You idiots are still at it?
Lisusgen
back in November when I realized that I wasn't actually reasoning with
intelligent people that are open to learning new things.
For those of you that are actually interested in learning about the
church I suggest you goto the source. Read the Book or Mormon, pray
about it, and learn of its truth on your own.
These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil. You can
prove them wrong a million different ways and it doesn't matter,
they'll just change the subject over and over until they spin you in
circles so many times you become dizzy. They'd make great lawyers.
And the most amazing thing is how much time and engergy they put into
opposing the efforts of the church. Why?
Clovis Lark
Welcome BACK, Tom Dawsey! How's life down in Aggielandia? How are the
SEals and Planetout doing?
Alan Faircloth
lisu...@yahoo.com (Lisusgen) wrote:
>You god hating anti-mormon clowns are still at it? I stopped posting
>back in November when I realized that I wasn't actually reasoning with
>intelligent people that are open to learning new things.
>
>For those of you that are actually interested in learning about the
>church I suggest you goto the source. Read the Book or Mormon, pray
>about it, and learn of its truth on your own.
>
>These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil. You can
>prove them wrong a million different ways
Take your best shot; make my day.
and it doesn't matter,
>they'll just change the subject over and over
I won't
until they spin you in
>circles so many times you become dizzy. They'd make great lawyers.
>
>And the most amazing thing is how much time and engergy they put into
>opposing the efforts of the church. Why?
love
title: God http://members.tripod.com/~foldey0/duplindex.html
cwg
"Lisusgen" <lisu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9de546af.02011...@posting.google.com...
>
> These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil. You can
> prove them wrong a million different ways and it doesn't matter,
> they'll just change the subject over and over until they spin you in
> circles so many times you become dizzy. They'd make great lawyers.
Funny, that is a perfect description of the behavior of Mormon supporters in
this group as well.
At least we can all enjoy being ass clowns in the service of Satan together!
newguy
--
.
"Lisusgen" <lisu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9de546af.02011...@posting.google.com...
> You god hating anti-mormon clowns are still at it? I stopped posting
> back in November when I realized that I wasn't actually reasoning with
> intelligent people that are open to learning new things.
Brilliant remark. I think you just converted me!
>
> For those of you that are actually interested in learning about the
> church I suggest you goto the source. Read the Book or Mormon, pray
> about it, and learn of its truth on your own.
Then we can be intelligent like you?
>
> These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil. You can
> prove them wrong a million different ways and it doesn't matter,
> they'll just change the subject over and over until they spin you in
> circles so many times you become dizzy. They'd make great lawyers.
Yes, you just convinced me. Amazing!
>
> And the most amazing thing is how much time and engergy they put into
> opposing the efforts of the church. Why?
We like to post to intelligent folk like you. newguy
TheJordan6
>Date: 1/17/2002 11:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <9de546af.02011...@posting.google.com>
Didja ever read up on why the Mormons were booted out of Missouri?
Randy J.
rabidcorgi
> You god hating anti-mormon clowns are still at it? I stopped posting
> back in November when I realized that I wasn't actually reasoning with
> intelligent people that are open to learning new things.
>
> For those of you that are actually interested in learning about the
> church I suggest you goto the source. Read the Book or Mormon, pray
> about it, and learn of its truth on your own.
>
> These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil.
You can
> prove them wrong a million different ways and it doesn't matter,
> they'll just change the subject over and over until they spin you in
> circles so many times you become dizzy. They'd make great lawyers.
like innovators dilemma?
>
> And the most amazing thing is how much time and engergy they put into
> opposing the efforts of the church. Why?
Ass clowns (unlike Ass Mimes) feel as though they were excluded
unfairly from the SLC Olympics opening ceremonies. They have
subsequently been known to stage violent uprisings at the Osmond's
Branson MO showhouse.
Fool Speck
> back in November when I realized that I wasn't actually reasoning with
> intelligent people that are open to learning new things.
Oh mighty arrogant mentor, when your arguments get shredded as yours
did invariably, your attitude is not surprising.
> For those of you that are actually interested in learning about the
> church I suggest you goto the source. Read the Book or Mormon, pray
> about it, and learn of its truth on your own.
In other words, try to work up an emotional pre-commitment as James
describes, throw logic out the window and depend on emotionalism to be
your guide.
> These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil.
I am trying to imagine an "ass clown" -- somebody with grease paint
on his butt? Seems to me a devil would be trying to convert people
with emotionalism and illogic. That makes you the servant of the
devil, Tom.
> You can
> prove them wrong a million different ways and it doesn't matter,
How would you know that? You didn't even manage once!
> they'll just change the subject over and over until they spin you in
> circles so many times you become dizzy. They'd make great lawyers.
Since lawyers have training in logic, I understand why you would
attempt to insult somebody by equating them with someone who is
trained in logic. Dizziness is not an unexpected symptom of someone
demonstrating the multiple fallacies of your paradigm. Hence, your
reaction is not surprising.
> And the most amazing thing is how much time and engergy they put into
> opposing the efforts of the church. Why?
Apparently the opposition cares more than you.
Steve Lowther
Roger Baird
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 1/17/2002, 9:03:29 AM, lisu...@yahoo.com (Lisusgen) wrote regarding
You idiots are still at it?:
> You god hating anti-mormon clowns are still at it?
Lying and name-calling. How very LDS of you.
>I stopped posting
> back in November when I realized that I wasn't actually reasoning with
> intelligent people that are open to learning new things.
Of course! Your inability to reason would preclude that now wouldn't it?
> For those of you that are actually interested in learning about the
> church I suggest you goto the source. Read the Book or Mormon, pray
> about it, and learn of its truth on your own.
Prayer is a piss-poor way to discover truth since many people using the
same method obtain mutually exclusive results. If this is your method of
determining truth, your above mention of "reason" is nothing but a smoke
screen.
> These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil.
More lying and name-calling. Your bishop must be proud.
>You can
> prove them wrong a million different ways and it doesn't matter,
> they'll just change the subject over and over until they spin you in
> circles so many times you become dizzy. They'd make great lawyers.
It is dishonest for you to portray your baseless assertions as "proof".
I suggest you bring this honesty problem of yours up at your next temple
recommend interview.
I'll stipulate to your dizziness, however.
> And the most amazing thing is how much time and engergy they put into
> opposing the efforts of the church. Why?
Because "the church" is a fraud that is taking advantage of our fellow
people, robbing them of their intellect, time, and money.
RTBaird
Xan Du
"Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.02011...@posting.google.com...
> lisu...@yahoo.com (Lisusgen) wrote in message
news:<9de546af.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> > You god hating anti-mormon clowns are still at it? I stopped posting
> > back in November when I realized that I wasn't actually reasoning with
> > intelligent people that are open to learning new things.
>
> Oh mighty arrogant mentor, when your arguments get shredded as yours
> did invariably, your attitude is not surprising.
>
> > For those of you that are actually interested in learning about the
> > church I suggest you goto the source. Read the Book or Mormon, pray
> > about it, and learn of its truth on your own.
>
> In other words, try to work up an emotional pre-commitment as James
> describes, throw logic out the window and depend on emotionalism to be
> your guide.
>
> > These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil.
>
> I am trying to imagine an "ass clown" -- somebody with grease paint
> on his butt?
Is there any relationship between an ass clown and an ass hound?
Particularly in light of the fact that so many early prominent Mormons were
such consumate ass hounds?
-Xan
<snip>
newguy
--
.
"Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2b9e0$100o3t$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
A true but inflamatory remark. ;-))) newguy
>
Xan Du
"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:u4jcps3...@corp.supernews.com...
The ignorant sumbeech who started this thread deserves it.
-Xan
> >
>
>
newguy
--
.
"Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2dovf$10b4ee$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
No argument from me, just didn't know you had it in you. ;-)) newguy
Xan Du
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a2dovf$10b4ee$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> > news:u4jcps3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > news:a2b9e0$100o3t$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> > > >
> > > > "Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:da736b0d.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > lisu...@yahoo.com (Lisusgen) wrote in message
> > > > news:<9de546af.02011...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> > > > > > These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am trying to imagine an "ass clown" -- somebody with grease
paint
> > > > > on his butt?
> > > >
> > > > Is there any relationship between an ass clown and an ass hound?
> > > > Particularly in light of the fact that so many early prominent
Mormons
> > > > were such consumate ass hounds?
> > > >
> > > > -Xan
> > >
> > > A true but inflamatory remark. ;-))) newguy
> >
> > The ignorant sumbeech who started this thread deserves it.
> >
> > -Xan
>
> No argument from me, just didn't know you had it in you. ;-)) newguy
Occasionally I must let Mr. Hyde run amok. It's quite therapeutic.
-Xan
Sol
> Didja ever read up on why the Mormons were booted out of Missouri?
Did you?
I have read up on it. It was because Missourians were intolerant of the
Gospel. It was because Mormons were hard-working, thrifty, and
prosperous. Therefore the heathen Missourians were loosing their
political control over the territory.
Today, we'd execute Missourians for 'hate-crimes'. Especially Gov.
Boggs! We'd do him like 'Longshanks' did William Wallace. We'd hunt his
ass down like Osama bin Laden.
I call for Missourians to pay 'reparations' to the Mormons for their
crimes. Plus interest!
Remember, Randy, the Mormons weren't just 'booted' out. They were
tortured, murdered, their homes burned, their livestock destroyed, their
wives and daughters raped, and then their surviving families, if any,
were 'booted' out in the middle of winter...to starve.
Missourians were no different than the Taliban. But Randy probably
approves of the Taliban.
Sol
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
Roger Baird
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 1/20/2002, 7:25:51 PM, Sol <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote regarding Re: You
idiots are still at it?:
><snip>
> But Randy probably
> approves of the Taliban.
> Sol
Well, there goes YOUR credibility!
RTBaird
newguy
--
.
"Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2fhu6$10qsum$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
On this newsgroup we can become Mr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde with safety and
comfort. newguy
>
>
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Jan 20, 2002 21:25 EST
>Message-id: <nospam-D87830.21255020012002@[128.242.171.114]>
>
><snip>
>
>> Didja ever read up on why the Mormons were booted out of Missouri?
>Did you?
>
>I have read up on it. It was because Missourians were intolerant of the
>Gospel. It was because Mormons were hard-working, thrifty, and
>prosperous. Therefore the heathen Missourians were loosing their
>political control over the territory.
I see that you are yet another Mormon who is utterly clueless about why the
Mormons were kicked out of Missouri. Time to repeat the true reasons again,
which I have to do about once a month:
Gordon B. Hinckley offered the following comments in the
April 1984 General Conference:
"According to the account given by George A. Smith, while the Saints were in
Far West, Missouri, 'the wife of Thomas B. Marsh, who was then President of the
Twelve Apostles, and Sister Harris concluded they would exchange milk, in order
to make a little larger cheese than they otherwise could. To be sure to have
justice done, it was agreed that they should not save the strippings (to
themselves), but that the milk and strippings should go all together.....Mrs.
Harris, it appeared, was faithful to the agreement and carried to Mrs. Marsh
the milk and strippings, but Mrs. Marsh, wishing to make some extra good
cheese, saved a pint of strippings from each cow and sent Mrs. Harris the milk
without the strippings. A quarrel arose, and the matter was referred to the
home teachers. They found Mrs. Marsh guilty of failure to keep her agreement.
She and her husband were upset and, 'an appeal was taken from the teacher to
the bishop, and a regular church trial was held. President Marsh did not
consider that the bishop had done him and his lady justice for they (that is,
the bishop's court) decided that the strippings were wrongfully saved, and that
the woman had violated her covenant.
'Marsh immediately took an appeal to the High Council, who investigated the
question with much patience, and,' says George A. Smith, .....'Marsh.....made
a desperate defence, but the High Council finally confirmed the bishop's
decision.....This little affair,' Brother Smith continues, 'kicked up a
considerable breeze, and Thomas B. Marsh then declared that he would sustain
the character of his wife even if he had to go to hell for it. The then
President of the Twelve Apostles, the man who should have been the first to do
justice and cause reparation to be made for wrong.....went before a magistrate
and swore that the 'Mormons' were hostile towards the state of MIssouri. That
affidavit brought from the government of Missouri an exterminating order, which
drove some 15,000 Saints from their homes and habitations.....
What a very small and trivial thing--a little cream over which two women
quarreled. But it led to, or at least was a factor in, Governor Boggs' cruel
exterminating order which drove the Saints from the state of Missouri."
("Ensign" Magazine, May 1984, p. 83.)
Note how Hinckley asserts that the "milk strippings" incident (if it even
occurred at all) was a major factor in Marsh's defection, and the resulting
Extermination Order. But were Hinckley's remarks (via George A. Smith)
anywhere close to the truth? Let's compare Hinckley's assertions with the
documented facts of history:
A "revelation" Smith produced, and published in his 1833 "Book of
Commandments," read as follows:
"For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets
shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles, unto my
people which are of the house of Israel." (BOC 44:32.)
In Smith's 1835 revision of the BOC, re-titled the "Doctrine and Covenants,"
Smith altered this verse to read:
"for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the
Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel." (D&C
42:39.)
David Whitmer explained why the original version of this "revelation" had
enraged Missourians against the Mormon immigrants in 1833:
"In the spring of 1832, in Hiram, Ohio, Brothers Joseph and Sidney, and others,
concluded that the revelations should be printed in a book. A few of the
brethren -- including myself --objected to it seriously. We told them that if
the revelations were
published, the world would get the books, and it would not do; that it was not
the will of the Lord that the revelations should be published. But Brothers
Joseph and Sidney would not listen to us, and said they were going to send them
to Independence to be published. I objected to it and withstood Brothers Joseph
and Sidney to the face. Brother Joseph said as follows: "Any man who objects to
having these revelations published, shall have his part taken out of the Tree
of Life and out of the Holy City." The Spirit of God came upon me and I
prophesied to them in the name of the Lord: "That if they sent those
revelations to Independence to be published in a book, the people would come
upon them and tear down the printing press, and the church would be driven out
of Jackson county." Brothers Joseph and Sidney laughed at me. Early in the
spring of 1833, at Independence, Mo., the revelations were printed in the Book
of Commandments. Many of the books were finished and distributed among the
members of the church, and through some of the unwise brethren, the world got
hold of some of them. From that time the ill-feeling toward us began to
increase; and in the summer of 1833 the mob came upon us, tore down the
printing press, and drove the church out of Jackson county." ("An Address to
all Believers in Christ")
It's obvious that Smith altered the verse which called for the "consecration of
the riches of the Gentiles unto the house of Israel" in his 1835 D&C because
the publication of
such a policy had gotten the Mormons booted out of Jackson County in 1833.
Nonetheless, he and Rigdon secretly continued their advocacy of "consecrating"
the personal property of non-Mormons, as well as those of Mormon dissenters,
into his "kingdom," and that was the ultimate cause of the Mormons' final
expulsion from Missouri in 1838.
To today's Mormons, "consecration" means giving of their money or goods to the
church. In 1838, upon the failure of their Kirtland Bank and "United Order,"
Smith and Rigdon went to Missouri and again tried to institute an economic
commune. The Missouri Mormons, who had been expelled from Jackson County in
1834, were living in relative (albeit temporary) peace in Clay County, buying
land and starting farms. But the arrival of Smith and Rigdon in the spring of
1838 brought an influx of thousands more Mormons from Kirtland as well,
spilling them over into "Gentile" areas, causing new tensions. Mormon
population increased from 1,200 to 15,000 in just a few months. Having been
stung by the Kirtland failure, Smith and Rigdon implemented new policies that
they hoped would make the new commune succeed. The policy mandated that all
Mormons sign their lands over to the church, and then the church
would lease the land back to them as "stewardships." The Mormons who had
bought and developed
their lands and farms balked at the idea---among them being Cowdery, the
Whitmers, Phelps, Lyman Johnson, etc. They correctly perceived that the new
"consecration" policy was nothing more than Smith and Rigdon's latest scheme to
fleece the flock. Their refusal to sign lands over to the church prompted
Rigdon's "Salt Sermon" (which was heartily endorsed by Smith), and Rigdon's
resulting letter informing the dissenters that they must "depart before a more
fatal calamity" befell them. While the dissenters had gone to procure legal
aid to prevent Smith and Rigdon from taking their land (or their lives), the
"Danites" invaded and plundered their homes and property. So, for those
Mormons, "consecration" meant having their goods taken away by force, upon the
order of church leaders.
"A proposition was made and supported by some as being the best policy to kill
these men that they would not be capable of injuring the church. All their
measures were strenuously opposed by John Corrill and T. B. Marsh one of the
twelve apostles of the church and in consequence nothing could be effected
until the matter was taken up publicly BY THE PRESIDENCY the following (June
17th) in a large congregation..." ("Reed Peck Manuscript")
Thus, according to Peck, Marsh was already opposing Smith's and Rigdon's
heinous policies as early as June 17----four months before Marsh swore his
affidavit. That fact alone destroys the "milk strippings" business.
As many witnesses (including Thomas B. Marsh) testified in court, Smith's
intention was to "take this State,...the United States and ultimately the whole
world" for his theocratic empire. The swelling Mormon population disturbed
the non-Mormons, who had heard that the "Gentiles" were to be evicted and the
land become the Mormons' "New Jerusalem." One Missourian, William Peniston,
remarked in August that the Mormons "are a set of horse thieves, liars, and
counterfeiters. They'll swear a false oath on any occasion to save another
Mormon....no property is safe in Daviess County if they continue to pour into
this area." Tensions soon erupted into violence, with beatings, lootings and
burnings being committed on both sides. By October, believing that they had
enough manpower to "take the state," Smith and Rigdon then sent their "Danite"
forces to begin "consecrating"
from the "Gentiles" as well as the dissident "Saints," with the loot going to
support their war effort. Church historian John Whitmer reported that the
Mormon leaders claimed the stealing was justified because they were the "chosen
people":
"After they had driven us and our families, they commenced a difficulty in
Daviess County, adjoining this county, in which they began to rob and burn
houses, etc. etc., took honey which they, (the Mormons) call sweet oil, and
hogs which they call bear, and cattle which they called buffalo. Thus they
would justify themselves by saying, "We are the people of God, and all things
are God's; therefore, they are ours." (John Whitmer's "History of the Church")
John Whitmer's remarks revealed Smith's and Rigdon's true attitude: they viewed
their organization as the literal "House of Israel," and "the Kingdom of God on
Earth"; they taught the imminent return and millenial reign of Christ, wherein
all the "enemies" of the "true church" would be defeated. Since, in the
"millenium," all things on earth would be theirs, they haughtily taught their
subordinates to appropriate the property of the "Gentiles."
Mormon historian Leland Gentry admits to Mormon thefts: "The Danites were
taught to take from the Gentiles and consecrate to the Church. Nearly every
person who testified at the trial against the Mormon leaders made mention of
this fact. John Clemenson stated that 'it was frequently observed among the
troops at Diahman that the time had come when the riches of the Gentiles should
be consecrated to the Saints.' Jeremiah Myers testified that 'the consecrated
property...was dealt out to those in need' by Bishop Vinson Knight." (A
History of the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri, p. 385-387.)
"Danites struck at Gallatin and two other towns, Millport and Grinding Fork.
The three onslaughts occurred simultaneously and had a crushing impact on the
Missourians who were unaccustomed to Mormon resistance. When Captains Lyman
Wight, David W. Patten, and Seymour Brunson rode into Far West at the head of
their companies, the sight of wagonloads of plunder was offensive to a number
of less aggressively inclined Saints. That night they gathered their families
together and abandoned the settlement. Among the defectors were two of
Joseph's most trusted followers, Thomas B. Marsh and Orson Hyde, both members
of the Council of Twelve Apostles. The two men fled to nearby Richmond and
blurted out everything they knew." ("Orrin Porter Rockwel: Man of God, Son of
Thunder," Harold Schindler,
p. 54.)
"The Mormons were two hundred and fifty men by the time they reached Daviess
County...The bulk of the forces went out in search of the gentile opposition.
They marched through three settlements, including Gallatin, repaying the
Missourians in kind, looting and firing stores, homes, and barns, before their
anger spent itself.....When they returned with their loot, many of their own
people were appalled and frightened. Thomas B. Marsh, Brigham Young's superior
as President of the Twelve, let it be known that he did not approve such
retaliation, and he left the church." ("Kingdom of the Saints", Ray B. West, p.
86.)
"There was much mysterious conversation in camps, as to plundering, and
house-burning; so much so, that I had my own notions about it; and, on one
occasion, I spoke to Mr. Smith, Jr., in the house, and told him that this
course of burning houses and plundering, by the Mormon troops, would ruin us;
that it could not be kept hid, and would bring the force of the state upon us;
that houses would be searched, and stolen property found. Smith replied to me,
in a pretty rough manner, to keep still; that I should say nothing about it;
that it would discourage the men...I saw a great deal of plunder and bee-steads
brought into camp; and I saw many persons, for many days, taking the honey out
of them; I understood this property and plunder were placed into the hands of
the bishop at Diahmon....The general teachings of the presidency were, that the
kingdom they were setting up was a temporal kingdom...that the time had come
when this kingdom was to be set up by
forcible means, if necessary. It was taught, that the time had come when the
riches of the Gentiles were to be consecrated to the true Israel."
(Testimony of George M. Hinkle, "Senate Document 189".)
"Smith replied, the time had come when he should resist all law...I heard J.
Smith remark, there was a store at Gallatin, and a grocery at Millport; and in
the morning after the conversation between Smith and Wight about resisting the
law, a plan of operations was agreed on, which was: that Captain Fearnaught,
who was present, should take a company of 100 men, or more, and go to Gallatin,
and take it that day; to take the goods out of Gallatin, bring them to Diahmon,
and burn the store...On the same day, in the evening, I saw both these
companies return; the foot company had some plunder..." (Testimony of WW
Phelps, "Senate Document 189").
From Marsh's own sworn legal affidavit of October 24, 1838:
"At the request of citizens of Ray County, I make the following
statement...Joseph Smith, the prophet, had preached a sermon in which he said
that all the Mormons who refused to take up arms, if necessary, in the
difficulties with the citizens, should be shot or otherwise put to death; and
as I was there with my family, I thought it most prudent to go and did go with
my wagon as the driver. We marched to Adam-ondi-Ahman and found no troops or
mob in Davies County....a company of about eighty Mormons, commanded by a man
fictitiously named Captain Fearnaught [apostle and Danite David Patten],
marched to Gallatin...I afterwards learned from the Mormons that they had burnt
Gallatin and that it was done by the aforesaid company
that marched there. The Mormons informed me that they had hauled away all the
goods from the store in Gallatin and deposited them at the Bishop's storehouse
at Diahmon. On the same day, [apostle and Danite] Lyman Wight marched about
eighty horsemen for Millport...The same evening a number of footmen came up
from the direction of Millport laden with property which I was informed
consisted of beds, clocks, and other household furniture...During the same
time, a company called the Fur Company were sent out to bring in fat hogs and
cattle, calling the hogs 'bears', and the cattle 'buffaloes.' They have among
them a company consisting of all that are considered true Mormons, called the
Danites, who have taken an oath to support the heads of the church in all
things that they say or do, whether right or wrong.....The plan of said Smith,
the prophet, is to take this State, and he professed to his people to intend
taking the United States, and ultimately the whole world. This is the belief
of the church, and my own opinion of the prophet's plans and intentions.....The
prophet inculcates the notion, and it is believed by every true Mormon, that
Smith's prophecies are superior to the law of the land. I have heard the
prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies and walk over their dead
bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahomet to this
generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky
Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean....."
I don't find anything about "milk strippings" in Marsh's, or any other
eyewitnesses' testimony of those events; and I have failed to find even one
mention of the alleged "milk strippings" incident in any history on the subject
by any reputable scholar. To the contrary, they all concur that the reason the
Mormons were booted out of Missouri was because of Smith and Rigdon's haughty,
belligerent attitudes and teachings; their calls for violence, their
"revelations" that "justified" their followers stealing from their neighbors;
and their boasts that their organization had a "divine right" to take the state
of Missouri for themselves, by any means necessary, including force.
Late LDS author Harold Schindler recounted the series of events that caused
Governor Boggs to issue his "Extermination Order," which came the day after the
skirmish between Missouri militiamen and Mormon "Danites" at Crooked River:
"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.
56-58.)
Thus we see that the major incident which spurred Boggs to issue his
"Extermination Order" was the Crooked River skirmish, wherein several men on
both sides were killed. That event made Boggs realize that the Mormons would
not peacefully cohabit the state with non-Mormons, and since many Mormons had
taken a secret oath to obey Smith's every order, even those which called on
them to commit crimes, Boggs was forced to evict all of the Mormons from the
state.
So, in view of the documented facts, can anyone honestly believe that Thomas B.
Marsh's "real gripe" was a fight between two women over "milk strippings"?
And, was Gordon B. Hinckley being "honest with his fellow man" by using George
A. Smith's "faith-promoting" version of events, rather than objectively
relating the numerous testimonies of first-hand eyewitnesses and participants?
Of course he wasn't. Hinckley, as well as most other LDS leaders and
apologists, are not interested in relating the actual history of Mormonism;
their agenda is to spin "faith-promoting" tales that attempt to "teach a
lesson," while simultaneously obfuscating the actual facts. The average
rank-and-file Mormon, upon learning that the first president of the Q12 had
"apostasized," would naturally inquire as to the reasons for his "apostasy";
the "milk strippings" story is propagated to conceal the actual reasons, and to
provide an "object lesson" for Mormons in Sunday School class.
For those who wish to read some on-line sources dealing with this subject, I
recommend the following:
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
I also highly recommend Scott Lesueur's "The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri,"
published by the University of Missouri press.
Randy J.
Fool Speck
> <snip>
>
> > Didja ever read up on why the Mormons were booted out of Missouri?
>
> Did you?
>
> I have read up on it. It was because Missourians were intolerant of the
> Gospel. It was because Mormons were hard-working, thrifty, and
> prosperous. Therefore the heathen Missourians were loosing their
> political control over the territory.
>
> Today, we'd execute Missourians for 'hate-crimes'. Especially Gov.
> Boggs! We'd do him like 'Longshanks' did William Wallace. We'd hunt his
> ass down like Osama bin Laden.
>
> I call for Missourians to pay 'reparations' to the Mormons for their
> crimes. Plus interest!
>
> Remember, Randy, the Mormons weren't just 'booted' out. They were
> tortured, murdered, their homes burned, their livestock destroyed, their
> wives and daughters raped, and then their surviving families, if any,
> were 'booted' out in the middle of winter...to starve.
>
> Missourians were no different than the Taliban. But Randy probably
> approves of the Taliban.
>
> Sol
Mormons were not blameless in Missouri. The account of John D Lee, a
devout Mormon and later a key figure in the MMM, tells this about his
own involvement:
http://antimormon.8m.com/leechp6.html
"As I finished my remarks the officer became fearfully enraged, and
said, "That is the way with all you d-d Mormons. You might as well try
to move a mountain as to turn a Mormon from his delusion. Blow the
brains out of this fool! In an instant several guns were leveled on
me. I imagined I already felt the bullets piercing my body. The
soldiers would certainly have shot me down if the officer had not
immediately countermanded his order, by saying, "Hold on, boys, he is
not worth five charges of ammunition." I said, "Gents, I am your
prisoner, unarmed and helpless, and I demand your protection. But if
you consider there is any honor in treating a man, an American
prisoner, in this way, you can do it."
"...The next evening, General Wilson and his command arrived and
camped near my little shanty. I started at once to report to General
Wilson. On my way to him I passed my [gentile] friend McBrier, who had
trusted me for some cattle. I still owed him for them. I told him why
I had been unable to pay him, and wished him to take the cattle back,
as I still had all of them except one cow that had died of the murein;
that it was an honest debt, and I wished to pay it. I asked him to go
to my shanty with me, and said he could take what cattle were left,
and a black mare that was worth $75, and an eight-day clock that was
worth $25, for my note. "I have not got your note," said he. "Who has
it?" I asked him. "I do not know, I supposed you had it." "I never saw
it since I gave it to you. "Well, said he, "my house was burned [by
the Mormons], and all my property either burned or taken from me, and
your note was in the house when it was burned. "Well," said I, "it
matters not with me, if you will take the property and give me a
receipt against the note, so that it cannot be collected the second
time, I will settle the debt." He then said, "I thought you had been
in the party that burned the house, and had taken your note, but I am
now satisfied to the contrary, and that you are an innocent man. All I
ask is for you to renew the note. The property of the Mormons will be
held to pay their debts, and the expenses of the war, and I will get
my pay in that way. You just renew the note, and that will settle all
between us." I then renewed the note, after which he went with me to
General Wilson. McBrier introduced me to a number of the soldiers as
an honest Mormon. This worked well in my favor, and pleased me much,
for it satisfied me more than ever that honesty was the best policy. I
had done nothing that I considered wrong; there was no stolen property
around my house. I did not have to run and hide, or screen any act of
mine from the public gaze. My wife had been treated well personally,
during my absence; no insults had been offered to her, and I was well
pleased at that. I was treated with respect by Gen. Wilson and his
men. True, I was associated with the people that had incurred the
displeasure of the authorities, and my neighbors, who had committed
crimes and larcenies, were then receiving fearful punishment, for all
they had done. The punishment, however, was in a great part owing to
the fault of the people. When the Gentiles found any of their property
that had been stolen, they became very abusive.
"Every house in Adam-on-Diamond was searched by the troops for stolen
property. They succeeded in finding very much of the Gentile property
that had been captured by the Saints in the various raids they made
through the country. Bedding of every kind and in large quantities was
found and reclaimed by the owners. Even spinning wheels, soap barrels
and other articles were recovered. Each house where stolen property
was found was certain to receive a Missouri blessing from the troops.
The men who had been most active in gathering plunder had fled to
Illinois, to escape the vengeance of the people, leaving their
families to suffer for the sins of the bleeding Saints. By the terms
of the treaty all the Mormons were to leave Daviess County within
fifteen days, but they were allowed to stay through the winter in
Caldwell County; but all had to depart from Missouri before the first
day of the next April. There were but few families that met with the
kind treatment that mine did. The majority of the people were censured
and persecuted as much as they were able to stand and live.
"In justice to Joseph Smith I cannot say that I ever heard him teach
or even encourage men to pilfer or steal little things. He told the
people that in an open war the contending factions were justified in
taking spoil to subsist upon during the war; but he did despise this
little, petty stealing. He told the people to wait until the proper
time came to take back their rights, 'Then,' said he, 'take the whole
State of Missouri like men.'
"I did not regret the loss of my property; I gave it up as the price
of my religious freedom; but I did feel cast down to think and know
that I was associated with so many petty thieves, whose ambition never
rose higher than the smoke of their corn-cob pipes. I was sorrowful to
find that the perfection I had thought the people possessed, was not,
in fact, a part of their natures."
The Mormons stole and the Missourians stole. Such is war...
Steve Lowther
TheJordan6
>
>
>Steve Lowther
The larger point is that Joseph Smith produced a "revelation" in 1833 calling
for the "consecration" [theft] of "the riches of the Gentiles, unto my people
which are of the house of Israel." ("Book of Commandments," 1833, Sec.
XLIV:32.)
What today's Mormons do not understand is that the original Mormonism, as
operated by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, was a cult which taught of the
imminent return of Jesus to usher in the "millenium." Since they taught that
Mormonism was the "true house of Israel," and "the Kingdom of God on Earth,"
their attitude was that everything in the earth should belong to "the chosen
people"---them, since everything was to be theirs when Jesus returned anyway,
in 1891, as "prophesied." That attitude was the basis of all the Mormon
troubles in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and Utah. Mormons weren't "persecuted"
solely because of their "religious beliefs"; rather, they were driven from
place to place because everywhere they went, they stole, cheated, lied, or
murdered to get their way; the Mountain Meadows Massacre being the most heinous
example. *ALL* of the troubles the Mormons had in Utah from 1847 to 1904
sprang from the original teachings and policies advocated by Smith and Rigdon
beginning in Ohio in the 1830's. "Persecution" against Mormons only began to
subside when Mormon leaders decided to make "The Great Accomodation" to the
Union to end polygamy and their theocratic dictatorship in the early 1900's.
Randy J.
camnchar
> > Missourians were no different than the Taliban. But Randy probably
> > approves of the Taliban.
> >
> > Sol
Unbelievable! Here we have another instance of a TBM issuing an accusation
of approval without the slightest bit of evidence! Sol, point me to a post
of Randy's where he states his support of the Taliban. If you can't, you
owe Randy an apology.
The persecution of non-Mormons continues!
Chuck
Buzzard
horsecrap has to rank among the bottom 10. "*ALL*" of the persecutions that
the Mormons suffered were their own fault??? In New York, there were not
enough LDS to go about raiding their niegbors even if they wanted to, yet
they were driven out of there. In Jackson County, some members boasted that
Independence was to be the New Jerusalem, but how many Missourians were
driven out the their homes at the point of a gun? Except in the fevered
minds of the Jordan6's of the world, the perponderance of the evidence is
that while the LDS may not have a perfect record, and some sought revenge
for the early depredations of Missourians, the scales of injustice clearly
come down showing that both mobs of irregulars and the Missouri state
militia in its official capacity, delighted in driving the LDS from their
homes and pillaging what was left behind.
Even as the Church was shivering on the west bank of the Mississippi in
1846, there is reason to believe that if we had not produced the Mormon
Battalion, that the US Army would have been dispatched to finish what Gov.
Boggs tried to start. I could go on, but what is the point?
Jordan and his ilk will still be of the opinion that the LDS deserve
everything we got and whatever the anti's care to dish up today. Hey
Jordan, maybe you can get the extermination order reinstated. Would that
make you happy?
Lorin John
aka Buzzard
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020128180133...@mb-mo.aol.com...
Clovis Lark
Surely, the cyber-Danites are roundin' up a posse...
> Chuck
Fool Speck
> Of all the posts that I have ever read on this board, this pile of happy
> horsecrap has to rank among the bottom 10. "*ALL*" of the persecutions that
> the Mormons suffered were their own fault??? In New York, there were not
> enough LDS to go about raiding their niegbors even if they wanted to, yet
> they were driven out of there. In Jackson County, some members boasted that
> Independence was to be the New Jerusalem, but how many Missourians were
> driven out the their homes at the point of a gun? Except in the fevered
> minds of the Jordan6's of the world, the perponderance of the evidence is
> that while the LDS may not have a perfect record, and some sought revenge
> for the early depredations of Missourians, the scales of injustice clearly
> come down showing that both mobs of irregulars and the Missouri state
> militia in its official capacity, delighted in driving the LDS from their
> homes and pillaging what was left behind.
> Even as the Church was shivering on the west bank of the Mississippi in
> 1846, there is reason to believe that if we had not produced the Mormon
> Battalion, that the US Army would have been dispatched to finish what Gov.
> Boggs tried to start. I could go on, but what is the point?
> Jordan and his ilk will still be of the opinion that the LDS deserve
> everything we got and whatever the anti's care to dish up today. Hey
> Jordan, maybe you can get the extermination order reinstated. Would that
> make you happy?
> Lorin John
> aka Buzzard
You are not accurately representing Randy's view here. You are also
over representing the innocence of the LDS. Read John D. Lee. Read
the testimony from WW Phelps, and other prominent LDS who testified
against Joseph Smith -- many who came back into the Church later
without having to confess to any lies.
Were the Mormons mistreated? Yes they were, and badly often times.
They were not, however, as innocent as faith-promoting history makes
them out to be.
Steve Lowther
Buzzard
He is the one who used the word "ALL" in caps. That seems to be a pretty
clear position.
You are also
> over representing the innocence of the LDS.
A matter of perspective, I suppose. I allow that some individual saints
sought revenge after the initial outrages by Missourians, and Rigdon's
speech was a monument to stupidity and arrogance. But the church never as
an institution tried to drive Missourians from their homes. The same cannot
be said for the official organs of the State of Missouri. BTW, it was
still legal to kill Mormons in Missouri until about 25 years ago.
Read John D. Lee. Read
> the testimony from WW Phelps, and other prominent LDS who testified
> against Joseph Smith -- many who came back into the Church later
> without having to confess to any lies.
While I have not read Lee, I have read Phelps. He came back in the church
asking forgiveness.
>
> Were the Mormons mistreated? Yes they were, and badly often times.
> They were not, however, as innocent as faith-promoting history makes
> them out to be.
>
> Steve Lowther
Well, I have my Great-great-great-great grandpa's journal account of what
happened to his family. Not a pretty sight and he never raised a weapon in
aggression or even self-defense.
Lorin John
aka Buzzard
Cheap Suit
>
> A matter of perspective, I suppose. I allow that some individual saints
> sought revenge after the initial outrages by Missourians, and Rigdon's
> speech was a monument to stupidity and arrogance. But the church never as
> an institution tried to drive Missourians from their homes. The same cannot
> be said for the official organs of the State of Missouri. BTW, it was
> still legal to kill Mormons in Missouri until about 25 years ago.
please provide the reference that stated that it was legal to kill mormons.
dangerous
think global, act loco
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
chea...@dangerous1.com
<www.dangerous1.com>
don marchant
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
Clovis Lark
D&C 52:42 And thus, even as I have said, if ye are faithful ye shall
assemble yourselves together to rejoice upon the land of Missouri, which
is the land of your inheritance, which is now the land of your enemies.
D&C 101:55 And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go
and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength
of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of
middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house,
save those only whom I have appointed to tarry;
D&C 101:56 And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem
my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money.
D&C 101:57 Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the
walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen.
D&C 101:58 And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of
mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and
possess the land.
D&C 103:25 And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me
of mine enemies.
D&C 103:26 And my presence shall be with you even in avenging me of mine
enemies, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
> be said for the official organs of the State of Missouri. BTW, it was
> still legal to kill Mormons in Missouri until about 25 years ago.
Ya think?
> Read John D. Lee. Read
>> the testimony from WW Phelps, and other prominent LDS who testified
>> against Joseph Smith -- many who came back into the Church later
>> without having to confess to any lies.
> While I have not read Lee, I have read Phelps. He came back in the church
> asking forgiveness.
There was a certain Bishop named Philip Klingon Smith who testified at
Lee's trial. Afterwards, he was aided in stepping on a rainbow in Nevada.
>>
>> Were the Mormons mistreated? Yes they were, and badly often times.
>> They were not, however, as innocent as faith-promoting history makes
>> them out to be.
>>
>> Steve Lowther
> Well, I have my Great-great-great-great grandpa's journal account of what
> happened to his family. Not a pretty sight and he never raised a weapon in
> aggression or even self-defense.
Tom Taylor has a g-g-g-grandfatehr who left a record as well. Go
figger...
> Lorin John
> aka Buzzard
Buzzard
"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:a3bhvh$im5$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
Well, they weren't faithful enough (matter of historical and scriptural
record), and in any case, wanted to buy the land, not burn out the current
occupants. (D&C 101:70)
>
> D&C 101:55 And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go
> and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength
> of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of
> middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house,
> save those only whom I have appointed to tarry;
> D&C 101:56 And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem
> my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money.
> D&C 101:57 Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the
> walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen.
> D&C 101:58 And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of
> mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and
> possess the land.
>
> D&C 103:25 And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me
> of mine enemies.
> D&C 103:26 And my presence shall be with you even in avenging me of mine
> enemies, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
Interesting. This passage is a parable, not a direct commandment or call to
action. The commandment was to BUY the land, as stated above.
Even Zion's camp, which was established for the purpose of rescuing the
Missouri saints from the local criminal element (read: most of the local
male residents), disbanded upon reaching Missouri.
>
> > be said for the official organs of the State of Missouri. BTW, it was
> > still legal to kill Mormons in Missouri until about 25 years ago.
>
> Ya think?
Yup. Extermination order still in place until rescinded by Gov. Christopher
Bond around 1980. Sorry if I don't have the exact date.
>
> > Read John D. Lee. Read
> >> the testimony from WW Phelps, and other prominent LDS who testified
> >> against Joseph Smith -- many who came back into the Church later
> >> without having to confess to any lies.
>
> > While I have not read Lee, I have read Phelps. He came back in the
church
> > asking forgiveness.
>
> There was a certain Bishop named Philip Klingon Smith who testified at
> Lee's trial. Afterwards, he was aided in stepping on a rainbow in Nevada.
>
What?
> >>
> >> Were the Mormons mistreated? Yes they were, and badly often times.
> >> They were not, however, as innocent as faith-promoting history makes
> >> them out to be.
> >>
> >> Steve Lowther
>
> > Well, I have my Great-great-great-great grandpa's journal account of
what
> > happened to his family. Not a pretty sight and he never raised a weapon
in
> > aggression or even self-defense.
>
> Tom Taylor has a g-g-g-grandfatehr who left a record as well. Go
> figger...
I'll go with mine, if that's OK with you.
>
> > Lorin John
> > aka Buzzard
>
>
Buzzard again
Clovis Lark
Extermination order was superceded by Federal and State laws forbidding
such action. Ask any lawyer. However, it does bring to mind another
question that once surfaced here regarding hate crime legislation. One
argument against such legislation was that the penalties and proscriptions
for these crimes were already covered by legislation in place. So, why
not ask right here, why would it be necessary to remove Boggs' inane order
since it is clearly superceded by other law? The answer is obvious, and,
of course, it explains why hate crime legislation is NOT redundant.
>>
>> > Read John D. Lee. Read
>> >> the testimony from WW Phelps, and other prominent LDS who testified
>> >> against Joseph Smith -- many who came back into the Church later
>> >> without having to confess to any lies.
>>
>> > While I have not read Lee, I have read Phelps. He came back in the
> church
>> > asking forgiveness.
>>
>> There was a certain Bishop named Philip Klingon Smith who testified at
>> Lee's trial. Afterwards, he was aided in stepping on a rainbow in Nevada.
>>
> What?
The Church gave him his "marching" orders...
>> >>
>> >> Were the Mormons mistreated? Yes they were, and badly often times.
>> >> They were not, however, as innocent as faith-promoting history makes
>> >> them out to be.
>> >>
>> >> Steve Lowther
>>
>> > Well, I have my Great-great-great-great grandpa's journal account of
> what
>> > happened to his family. Not a pretty sight and he never raised a weapon
> in
>> > aggression or even self-defense.
>>
>> Tom Taylor has a g-g-g-grandfatehr who left a record as well. Go
>> figger...
> I'll go with mine, if that's OK with you.
I think he left long ago without you, but that's another story, eh?
whynot?
I was a kid in high school when then Missouri Govenor Kit Bond had
repealed the "Exterminate the Mormons" Act. It made quite a little
splash in the local news. It is a matter of public record, verifiable
by anyone who cared to do a little research in state archives.
Fool Speck
This is a ridiculous assertion, and of course you have no evidence to
back it up.
> > > Jordan and his ilk will still be of the opinion that the LDS deserve
> > > everything we got and whatever the anti's care to dish up today. Hey
> > > Jordan, maybe you can get the extermination order reinstated. Would
> that
> > > make you happy?
> > > Lorin John
> > > aka Buzzard
> >
> > You are not accurately representing Randy's view here.
>
>
> He is the one who used the word "ALL" in caps. That seems to be a pretty
> clear position.
I have seen nothing written from any critic who says the Mormons got
what they deserved. The message has consistently been that the
Mormons were no angels, and many exascerbated their treatment by their
low brow antics. This is what John D. Lee was saying in the original
post. In fact he says he fared better than the many caught with
stolen property.
>
> You are also
> > over representing the innocence of the LDS.
>
> A matter of perspective, I suppose. I allow that some individual saints
> sought revenge after the initial outrages by Missourians, and Rigdon's
> speech was a monument to stupidity and arrogance. But the church never as
> an institution tried to drive Missourians from their homes.
You clearly are unfamiliar with the organized attacks the Mormons made
on the Missourians, particularly one where apostle David Patton was
killed. It is very plain that they succumbed to the retribution fever
that Christians are supposed to avoid. And they paid for it with
Missouri one upsmanship.
The same cannot
> be said for the official organs of the State of Missouri. BTW, it was
> still legal to kill Mormons in Missouri until about 25 years ago.
The Bogg's extermination order was rescinded in 1976, and it was my
post a few years back that addressed that very issue. I also posted
the rescinsion. In reality if a Mormon was murdered in Missouri prior
to 1976, the extermination order would not protect his murderer.
Today "exterminate" means solely to kill. However the 1828 Webster's
Dictionary says:
EXTERM'INATE, v.t. [L. 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 exterminate error,
heresy, infidelity or atheism; to exterminate vice.
As you can note, there are other options available in exterminating
other than
simply killing.
> Read John D. Lee. Read
> > the testimony from WW Phelps, and other prominent LDS who testified
> > against Joseph Smith -- many who came back into the Church later
> > without having to confess to any lies.
>
> While I have not read Lee, I have read Phelps. He came back in the church
> asking forgiveness.
Then you are familiar with how he was not a howling, finger-pointing
maniac. In fact Phelps was reluctant in his testimony, and everything
he said was very plausible as he spoke in specifics. One senses that
he did not want to betray the actions of his brethren, but that he was
committed to telling the truth. Of course he missed his fellow
churchmen, but you better believe he was much the wiser after he came
crawling back. I cannot however, criticize the forgiveness Joseph
showed him. That was one of Joseph's strengths.
> > Were the Mormons mistreated? Yes they were, and badly often times.
> > They were not, however, as innocent as faith-promoting history makes
> > them out to be.
> >
> > Steve Lowther
>
> Well, I have my Great-great-great-great grandpa's journal account of what
> happened to his family. Not a pretty sight and he never raised a weapon in
> aggression or even self-defense.
Good for him; he followed Christ's example. That was the right thing
to do. Now how do you know that a corresponding Missourian didn't
suffer the same thing at the hands of the Mormons? Does all of this
boil down to who threw the first punch?
The reality is that the Mormons suffered greatly, and there were
injustices committed against them. Same thing goes for the
Missourians except to a lesser degree. It was, after all, the
Missourians that won that war.
What is not reality is the innocent light the Church portrays itself
in. There was plenty of guilt for the Mormons as well.
Steve Lowther
TheJordan6
>Of all the posts that I have ever read on this board, this pile of happy
horsecrap has to rank among the bottom 10. "*ALL*" of the persecutions that
the Mormons suffered were their own fault???
That's correct.
> In New York, there were not enough LDS to go about raiding their neighbors
even if they wanted to, yet they were driven out of there.
The "official faith-promoting version" of why the Mormonites left New York is
that god commanded them to "assemble together at the Ohio" (D&C 37:3) to be
"endowed with power from on high" (D&C 38:32).
The real reason is that the Smiths' folk-magic and money-digging practices were
too well known in NY for his tales of visions and gold plates to succeed with
the locals. Four years after Joseph Smith's "peep-stoning" trial at
Bainbridge, New York on March 20, 1826, he returned to the area and attempted
to "preach the Book of Mormon," but his past reputation precluded much success.
Read the 1830-31 New York newspaper accounts of the Smiths' and Sidney
Rigdon's money-digging activities at
http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/artindex.htm
Also read A. W. Benton's article in the "Evangelical Messenger and Advocate" of
March 1831 at
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1877Purp.htm#040931
As Abner Cole of the "Palmyra Reflector" wrote in February, 1831:
"It however appears quite certain that the prophet himself never made any
serious pretensions to religion until his late pretended revelation [the Book
of Mormon].....It is well known that Joe Smith never pretended to have any
communion with angels, until a long period after the pretended finding of his
book, and that the juggling of himself or father went no further than the
pretended faculty of seeing wonders in a 'peep stone,' and the occasional
interview with the spirit, supposed to have the custody of hidden treasures:
and it is also equally well known that a vagabond fortune-teller by the name of
Walters, who.....was once committed to the jail of this county for juggling,
was the constant companion and bosom friend of these money digging imposters."
Smith had little choice but to move his fledgling flock of believers---several
of whom had been his companions in folk-magic and money-digging schemes---to
Ohio to join with Sidney Rigdon's group of communal "Restorationists". There,
Smith and Rigdon merged their ideas and instituted the hierarchal system that
became the "Church of the Latter-Day Saints."
>In Jackson County, some members boasted that Independence was to be the New
Jerusalem, but how many Missourians were
driven out of their homes at the point of a gun?
The Mormons' problems went far beyond "boasting." Smith and Rigdon taught that
their organization was "the kingdom of God on earth," and as such, it held
claim over all lands and property on earth, with Jackson County as the "center
place of Zion", and that all non-Mormons must leave the area. (In reality,
Smith and Rigdon's desire for the rich, treeless, farmland in western Missouri
was to build an agriculture-based economic empire wherein they could enrich
themselves by selling crops and goods at high prices at nearby Fort
Leavenworth.)
In 1832, Smith produced a "revelation" whch stated:
"For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets
shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles, unto my
people which are of the house of Israel." (BOC 44:32.)
Smith and Rigdon, from Ohio, ordered W. W. Phelps to print the "Book of
Commandments" on his press in Missouri. David Whitmer, who was the Missouri
stake president at the time, recounted how the unwise publication of those
"revelations" got the Mormons booted out of Jackson County:
"The main reason why the printing press was destroyed, was because they
published the Book of Commandments. It fell into the hands of the world, and
the people of Jackson county, Missouri, saw from the revelations that they were
considered by the church as intruders upon the land of Zion, as enemies to the
church, and that they should be cut off out of the land of Zion and sent away.
The people seeing these things in the Book of Commandments became the more
enraged, tore down the printing press, and drove the church out of Jackson
county. (See Doc. and Cov., Sections 52 : 9, 64 : 7, 45 : 15.) Which is the
land of your inheritance. Which is now the land of your enemies. And the
rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away,
and shall not inherit the land. "And now I say unto you, keep these things from
going abroad unto the world, until it is expedient in me, that ye may
accomplish this work in the eyes of the people, and in the eyes of your
enemies, that they may not know your works until ye have accomplished the thing
which I have commanded you." This is sufficient. I will quote no more to show
you that the leaders made a mistake in publishing the revelations in a book. It
is too plain. Brethren, does it not look strange that they should have been so
blind as to go ahead and publish these revelations in the face of this plain
language to keep these things from the world? It surely does look strange.
"In the spring of 1832, in Hiram, Ohio, Brothers Joseph and Sydney, and others,
concluded that the
revelations should be printed in a book. A few of the brethren -- including
myself --objected to it seriously. We told them that if the revelations were
published, the world would get the books, and it would not do; that it was not
the will of the Lord that the revelations should be published. But Brothers
Joseph and Sydney would not listen to us, and said they were going to send them
to Independence to be published. I objected to it and withstood Brothers
Joseph and Sydney to the face. Brother Joseph said as follows: "Any man who
objects to having these revelations published, shall have his part taken out of
the Tree of Life and out of the Holy City." The Spirit of God came upon me and
I prophesied to them in the name of the Lord: "That if they sent those
revelations to Independence to be published in a book, the people would come
upon them and tear down the printing press, and the church would be driven out
of Jackson county." Brothers Joseph and Sydney laughed at me. Early in the
spring of 1833, at Independence, Mo., the revelations were printed in the Book
of Commandments. Many of the books were finished and distributed among the
members of the church, and through some of the unwise brethren, the world got
hold of some of them. From that time the ill-feeling toward us began to
increase; and in the summer of 1833 the mob came upon us, tore down the
printing press, and drove the church out of Jackson county." ("An Address to
all Believers in the Book of Mormon")
In light of these facts, it's a wonder that the Mormons weren't kicked
completely out of Missouri at that time, in 1834; but state officials were
lenient, and they created the new county of Caldwell for the 1200 or so Mormons
to have to themselves. Also, it's amusing that modern Mormons complain about
their forefathers being booted out of Jackson County, when Joseph Smith himself
stated that the reason for their expulsion was their own disobedience.
>Except in the fevered minds of the Jordan6's of the world, the perponderance
of the evidence is that while the LDS may not have a perfect record, and some
sought revenge for the early depredations of Missourians,
To the contrary, after the Mormons had settled in Caldwell County, they lived
in relative peace with their neighbors:
"After the organization of Caldwell County (in December 1836) the prospects for
peaceful coexistence, even friendly relations, between the Mormons and the
citizens of northern Missouri stirred sanguine expectations in both groups.
Despite initial misgivings, some of the Missourians reached out to assist their
Mormon neighbors: merchants furnished Mormon individuals with large stocks of
goods on credit; others lent the Saints money to purchase land; and the poorer
Mormons found employment outside of Caldwell among non-Mormon friends.
Cooperation and trust replaced the suspicions of the past as relations between
the Mormons and the Missourians improved remarkably during the next year. The
'Elders' Journal', a monthly periodical published by the Mormons in Caldwell
County, reported in July 1838 that 'the Saints here are at perfect peace with
all the surrounding inhabitants, and persecution is not so much as once named
among them'.....John Corrill, a Mormon resident of the new county, concurred,
stating, 'Friendship began to be restored between them [the Mormons] and their
neighbors, the old prejudices were dying away, until the summer of 1838.' "
("The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri," Stephen LeSueur, pp. 24-25.)
Problems arose again when Smith and Rigdon were forced to flee Kirtland upon
the failure of their bank, and returned to Missouri in the spring of 1838. As
Bishop Corrill further stated, "The Church in Caldwell had been doing well,
with the exception of these
little difficulties among themselves, until the First Presidency came to
Far West, and began to move things to their own notions. Many of the
Church had settled in Davies [Daviess] County, and to all appearance,
lived as peaceably with their neighbors as people generally do; but not
long after Smith and Rigden [Rigdon] arrived in Far West, they went to
Davies [Daviess] County and pitched upon a place to build a town.
L.[Lyman] Wight was already on the ground with his family. They laid out
a town and began to settle it pretty rapidly; Smith gave it the name of
Adamondiaman [Adam-ondi-Ahman], which he said was formerly given to a
certain valley, where Adam, previous to his death, called his children
together and blessed them. The interpretation in English is, "The valley
of God, in which Adam blessed his children." Many of the Church became
elated with the idea of settling in and round about the new town,
especially those who had come from Kirtland, as it was designed more
particularly for them. This stirred up the people of Davies [Daviess] in
some degree; they saw that if this town was built up rapidly it would
injure Gallatin, their county seat, and also that the Mormons would soon
overrun Davies [Daviess], and rule the county, and they did not like to
live under the laws and administration of 'Joe Smith.' Lyman Wight also
would frequently boast in his discourses of what they would do if the
mob did not let them alone,--they would fight, and they would die upon
the ground, and they would not give up their rights, etc.; when, as yet,
there was no mob. But this preaching inspired the Mormons with a
fighting spirit, and some of the other citizens began to be stirred up
to anger." ("A Brief History of the Church")
As Corrill stated, "as yet there was no mob", until Smith and Rigdon returned,
ordering a new communistic system to be instituted, and laying out plats for
Mormon towns and temples. Along with them came most of the Kirtland Mormons
who had not apostasized. "By the summer of 1838, the numbers in northern
Missouri totaled fifteen thousand. It was inevitable that persecution would
follow. All the old causes of disquiet were there intensified by numbers. One
county would not hold the Mormons. They were overflowing into all northwestern
Missouri. In a few years they might conceivably dominate the state." ("The
Restored Church," William E. Berrett, pp. 137-138.)
In addition, several Missouri Mormons, who had refused to sign over their lands
to Smith and Rigdon for communal farming---including David and John Whitmer,
Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, and Lyman Johnson---were driven out of the area
by the newly-formed "Danites", which group was established to "put right
physically that which.....cannot be put right by teachings and persuasyons...."
("The Papers of Joseph Smith," vol. 2, p. 262.)
Rigdon warned the dissenters to "depart before a more fatal calamity befalls
you," and he warned of a "war of extermination" between the Mormons and
Missourians, if the Mormons did not have their way in the state. Smith then
threatened a "war of blood and gore from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic,"
which further incited their followers to do battle.
>the scales of injustice clearly come down showing that both mobs of irregulars
and the Missouri state militia in its official capacity, delighted in driving
the LDS from their homes and pillaging what was left behind.
That's certainly the perspective of someone who has only studied the
"faith-promoting" version of the events. In actuality, the final expulsion of
the Mormons came after the "Danites" had pillaged and burned the towns of
Gallatin, Millport, and Grinders Fork; several of the looting "Danites" had
been captured by Missouri militia; Joseph Smith sent David Patten, the "Danite"
general, to free the captives from the militia at Crooked River; Patten, two
other Mormons, and two militiamen were killed; reports of the battle were sent
to Governor Boggs; and he issued his "extermination order" because it was clear
to him that the Mormons were "in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of
the laws, and of having made war upon this state."
>Even as the Church was shivering on the west bank of the Mississippi in
1846, there is reason to believe that if we had not produced the Mormon
Battalion, that the US Army would have been dispatched to finish what Gov.
Boggs tried to start.
<chuckle> I see you've been deceived on that issue as well. After the Mormons
were established in Utah, Brigham Young began spinning the tale that the
drafting of the Battalion was further "persecution" by the federal government.
In actual fact, President Polk allowed the Mormons to send 500 men as soldiers
to guard new U. S. territories in California, as an act of sympathy towards the
Mormons. The government even sent the soldier's pay in advance so that the
Mormons could purchase supplies for their families to make the trek to Utah
(although Brigham Young was accused of appropriating some of the pay for
himself, and many soldiers' families never received a dollar of the money.)
Young's claims that the Battalions' draft was "persecution" are negated by the
statement of John Taylor in the "Millenial Star" in 1846:
"...the President of the United States is favourably disposed to us. He has
sent out orders to have five hundred of our brethren employed in an
expedition.....it amounts to the same as paying them for going to the place
where they were destined to go without."
B. H. Roberts confirmed Taylor's statement: "Jesse C. Little..... had been
appointed to preside over the Eastern States Mission with instructions to visit
Washington.....Elder Little contacted the federal administration
and.....obtained the promise of President James K. Polk that an opportunity
would be given for a company of at least 500 men.....For a long time it was
represented as current traditional history that the opportunity given for
enlistment was a 'demand' or 'requisition' or 'draft'.....made from sinister
motives of encompassing the destruction of the moving caravans either by
scattering or annihilating them.....Nothing of this kind, of course, could be
implied in the action of the administration at Washington, still it was so
reported and believed. In the first place, a much larger offer than 500 men
was tendered to the administration, and the service was almost piteously
pleaded for by a representative of the church.....The quota in most of the
states was over-subscribed by three times the number asked for, and the United
States did not realy need the service of the Mormon Battalion of 500 men....."
("History of the Church," vol. 7, pp. 611-613.)
In light of these facts, it's likely that Brigham Young spun the Battalion
incident into a tale of "persecution" to cover his embezzlement of some of the
soldiers' pay, and to further depict the federal government as "anti-Mormon,"
to help incite his followers to obey his orders to fight Johnson's Army.
>I could go on, but what is the point?
Indeed, what is the point of going on, when it is painfully obvious that your
views on Mormon history are obtained from one-sided, agenda-driven apologetic
propaganda, rather than from a legitimate study of the subject.
>Jordan and his ilk will still be of the opinion that the LDS deserve
everything we got and whatever the anti's care to dish up today.
I don't believe that all 19th-century Mormons deserved what they got---the
blame must go to the leaders who instituted concepts and policies which led to
their destruction. However, the problems that 19th-century Mormons dealt with
should be a lesson in the impropriety of blindly obeying men who claim to be
"prophets of God," and that Americans are better off when they do their own
thinking.
>Hey Jordan, maybe you can get the extermination order reinstated. Would that
make you happy?
Lorin John
aka Buzzard
This is yet another wild, inappropriate statement borne out of typical Mormon
fanaticism and ignorance.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Thu, Jan 31, 2002 16:10 EST
>Message-id: <90779538.02013...@posting.google.com>
Bond's 1976 rescission of the "extermination order" is not in dispute.
However, it was done merely as a PR move to placate Mormons. In reality, the
'extermination order' was no more effective before Bond's rescission than any
other outmoded laws that have been left on the books all over the country, such
as those which make the news occasionally, like ones which make it illegal for
automobiles to drive on city streets because they scare horses.
Boggs' 'extermination order' never made it legal to 'kill Mormons,' as ignorant
Mormons assert; rather, Boggs merely used the term to counter Sidney Rigdon's
call for a 'war of extermination' between the Mormons and Missourians.
Rigdon's unwise comment came four months before Bogg's order. The order
stated that 'the Mormons must be exterminated, or driven from the state.'
Mormons George Hinkle, John Corrill and Reed Peck negotiated the peaceful
Mormon surrender with General Lucas; although, if Joseph Smith had not
surrendered to the militia at Far West, he and his 800-odd army may very well
have been wiped out. Only Smith and the few other Mormons who were identified
as leaders of the insurrection were arrested; the vast majority of
rank-and-file Mormons were given until the following spring to leave the state.
Numerous Mormons who did not participate in the conflict remained in Missouri
for years, including the Whitmers, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and W. W.
Phelps. They did not fear being 'killed' by Boggs' order. And of course,
various splinter groups of Mormons have maintained property in Missouri since
the 1838 conflict. The RLDS Church's headquarters are in Independence, and the
LDS Church has owned property there, as well as visitors' centers, for decades.
My own Mormon family toured the Liberty Jail Visitors' Center in 1967, and I
don't recall any threats being made against our lives.
The point being, that Boggs' 'extermination order' only applied to the 1838
conflict, and other incidents resulting from that era. I know of only about
20 Mormons who were killed in the Missouri conflict, and none since.
Mormons who continue to dredge up the order as 'being legal to kill Mormons in
Missouri until just a few years ago' are simply demonstrating their fanaticism
and ignorance. This kind of nonsense is apparently repeated in seminary
classes or similar situations, and most Mormons go throgh life believing it's
the gospel truth without checking the facts out for themselves.
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
I traveled back and forth thru Missouri many times in the 70's. No one tried to
kill me. In North Dakota it's still legal to shoot an indian if he is on
horseback, and you are in a covered wagon. But I wouldn't recommend it.
dangerous
think global, act loco
David Baxter
>
>Also read A. W. Benton's article in the "Evangelical Messenger and
Advocate" of
>
>As Abner Cole of the "Palmyra Reflector" wrote in February, 1831:......
as the saying goes, It is easy to condemn a man out of the mouths of his
enemies, or something like that. This is exactly what has happened in the
history written by those against the Lords church.
>Indeed, what is the point of going on, when it is painfully obvious that
your
>views on Mormon history are obtained from one-sided, agenda-driven
apologetic
>propaganda, rather than from a legitimate study of the subject.
One-sided? Agenda-driven propaganda? This is sounding very familiar.
Baxt
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Feb 3, 2002 04:16 EST
>Message-id: <3C5CFFFC...@dangerous1.com>
Exactly. These fanatics seem to think that until Bond's 1976 rescission, that
armed guards stood at the Missouri state line waiting to kill all Mormons who
crossed it. The reason today's Mormons are taught this kind of nonsense is to
obfuscate the real reasons the Mormons were booted out of MIssouri in 1838.
Church leaders and apologists want today's Mormons to believe that they were
kicked out for no reason whatsoever other than "religious bigotry." They have
brainwashed millions of rank-and-file Mormons into believing that Lilburn Boggs
was the lowest scum this side of Adolph Hitler, and that the entire state of
Missouri was just one big "anti-Mormon mob" hell-bent on "persecuting Mormons
for their beliefs."
> In North Dakota it's still legal to shoot an indian if he is on
>horseback, and you are in a covered wagon. But I wouldn't recommend it.
> dangerous
> think global, act loco
Hey, if he's holding up traffic.......
Randy J.
><------------------------------------------------------------------------
------>
> chea...@dangerous1.com
> <www.dangerous1.com>
> don marchant
>
><------------------------------------------------------------------------
------>
>
>
></PRE></HTML>
TheJordan6
>Date: Mon, Feb 4, 2002 09:53 EST
>Message-id: <a3m79j$6np$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
>
>> Read the 1830-31 New York newspaper accounts ........
>>
>>Also read A. W. Benton's article in the "Evangelical Messenger and
>Advocate" of
>>March 1831 at.......
>>
>>As Abner Cole of the "Palmyra Reflector" wrote in February, 1831:......
>as the saying goes, It is easy to condemn a man out of the mouths of his
>enemies, or something like that.
To begin with, you are assuming that published reports of the Smiths'
folk-magic and money-digging practices originated from his alleged "enemies."
Mormon apologists have created the lie that the reports of Smith's occult
practices were the product of an "apostate," Philastus Hurlbut. The problem
with that assertion is that Hurlbut didn't even join the Mormonite church until
May 1833, and he didn't begin investigating Smith's background until late 1833.
The reason those pre-Hurlbut newspaper reports are important in analyzing
early Mormon history is that they show that the reports of Smith's occult
practices were widely known before Hurlbut's 1833 investigation.
Secondly, your assertion that those reports were produced by Smith's "enemies"
is only your opinion. They just as likely originated from Smith's friends and
relatives, since several of his friends and relatives also gave accounts of his
1820's folk-magic and money-digging practices, for decades. In 1838, Smith
himself admitted to having been a "money-digger", although he tried to downplay
his involvement in the practice. Your assertion that such reports originated
from Smith's "enemies" assumes that such reports were false; however, the fact
that those reports are corroborated from sources friendly to Smith and
Mormonism refutes your opinion.
Thirdly, A. W. Benton had attended Smith's 1826 "glass-looking" trial, and that
is why he was able to record such a thorough account of the event in his 1831
article; and details of Benton's account are supported by numerous other
independent accounts. The issue of whether or not that 1826 trial occurred is
not in dispute by legitimate historians, nor is the issue of Smith's occultic
practices. I recommend you read Richard L. Bushman's "Joseph Smith and the
Beginnings of Mormonism," Michael Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World
View," John L. Brooke's "The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology,
1644-1844," or Allen & Leonard's "The Story of the Latter-Day Saints."
And lastly, you've missed the point of my remarks entirely. The poster to whom
I responded was discussing why the early Mormonites had to leave New York. My
remarks were to show that Smith and his family were too well-known as occultic
folk-magicians from years back, for his claims of visions, angels, and gold
plates to succeed on the populace of New York. It was no different than if
your neighborhood fortune-teller who had been plying her trade for years
suddenly announced that she had seen "God" and was told to "restore the true
religion" today. Her problem would be credibility, and that was Smith's
problem in NY in 1830.
Whether you personally believe those reports or not is not the issue; the issue
is that those reports prevented Smith from having much success in NY. Those
early newspaper reports also provide evidence as to why Smith merged his
fledgling flock with Rigdon's in Ohio.
> This is exactly what has happened in the
>history written by those against the Lord's church.
How do you know that "the history written by those against the Lord's church"
is false, and that the church's version of its history is true? Have you ever
done any research into how much of early Mormon history has been revised or
redacted by the church itself, beginning with Joseph Smith himself? For
instance, have you studied the differences between the 1833 "Book of
Commandments" and the 1835 "Doctrine & Covenants," and why those changes were
made? Have you studied the earliest documentation of the "restoration of the
priesthood," to see why it doesn't jibe with what the church says about it
today? Have you studied early Mormon newspapers, and compared what was written
in them to the revised versions of them which were recorded in the "History of
the Church?"
When you do a serious study of Mormon history, you may very well come to
realize that its revision has been accomplished not by Smith's "enemies," but
by him and his apologists.
>>Indeed, what is the point of going on, when it is painfully obvious that
>your
>>views on Mormon history are obtained from one-sided, agenda-driven
>apologetic
>>propaganda, rather than from a legitimate study of the subject.
>One-sided? Agenda-driven propaganda? This is sounding very familiar.
>
>Baxt
You haven't offered any rebuttal to any information I posted, so the above
comment needs no response.
Since you snipped about 95% of my post, without offering an intelligent
rebuttal to a single point, I suggest you go back and have another go at it.
Randy J.
Fool Speck
> Lorin John aka Buzzard wrote:
>
> >Of all the posts that I have ever read on this board, this pile of happy
> horsecrap has to rank among the bottom 10. "*ALL*" of the persecutions that
> the Mormons suffered were their own fault???
>
> That's correct.
>
> > In New York, there were not enough LDS to go about raiding their neighbors
> even if they wanted to, yet they were driven out of there.
>
> The "official faith-promoting version" of why the Mormonites left New York is
> that god commanded them to "assemble together at the Ohio" (D&C 37:3) to be
> "endowed with power from on high" (D&C 38:32).
>
> The real reason is that the Smiths' folk-magic and money-digging practices were
<snip>
> However, the problems that 19th-century Mormons dealt with
> should be a lesson in the impropriety of blindly obeying men who claim to be
> "prophets of God," and that Americans are better off when they do their own
> thinking.
>
> >Hey Jordan, maybe you can get the extermination order reinstated. Would that
> make you happy?
> Lorin John
> aka Buzzard
>
> This is yet another wild, inappropriate statement borne out of typical Mormon
> fanaticism and ignorance.
>
> Randy J.
Randy, your post is extremely well documented and blows the "religous
persecution" theory for the Mormon war in Missouri right out of the
water. While I previously felt that religious intolerance was a major
factor, now I can see from the Church's own writings that this was
simply not the case, and am even disappointed that religious
persecution wasn't as much of a factor.
I am sure we can find injustices dealt to the Mormons here, but we can
also find injustices dealt to the Missourians as found in John D.
Lee's writings.
If the apologists ever need to rebut the argument, the time is now.
Congratulations on a very informative post.
Steve Lowther
Fool Speck
Atta boy, Baxt! Now all you need to do is show us how it is not
one-sided, agenda-driven apologetic propaganda. Innuendos count for
zilch!
Looking forward to your (or any apologist's) post restoring my faith
in the religious persecution theory for the Boggs' extermination
order.
Steve Lowther
Buzzard
and after a while, especially in the 20th century the LDS church had a
presence there. But the law remained on the books. 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.
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. There was fault on both sides,
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. 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. Not exactly an
endorsement of the high moral character of Missourians. Or are you going to
rise to the defense of the Confederacy now?
Lorin John
aka Buzzard
Buzzard
>
> And lastly, you've missed the point of my remarks entirely. The poster to
whom
> I responded was discussing why the early Mormonites had to leave New York.
My
> remarks were to show that Smith and his family were too well-known as
occultic
> folk-magicians from years back, for his claims of visions, angels, and
gold
> plates to succeed on the populace of New York. It was no different than
if
> your neighborhood fortune-teller who had been plying her trade for years
> suddenly announced that she had seen "God" and was told to "restore the
true
> religion" today. Her problem would be credibility, and that was Smith's
> problem in NY in 1830.
>
less their supposed "occultic" activities in the local press until *after*
1823. The Smith's were just another family of farmers until young Joseph
started making his claims of heavenly visitations.
All of a sudden, why *everybody* suddenly knew them, and knew them to be
running around the countryside looking for gold. The story is more
complicated than that, I know, but the Smiths were not famous or infamous
until this whole thing with Moroni got going. Kind of like in LA where
everybody knew a movie star back when he/she was in high school. In fact,
now that they think of it, he/she was my best friend, yeah!
Show me a pre-1823 article about the Smith's, and I'll shut up.
Lorin John
aka Buzzard
Buzzard
Some of us are less impressed than you. History has many sides, and the
"Mormons got what they deserved" angle is both old and discredited. At
least I allowed that not all the Saints were saints, but Jordan (and you, I
suppose) seem to nominate Missourians for the enlightened citizenship award.
Bottom line is, the Mormons got tossed because of:
1. Fear of a political takeover by abolitionist Yankees.
2. Religous persecution.
3. Greed-The chance to appropriate good cleared farmland without paying for
it.
4. The Mormons fighting back after the depredations of Jackson County, and
in some cases getting a bit vengeful.
5. Mormons being stupid and running off at the mouth, S. Rigdon being
exhibit A.
Lorin John
aka Buzzard
Fool Speck
> > Randy, your post is extremely well documented and blows the "religous
> > persecution" theory for the Mormon war in Missouri right out of the
> > water. While I previously felt that religious intolerance was a major
> > factor, now I can see from the Church's own writings that this was
> > simply not the case, and am even disappointed that religious
> > persecution wasn't as much of a factor.
> >
> > I am sure we can find injustices dealt to the Mormons here, but we can
> > also find injustices dealt to the Missourians as found in John D.
> > Lee's writings.
> >
> > If the apologists ever need to rebut the argument, the time is now.
> >
> > Congratulations on a very informative post.
> >
> > Steve Lowther
>
> Some of us are less impressed than you. History has many sides, and the
> "Mormons got what they deserved" angle is both old and discredited.
So far, you are the only one saying "Mormons got what they deserved".
You are, in fact, deliberately overstating the critics' position here.
What I AM saying is that the instigation was as much on the Mormon
side or more. Nobody, however, deserves to die. Nobody (including a
significant number of Missourians) deserve to have their homes burned,
unless of course they themselves are guilty of the same. There were
innocent Mormons who got hurt, and there were innocent Missourians who
got hurt.
> At least I allowed that not all the Saints were saints, but Jordan (and you, I
> suppose) seem to nominate Missourians for the enlightened citizenship award.
You are taking your own persecution complex to the point of absurdity.
Just where did either Jordan or I make such a claim?
> Bottom line is, the Mormons got tossed because of:
> 1. Fear of a political takeover by abolitionist Yankees.
This could have been a MINOR problem. But by far the overwhelming
majority of the Missouri neighbors were not slave holders.
> 2. Religous persecution.
Please post a source that confirms this. Especially when Mormon
newspapers in Caldwell county said that the Mormons were getting along
well with their gentile neighbors by extending them substantial
amounts of credit for goods. The religious persecution is the Mormon
knee-jerk response to all of the problems they have had. There were
many, many sects such as the Shakers and the Oneida Community that
were as weird or weirder than the Mormons who were not significantly
persecuted. Feeling persecuted, and proclaiming it loudly is a
powerful tool in fostering cohesion.
> 3. Greed-The chance to appropriate good cleared farmland without paying for
> it.
This is, after all, is what frightened the Missourians. Land in such
abundance was not expensive. Most of the land on the Missouri prairie
was available for homesteading, and a man could have essentially as
much as he could work. So what evidence do you have?
> 4. The Mormons fighting back after the depredations of Jackson County, and
> in some cases getting a bit vengeful.
Destroying three towns doesn't rate as a "bit" vengeful. This doesn't
help the Mormon case.
> 5. Mormons being stupid and running off at the mouth, S. Rigdon being
> exhibit A.
Very true. Rigdon threatening extermination of the Missourians did
not help the Mormon cause.
So are YOU willing to nominate the Mormons for the enlightened
citizenship award?
I am saying this, John: The Mormons, leaders and lay people, are
responsible for the mess. In modern parlance it was a public
relations fiasco in the extreme. Even the D&C says that it was due to
the iniquity of the saints. But never would I say they deserved the
atrocities of war. No one ever deserves that.
Steve Lowther
Buzzard
"Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.02020...@posting.google.com...
> "Buzzard" <Buzz...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:<gMW78.20964$pN6.317...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:da736b0d.02020...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Randy, your post is extremely well documented and blows the "religous
> > > persecution" theory for the Mormon war in Missouri right out of the
> > > water. While I previously felt that religious intolerance was a major
> > > factor, now I can see from the Church's own writings that this was
> > > simply not the case, and am even disappointed that religious
> > > persecution wasn't as much of a factor.
> > >
> > > I am sure we can find injustices dealt to the Mormons here, but we can
> > > also find injustices dealt to the Missourians as found in John D.
> > > Lee's writings.
> > >
> > > If the apologists ever need to rebut the argument, the time is now.
> > >
> > > Congratulations on a very informative post.
> > >
> > > Steve Lowther
> >
> > Some of us are less impressed than you. History has many sides, and the
> > "Mormons got what they deserved" angle is both old and discredited.
>
> So far, you are the only one saying "Mormons got what they deserved".
Actually, Jordan stated in his orginal post that ALL (his caps) the Mormon
troubles in Missouri were their own fault in his original post. Not some,
not kinda, but ALL.
> You are, in fact, deliberately overstating the critics' position here.
How can you overstate "ALL"?
> What I AM saying is that the instigation was as much on the Mormon
> side or more. Nobody, however, deserves to die. Nobody (including a
> significant number of Missourians)
A lot fewer Missourian's than LDS....
deserve to have their homes burned,
> unless of course they themselves are guilty of the same. There were
> innocent Mormons who got hurt, and there were innocent Missourians who
> got hurt.
>
> > At least I allowed that not all the Saints were saints, but Jordan (and
you, I
> > suppose) seem to nominate Missourians for the enlightened citizenship
award.
>
> You are taking your own persecution complex to the point of absurdity.
> Just where did either Jordan or I make such a claim?
In the case of Jordan, see above.
>
> > Bottom line is, the Mormons got tossed because of:
>
> > 1. Fear of a political takeover by abolitionist Yankees.
>
> This could have been a MINOR problem. But by far the overwhelming
> majority of the Missouri neighbors were not slave holders.
Most southerners period were not slaveholders. The figure for the entire
south was around 10 percent. Don't know the exact figure for Missouri. But
the other 90%
went to war a couple of decades later to defend essentially the interests
of the minority. Southern resentment and resistance to the point of
violence of "Yankee meddling" is well documented. For another episode in
this saga, see the history of Kansas. Different curcumstances and groups,
same basic emotion.
>
> > 2. Religous persecution.
>
> Please post a source that confirms this.
Here you are:
"As in other places, the persecution in Jackson County did not simply arise
spontaneously. Much of it was fomented deliberately by
religious bigots in the guise of ministers. For example, in 1833, a
Revered Pixley from the eastern Missionary Society and Reverend Finis
Ewing of the Cumberland Presbyterians worked hard to inflame
Missourians (Hill, p. 159). Pixley wrote to newspapers, gave many
speeches, and even went door to door with a pamphlet. Ewing wrote that
"The Mormons are the common enemies of mankind and
ought to be destroyed" (Hill, p. 159, citing History of the Church,
Vol. 1, pp. 373-373 and 392)."
Especially when Mormon
> newspapers in Caldwell county said that the Mormons were getting along
> well with their gentile neighbors by extending them substantial
> amounts of credit for goods.
The religious persecution is the Mormon
> knee-jerk response to all of the problems they have had. There were
> many, many sects such as the Shakers and the Oneida Community that
> were as weird or weirder than the Mormons who were not significantly
> persecuted.
Yes, we LDS find that interesting as well. Excuse us if we see the futile
hand of Satan doing his best to thwart the works of the Lord's church.
Feeling persecuted, and proclaiming it loudly is a
> powerful tool in fostering cohesion.
How many times did the Saints remove themselves from population centers,
wanting to be left alone, only to be chased away at the point of a gun?
Missouri was not the exception, Missourians were simply a bit more brutal
than the others.
>
> > 3. Greed-The chance to appropriate good cleared farmland without paying
for
> > it.
If you have ever farmed, you know the difference between cleared land ready
to farm, and virgin land. It takes a lot of work and time to prepare land
for cultivation.
>
> This is, after all, is what frightened the Missourians. Land in such
> abundance was not expensive. Most of the land on the Missouri prairie
> was available for homesteading, and a man could have essentially as
> much as he could work. So what evidence do you have?
>
> > 4. The Mormons fighting back after the depredations of Jackson County,
and
> > in some cases getting a bit vengeful.
>
> Destroying three towns doesn't rate as a "bit" vengeful.
The destruction you refer to was carried out by Sampson Avard and his bunch.
The church disavowed them then and now. However, a great deal of the
greater atrocities against the Mormons were perpetrated by the official
local and state Militias, acting under the direct orders of elected state
officials.
This doesn't help the Mormon case.
As I said before, I am not defending the actions of some individual Mormons.
But they pale in comparison to the organized actions of the state of
Missouri and its leaders. Just where is the Missourians Hauns Mill?
>
> > 5. Mormons being stupid and running off at the mouth, S. Rigdon being
> > exhibit A.
>
> Very true. Rigdon threatening extermination of the Missourians did
> not help the Mormon cause.
>
> So are YOU willing to nominate the Mormons for the enlightened
> citizenship award?
>
> I am saying this, John: The Mormons, leaders and lay people, are
responsible for the mess.
Wrongo. All the Mormon church did wrong, was show up in significant
numbers. I am not talking about the few-very few-LDS who went too far. I
am referring to the institutional church. Contrast this with the actions of
the state. When the Mormons appealed for redress, they sent the
militia...who joined up with the Mob.
In modern parlance it was a public> relations fiasco in the extreme.
People don't get killed in public relations fiascos. It was an organized,
determined effort by the sovereign state of Missouri to drive the Mormons
from the state.
Even the D&C says that it was due to
> the iniquity of the saints.
See reason #5, above.
But never would I say they deserved the
> atrocities of war. No one ever deserves that.
Gee, thanks. You did not, but Jordan came awfully close to saying just
that.
>
> Steve Lowther
Lorin John
aka Buzzard
TheJordan6
>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), Bogg's "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.
56-58.)
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 atakced 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
next issue:
"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 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?
>Lorin John
>aka Buzzard
How appropriate that you should end a post full of complete nonsense with more
of the same.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>I allow that some individual saints sought revenge after the initial outrages
by Missourians,
Buzzard, you're still in denial of the facts. The problems were not caused by
"individual saints." They were caused by Joseph Smith's "revelations" which
stated that western Missouri was to become the Mormons' "New Jerusalem," and
that all pre-existing non-Mormons must leave the area; and Smith's revelation
calling for the "consecration" of the property of the "Gentiles" to the
Mormons.
If a group of 1200 religious fanatics moved into your neighborhood, making the
same boasts and threats, you and your neighbors would see to their expulsion.
In fact, that very thing happened just a few years ago, when the Baghwan
Rajneesh cult tried to take over an entire county in Oregon---they were booted
out as a group.
No Missourians committed any "initial outrages" against any Mormons until AFTER
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon haughtily instructed W. W. Phelps to publish
their offensive "revelations." I've quoted you David Whitmer's very detailed,
first-hand account of that event, and exactly how it started all the Missouri
troubles.
>and Rigdon's speech was a monument to stupidity and arrogance.
It was Brigham Young, after Joseph Smith's death, who sought to "blame" the
MIssouri troubles on Rigdon's "Salt Sermon" and "War of Extermination" speech.
But what Young, and obviously today's Mormon apologists, do not disclose, is
that Smith himself spoke AFTER Rigdon, endorsing his remarks, and had Rigdon's
Independence Day speech published for distribution. As B. H. Roberts
acknowledged:
"One other thing the truth of history requires here, viz., the fixing of
responsibility for this "declaration." The unwisdom of the utterance has been
quite generally recognized by our writers, and by them responsibility for it
has been placed upon the rather fervid imagination of Sidney Rigdon, who
delivered the speech, and who quite generally is supposed to have been mainly
or wholly responsible for it. This is not true. The speech was carefully
prepared, written before delivery in fact, and read by other presiding elders
of the church before its delivery. It immediately appeared in The Far West ,a
weekly newspaper published at Liberty, Clay county; and was also published in
pamphlet form by Ebenezer Robinson on the press of the Elders' Journal. Joseph
Smith in his journal speaks of it approvingly; and in the Elders' Journal, of
which he was the editor, and in the editorial columns under his name, the
speech is approvingly recommended to the saints. In view of these facts, if
the "declaration" was of doubtful propriety, and unwise and impolitic,
responsibility for it rests not alone on Sidney Rigdon, but upon the
authorities of the church who approved it, and the people who accepted it by
their acclamation." ("Comprehensive History of the Church").
>But the church never as an institution tried to drive Missourians from their
homes.
Yes, they DID, Buzzard; you simply choose to remain in denial of the historical
accounts. As I've already documented, the final expulsion of the Mormons came
when Smith, Rigdon, and over 10,000 other Kirtland Mormons flooded into western
Missouri in the summer of 1838. Caldwell County, which had been created
especially for the Mormons to inhabit alone, could not hold the overflow.
Smith and Rigdon knew that they couldn't establish their planned economic
empire until they got rid of Mormon dissenters as well as non-Mormons who lived
in the surrounding counties. That is why they organized their "Danites" to
accomplish the task:
"When we first went to Daviess [County], I understood the object was to be to
drive out the mob, if one shold be collected there; but when we got there, WE
FOUND NONE. I then learned, the object was, from those who were actively
engaged in the matter, to DRIVE OUT ALL THE CITIZENS OF DAVIESS AND GET
POSSESSION OF THEIR PROPERTY." (Testimony of John Cleminson, "Senate Document
189.")
"The Danites were
taught to take from the Gentiles and consecrate to the Church. Nearly every
person who testified at the trial against the Mormon leaders made mention of
this fact. John Clemenson stated that 'it was frequently observed among the
troops at Diahman that the time had come when the riches of the Gentiles should
be consecrated to the Saints.' Jeremiah Myers testified that 'the consecrated
property...was dealt out to those in need' by Bishop Vinson Knight." (Leland
Gentry, "A History of the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri," p. 385-387.)
"Danites struck at Gallatin and two other towns, Millport and Grinding Fork.
The three onslaughts occurred simultaneously and had a crushing impact on the
Missourians who were unaccustomed to Mormon resistance. When Captains Lyman
Wight, David W. Patten, and Seymour Brunson rode into Far West at the head of
their companies, the sight of wagonloads of plunder was offensive to a number
of less aggressively inclined Saints. That night they gathered their families
together and abandoned the settlement. Among the defectors were two of
Joseph's most trusted followers, Thomas B. Marsh and Orson Hyde, both members
of the Council of Twelve Apostles. The two men fled to nearby Richmond and
blurted out everything they knew." ("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of
Thunder," Harold Schindler, p. 54.)
"The Mormons were two hundred and fifty men by the time they reached Daviess
County...The bulk of the forces went out in search of the gentile opposition.
They marched through three settlements, including Gallatin, repaying the
Missourians in kind, looting and firing stores, homes, and barns, before their
anger spent itself.....When they returned with their loot, many of their own
people were appalled and frightened. Thomas B. Marsh, Brigham Young's superior
as President of the Twelve, let it be known that he did not approve such
retaliation, and he left the church." ("Kingdom of the Saints", Ray B. West, p.
86.)
"There was much mysterious conversation in camps, as to plundering, and
house-burning; so much so, that I had my own notions about it; and, on one
occasion, I spoke to Mr. Smith, Jr., in the house, and told him that this
course of burning houses and plundering, by the Mormon troops, would ruin us;
that it could not be kept hid, and would bring the force of the state upon us;
that houses would be searched, and stolen property found. Smith replied to me,
in a pretty rough manner, to keep still; that I should say nothing about it;
that it would discourage the men...I saw a great deal of plunder and bee-steads
brought into camp; and I saw many persons, for many days, taking the honey out
of them; I understood this property and plunder were placed into the hands of
the bishop at Diahmon....The general teachings of the presidency were, that the
kingdom they were setting up was a temporal kingdom...that the time had come
when this kingdom was to be set up by
forcible means, if necessary. It was taught, that the time had come when the
riches of the Gentiles were to be consecrated to the true Israel."
(Testimony of George M. Hinkle, "Senate Document 189".)
"Smith replied, the time had come when he should resist all law...I heard J.
Smith remark, there was a store at Gallatin, and a grocery at Millport; and in
the morning after the conversation between Smith and Wight about resisting the
law, a plan of operations was agreed on, which was: that Captain Fearnaught,
who was present, should take a company of 100 men, or more, and go to Gallatin,
and take it that day; to take the goods out of Gallatin, bring them to Diahmon,
and burn the store...On the same day, in the evening, I saw both these
companies return; the foot company had some plunder..." (Testimony of WW
Phelps, "Senate Document 189")
"After they had driven us and our families, they commenced a difficulty in
Daviess County, adjoining this county, in which they began to rob and burn
houses, etc. etc., took honey which they, (the Mormons) call sweet oil, and
hogs which they call bear, and cattle which they called buffalo. Thus they
would justify themselves by saying, "We are the people of God, and all things
are God's; therefore, they are ours." (John Whitmer's "History of the Church")
"As the [stolen] property was brought in, there was a general shout of hurrah,
and waving of hats, by those in camp. I heard Dimick Huntington, one of the
troops, tell in camp that the mob had burned the storehouse in Gallatin, but
that the Mormons had hauled off the goods; and, also, that the mob were burning
some Mormon houses. I looked at him as though I did not believe it, and he
stooped down to me (being on his horse) and whispered to me that it was Captain
[Seymour] Brunson who had gone with twenty men to the Grindstone Fork, who was
burning those houses. The goods taken in Gallatin were generally understood in
camp to have been deposited with the bishop, as consecrated property."
(Testimony of Reed Peck, "Senate Document 189").
>The same cannot be said for the official organs of the State of Missouri.
Boggs decided to issue his "extermination order" AFTER the Mormons had looted
and burned Millport, Gallatin, and Grinding Fork, and AFTER the skirmish at
Crooked River, where several men were killed. Boggs' order declared that the
Mormons "were in an open state of rebelllion....making war upon the people of
this state." Since state officials could not distinguish Mormons who were
loyal to Smith from dissenters or non-participants, he had no choice but to
order the entire body of Mormons from his state.
>BTW, it was still legal to kill Mormons in Missouri until about 25 years ago.
Every time you repeat this, your IQ goes down five more points.
>>Read John D. Lee. Read the testimony from WW Phelps, and other prominent LDS
who testified against Joseph Smith -- many who came back into the Church later
without having to confess to any lies.
>While I have not read Lee, I have read Phelps. He came back in the church
asking forgiveness.
But Phelps' return did not negate his testimony of the Missouri troubles, nor
the fact that his testimony was corroborated by numerous others.
>>Were the Mormons mistreated? Yes they were, and badly often times.
They were not, however, as innocent as faith-promoting history makes
them out to be.
>>Steve Lowther
>Well, I have my Great-great-great-great grandpa's journal account of what
happened to his family. Not a pretty sight and he never raised a weapon in
aggression or even self-defense.
>Lorin John
>aka Buzzard
So, should we just throw away the dozens of accounts, court testimony, etc., of
the first-hand eyewitnesses and participants, and trust only in your
gggg-grandpa's journal account?
If some old German who lived during WWll left a journal where he stated that he
never raised a weapon in aggression or self-defense, does that mean that no
Germans did anything wrong in WWll?
Your ignorance is apparently boundless.
Randy J.
Buzzard
> Buzzard wrote:
>
> >I allow that some individual saints sought revenge after the initial
outrages
> by Missourians,
>
> Buzzard, you're still in denial of the facts. The problems were not
caused by
> "individual saints." They were caused by Joseph Smith's "revelations"
which
> stated that western Missouri was to become the Mormons' "New Jerusalem,"
and
> that all pre-existing non-Mormons must leave the area; and Smith's
revelation
> calling for the "consecration" of the property of the "Gentiles" to the
> Mormons.
You know, I have to thank you for making me do a little extra homework. I
looked up the passage you referred to. It always helps to read the entire
passage. Here is part of the relevant text:
"And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall
be cast out, and shall not receive again that which he had consecrated unto
me: For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my
prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate the riches of the
Gentiles, unto my people which are of the house of Israel. And again, thou
shalt not be proud in thy heart; let all thy garments be plain, and their
beauty the beauty of the work of thine own hands, and let all things be done
in cleanliness before me. " (Evening and Morning Star, July 1832)
The riches of the Gentiles that are referred to here are the properties of
converts who freely consecrated land and belongings to the church, under the
Law of Consecraction that was being instituted at the time. All it is
saying is that if you leave, you do not get your previous property back.
BTW, earlier in the passage it refers to buying land, not driving the
Missourians out. If I remember my Missouri history correctly, Mormon farms
had already been vandalized in the spring of 1832, before this revelation
even came out.
> If a group of 1200 religious fanatics moved into your neighborhood, making
the
> same boasts and threats, you and your neighbors would see to their
expulsion.
> In fact, that very thing happened just a few years ago, when the Baghwan >
Rajneesh cult tried to take over an entire county in Oregon---they were
booted
> out as a group.
AFTER they tried to steal an election by poisioning local food supplies to
sicken the locals. Until then, they were tolerated. Not the same thing.
Apples to Oranges.
> No Missourians committed any "initial outrages" against any Mormons until
AFTER
> Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon haughtily instructed W. W. Phelps to
publish
> their offensive "revelations."
I can't help noticing your pejoratives: "haughtily", "offensive", and
putting "revelations" in quotation marks.
I've quoted you David Whitmer's very detailed,
> first-hand account of that event, and exactly how it started all the
Missouri> troubles.
Mr. Whitmer, I humbly submit, had and axe to grind when it came to Missouri.
And why did they flood into western Missouri? Because they had been driven
from three different parts of the state in the previous five years. And
every time that they relied on the courts for redress, they were put in
front of juries consisting of the men who had just driven them from their
properties.
Caldwell County, which had been created
> especially for the Mormons to inhabit alone, could not hold the overflow.
> Smith and Rigdon knew that they couldn't establish their planned economic>
empire until they got rid of Mormon dissenters as well as non-Mormons who
lived> in the surrounding counties.
Glad you can read the mind of Joseph Smith. Quite a trick.
That is why they organized their "Danites" to
> accomplish the task:
Here is what Joseph said about Avard and his bunch:
"About this time Sampson Avard was found by the mob secreted in the hazel
brush some miles from Far West, and brought into camp, where he and they
were "hail fellows well met;" for Avard told them that Daniteism was an
order of the Church, and by his lying tried to make the Church a scape-goat
for his sins."
The Danites were responsible for some things that should not have happened,
but it is irresponsible and based solely of the testimony of apostates to
state that they were organized by Joseph Smith.
Every single person you quoted was an apostate. Some, notably Marsh, later
came back into the church, but at the time, all these men were out to
destroy Joseph Smith. I know that that makes them objective and
historically accurate in your eyes.
> >The same cannot be said for the official organs of the State of Missouri.
>
> Boggs decided to issue his "extermination order" AFTER the Mormons had
looted
> and burned Millport, Gallatin, and Grinding Fork, and AFTER the skirmish
at
> Crooked River, where several men were killed. Boggs' order declared that
the
> Mormons "were in an open state of rebelllion....making war upon the people
of
> this state." Since state officials could not distinguish Mormons who were
> loyal to Smith from dissenters or non-participants, he had no choice but
to
> order the entire body of Mormons from his state.
No choice. How convienient. At least one independent historian has a
different view:
In 1833 Boggs passively saw community leaders and officials sign demands for
Mormon withdrawal, and next force a gunbarrel contract to abandon the
county before spring planting. Mormons hired lawyers and petitioned
Governor Dunklin for intervention, but they were directed to courts using
juries of
their sworn enemies. Since Mormons resisted moving, terror gangs
harassed their settlements in a crisis of violence. Latter-day Saints
finally used force
against force, but some casualties on each side inflamed the populace.
County militia was then activated at Independence, ostensibly to bring
security to
both parties. In the meantime, rumors came to rural settlements that
several brethren had been arrested and were about to be lynched. The
majority of
Mormon men marched to Independence, but were met by citizens now
legally mustered, and their commander confiscated Mormon guns as the price
of
peace. This now enabled raiders to move without opposition to drive out
the minority. In review, anti-Mormon goals were reached in a few simple
stages.
Executive paralysis permitted terrorism, which forced Mormons to
self-defense, which was immediately labelled as an "insurrection," and was
put down by
the activated militia of the county. Once Latter-day Saints were
disarmed, mounted squads visited Mormon settlements with threats and enough
beatings
and destruction of homes to force flight....
In 1838 the identical process was repeated for upper Missouri, and for
a Mormon population ten times the thousand expelled from Jackson County. In
both
cases the militia was called out "as the only means of saving
bloodshed," but by forcing surrender of weapons of the Saints and leaving
them unguarded,
both 1833 and 1838 troops were a major tool in forcing out the
unpopular. In 1833, Lieutenant Governor Boggs looked on, failed to speak for
rights of the
oppressed, waited until they fired back on their persecutors, and then
helped to negotiate surrender of Mormon guns. Likewise in 1838, Governor
Boggs
looked on, ignored pleas of Mormons being driven from their homes,
waited until vigorous self-defense was misrepresented, and commanded the
militia to
subdue Mormons "as enemies," which at a minimum meant surrender of
Mormon guns. In 1833 Jackson County, the governor observed the machinery of
the unprotected minority trap. Private violence first forced armed
defense, which then gave the removal party the apparent moral advantage to
complain of
aggression and demand militia action to render the minority
defenseless. Boggs had explained in writing the final escalating stages of
Mormon eviction in
1833; as governor he certainly remembered the process as he assisted
its steps in 1838.
(Anderson, pp. 28-30)
Well, my gggg-grandpa was just a farmer writing in his journal, recording
the events that unfolded around him. I suppose that makes him guilty of
prejudice? The same cannot be said for many of the apostate LDS and
Missouri officials who had much to gain by the removal of the Mormons.
>
> If some old German who lived during WWll left a journal where he stated
that he
> never raised a weapon in aggression or self-defense, does that mean that
no
> Germans did anything wrong in WWll?
>
> Your ignorance is apparently boundless.
>
Gee, what a nice thing to say. Right up there with calling me an idiot in
your other post. Jordan, you a right smart fellow, yourself. But what
started it all was when you said that every problem in Missouri was started
by the Mormons, and that the response of the Missourians was justified.
History is rarely so simple, and the history of the Mormons in Missouri is
anything but simple. If you choose to accept the statement of bitter
apostates and locals as the gospel truth, than I'll just prefer to accept
the statements of my ancestors and those Mormons who stayed loyal to the
church *despite* what was done to them. I am not quite in the deep denial
that you are, I come from a conviction that my religion states the truth.
You come from a conviction that it is false, and if you are honest, who you
choose to believe has to be colored by that fact.
Lorin John
aka Buzzard
> Randy J.
>
croc...@gmail.com
> You god hating anti-mormon clowns are still at it? I stopped posting
> back in November when I realized that I wasn't actually reasoning with
> intelligent people that are open to learning new things.
>
> For those of you that are actually interested in learning about the
> church I suggest you goto the source. Read the Book or Mormon, pray
> about it, and learn of its truth on your own.
>
> These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil. You can
> prove them wrong a million different ways and it doesn't matter,
> they'll just change the subject over and over until they spin you in
> circles so many times you become dizzy. They'd make great lawyers.
>
> And the most amazing thing is how much time and engergy they put into
> opposing the efforts of the church. Why?
croc...@gmail.com
croc...@gmail.com
BELOVED
But its interest to note that who actually wrote this use the following capital letters:
You
I
November
I
I
For
I
Read
Book
Mormon
These
You
They'd
And
Why?
I think the only real message were encoded with captial letters.
You I November I I.
For I Read Book Mormon.
These You They'd.
And Why?
Now, if I up it through a program to correct the grammer, this is what I get...
You I November I I.
For I Read Book Mormon.
These You'd.
And Why?
Now if I put it all to gether any limitate the nonesense, the message would read:
On November 2002 I read the Book of Mormon. These things the Mormons did to find out. And why not you?
Whoever wrote this is not a writer because used too many words to say the some that could have been said with a fewer words.
But it appears to be someone who has just discover Mormonism, which is typically a zealot at first, then they learn to regret it in the end.
My experience as after joining the LDS Church in June 1962 was one of excitement at first, but then it ended as regret when I had to resigned on
November 12, 2012. However, only after I resigned and asked God to reveal to me if I made a mistake in leaving the LDS Church or to show me all the mistakes of the Mormons. I
was expecting to be shown it was a mistake, but instead, God showed me all of their mistakes of the Mormons.
It appears that I was under a curse from God and trapped into a "Strong Delusion" that is mentioned in the Holy Bible that God curses a group of religious followers who accept
the abomination of plural marriage. God send them a "Strong Delusion" for not loving the truth that plural marriage is an abomination before God, and everyone who joins the
LDS Church are not aware of the fact that God wants you to first receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, before getting baptized into the LDS Church, however the LDS Church wants
you to first get baptized and then wait for the Holy Ghost to come. However, the only way to find out is to resign first, then see if the Holy Ghost is allowed to show you all
the mistakes. However, as long as you enter the Church on your own free will, then the Holy Ghost cannot interfere with your decision to join them. And you become trapped into
a Strong Delusion.
In fact, this person even mentions reading the Book of Mormon to find out the truth - but I did that many times as a Mormon and could never see the errors of the Mormons. But
outside the circle of Mormonism, I was able to break out of the darkness and see the Mormon mistakes. And it was in the Book of Mormon, the book of Jacob, where it says that
God destroyed the Nephites for committing the abomination of plural marriage. So, how could I have been fooled as a Mormon, when it very clear in the Book of Jacob that said
that plural marriages of King David and King Solomon was an abomination to God?
the Brighamites had been tricked to committing the abomination that makes desolate. when Brigham Young could have restored the daily sacrifice of the temple he instead removed
the daily sacrifice a second time, by teaching that plural marriage in the temple as the means of attaining your godhood, so God would protect you, when the Holy Bible is very
clear that God's covenant of protect is the eternal daily sacrifice. Not the abomination that makes desolate (plural marriage, has always been a curse not a blessing
throughout the history of the Mormons).
It ironic that the Man of Sin (Antichrist) is believed by Mormons today to be an LDS Apostle because only an LDS Apostle can lead them down to hell.
However, none of them think that it could have been Brigham Young as an Apostle that fulfilled that prophecy of the coming Man of Sin who comes to deceive the elect of God
(temple going a member of the LDS Church).
And in the scriptures, it says that the Man of Sin will sit inside the temple claiming he is a god. Only the Mormons are known for building temples, and Brigham Young
actually sat inside the St. George Temple claims he was god for having married 52 wives inside the temple. It truly is ironic that no matter how many times you tell this to an
active Mormon they are cursed to not understand the light that leads them out of darkness. <X><
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
BELOVED
>|On Fri, 25 May 2018 08:06:44 -0700 (PDT), croc...@gmail.com wrote:
>|
>|>|On Thursday, January 17, 2002 at 10:03:29 AM UTC-6, Lisusgen wrote:
>|>|> You god hating anti-mormon clowns are still at it? I stopped posting
>|>|> back in November when I realized that I wasn't actually reasoning with
>|>|> intelligent people that are open to learning new things.
>|>|>
>|>|> For those of you that are actually interested in learning about the
>|>|> church I suggest you goto the source. Read the Book or Mormon, pray
>|>|> about it, and learn of its truth on your own.
>|>|>
>|>|> These ass clowns are nothing more than servants of the devil. You can
>|>|> prove them wrong a million different ways and it doesn't matter,
>|>|> they'll just change the subject over and over until they spin you in
>|>|> circles so many times you become dizzy. They'd make great lawyers.
>|>|>
>|>|> And the most amazing thing is how much time and engergy they put into
>|>|> opposing the efforts of the church. Why?
I find it hard to believe a real Mormon wrote this post.
You
I
November
I
I
For
I
Read
Book
Mormon
These
You
They'd
And
Why?
You I November I I.
For I Read Book Mormon.
And Why?
Now, if I up it through a program to correct the grammar, this is what I get...
You I November I I.
For I Read Book Mormon.
These You'd.
And Why?
On November 2002 I read the Book of Mormon. These things the Mormons did to find out. And why not you?
But it appears to be someone who has just discovered Mormonism, which is typically a zealot at first, then they learn to regret it in the end.
My experience as after joining the LDS Church in June 1962 was one of excitement at first, but then it ended as regret when I had to resign on
was expecting to be shown it was a mistake, but instead, God showed me all of their mistakes of the Mormons.
It appears that I was under a curse from God and trapped into a "Strong Delusion" that is mentioned in the Holy Bible that God curses a group of religious followers who accept
LDS Church is not aware of the fact that God wants you to first receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, before getting baptized into the LDS Church, however, the LDS Church wants
the mistakes. However, as long as you enter the Church on your own free will, then the Holy Ghost cannot interfere with your decision to join them. And you become trapped into
a Strong Delusion.
In fact, this person even mentions reading the Book of Mormon to find out the truth - but I did that many times as a Mormon and could never see the errors of the Mormons. But
outside the circle of Mormonism, I was able to break out of the darkness and see the Mormon mistakes. And it was in the Book of Mormon, the book of Jacob, where it says that
God destroyed the Nephites for committing the abomination of plural marriage. So, how could I have been fooled as a Mormon, when it very clear in the Book of Jacob that said
The Brighamites had been tricked into committing the abomination that makes desolate. When Brigham Young could have restored the daily sacrifice of the temple he instead
removed the daily sacrifice a second time, and taught that plural marriage in the temple as the means to attain your godhood, so could be protected, when the Holy Bible is
very clear that God's covenant of protection is the eternal daily sacrifice. Not the abomination that makes desolate (plural marriage, has always been a curse not a blessing
However, none of them think that it could have been Brigham Young as an Apostle that fulfilled that prophecy of the coming Man of Sin who comes to deceive the elect of God
And in the scriptures, it says that the Man of Sin will sit inside the temple claiming he is a god. Only the Mormons are known for building temples, and Brigham Young
BELOVED
[Corrections]:
>|Now if I put it all together [and eliminate] the nonsense, the message would read:
>| On November 2002 I read the Book of Mormon. These things the Mormons did to find out. And why not you?