
insurrection (similar to the Nat Turner rebellion in Virginia that same year,
wherein slaves rose up and killed 51 whites.)
The misunderstanding forced Phelps to issue an immediate clarification in his
"Our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to
this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the church.
Great care should be taken on this point. The saints must shun every
appearance of evil. As to slaves we have nothing to say. In connection with
the wonderful events of this age, much is doing towards abolishing slavery, and
colonizing the blacks in Africa.
We often lament the situation of our sister states in the south, and we fear,
lest, as has been the case, the blacks should rise and spill innocent blood:
for they are ignorant, and a little may lead them to disturb the peace of
society. To be short, we are opposed to have free people of color admitted
into the state; and we say, that none will be admitted into the church, for we
are determined to obey the laws and constitutions of our country....."
Mormon apologists have carefully cultivated the "slavery" angle of the Missouri
period in order to make those Mormons appear as noble abolitionists, as though
that was the major cause of tensions with the Missourians. That image is
refuted by the following facts:
*Phelps' original comment was his own, and was not sanctioned by church leaders
*Phelps quickly retracted his misunderstood statement in his next edition
*Joseph Smith himself stated "We do not believe in setting the Negroes free"
and "We are not abolitionists"
*Joseph Smith produced the "Book of Moses" and the "Book of Abraham," which
have been used as the basis for discrimination against Negroes by Mormons into
modern times; Negroes were not actively proselyted nor encouraged to join the
LDS church until 1978
*Several Mormons owned slaves, including Apostle Charles C. Rich
*The Utah Territory was slated to become the next slave state, to counter
California's admittance as a free state; the Mormons' rebelliousness and
refusal to end polygamy prevented Utah's admittance as a state until 1896.
To repeat: The TRUE cause of the Mormons' troubles in Missouri was their
arrogance, their anti-social behavior, and their leaders' propagation of
teachings and policies which brought the wrath of the state down upon them. To
repeat from a previous post on this subject:
"The Mormons were partly responsible for causing, or at least reinforcing, the
suspicions and prejudice against them. Their claims about establishing the
Kingdom of God in Jackson County, that they would 'literally tread upon the
ashes of the wicked after they are destroyed from off the face of the earth,'
excited fears that the Mormons intended to obtain their 'inheritance' by force.
According to Thomas Thorp, a Clay County resident, the Mormons told local
settlers that 'this country was theirs [the Mormons'] by the gift of the Lord,
and it was folly for them [the Missourians] to improve their lands, they would
not enjoy the fruits of their labor; that it would finally fall into the hands
of the saints.' In July 1832, a Mormon journal in Independence published a
Joseph Smith revelation in which the Lord declared that 'I will consecrate the
riches of the Gentiles [non-Mormons], unto my people which are of the house of
Israel.' " "The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri," Stephen LeSueur, p. 18.)
>Not exactly an endorsement of the high moral character of Missourians. Or are
you going to rise to the defense of the Confederacy now?
How appropriate that you should end a post full of complete nonsense with more
of the same.