Nauvoo Temple dedication
exmo
Hinckley and Grady McMurty (pres of the RLDS) were supposed to meet at
the grave of Joseph Smith. Any info about this? There's a story about
the dedication at ldschurchnews.com but nothing about the RLDS
involvement.
alquijano
wrote:
Can't say a thing about a meeting between President Hinkley and Mr.
McMurty. I was impressed with the talks of President Hinkley and
President Faust: Both had close relatives (grandfather and
great-grandfather driven out of Nauvoo by the mobs. It was the most
emotion I have seen from either man.
Someone explain the extermination order made by Govenor Boggs: I can
see arresting a religious leader for alleged crimes, but an order to
exterminate the followers? What was the perceived threat?
David Baxter
pure hatred.
"alquijano" <alqu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:alquijano-97373...@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
TheJordan6
>see arresting a religious leader for alleged crimes, but an order to
>exterminate the followers? What was the perceived threat?
The real threat (not a perceived threat) was, as Bogg's Extermination Order
stated, that the Mormons were "engaging in open warfare against the people of
this state." Joseph Smith had vowed to make the entire state of Missouri the
base for his "Kingdom of Zion," and threatened to make a "trail of blood from
the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic," if need be, to further his intentions.
Sidney Rigdon threatened to wage a "war of extermination" between the Mormons
and Missourians. Smith and Rigdon's charter group of "Danite" soldiers
numbered 84 in July of 1838; by the end of October, when they were forced to
surrender at Far West, their ranks had swelled to a reported 800. In the
previous few days, the Danites had attacked a state militia force, and raided
and looted the non-Mormon towns of Millport, Gallatin, and Grinders Fork.
Several Mormon dissenters, including apostles Thomas B. Marsh and Orson Hyde,
swore affidavits testifying to Smith's and Rigdon's intentions to "take this
state, then the entire state, then the whole world" for their Mormon empire.
(Recent historians have noted that Smith's and Rigdon's secret intention for
establishing their "New Jerusalem" in western Missouri was so that they could
make their fortunes by selling crops and goods at nearby Fort Leavenworth.)
Boggs' order did not permit Missouri militia to murder the estimated 15,000
Mormons in the area, as some LDS apologists continue to ignorantly assert. His
order called for them to be "exterminated, or driven from the state." IOW,
Boggs just wanted them gone, so that peace could be restored.
Because the "Danites" had taken a secret oath to obey all of Smith's and
Rigdon's orders, even if they were illegal---and state officials could not very
well identify which Mormons were or were not "Danites," or which had taken part
in crimes---and it was obvious that the Mormons had no intentions of residing
peaceably among non-Mormons---Boggs rightly ordered that all the Mormons should
leave. Of course, not all Mormons left---hundreds who had nothing to do with
the crimes, and who rejected Smith's and Rigdon's calls for violence, stayed in
Missouri for decades. Also, the Mormons weren't exactly "driven" out---they
were escorted out by the state militia, with caches of food provided to sustain
them on their journey to Illinois.
Smith, Rigdon, and several other Danite leaders were imprisoned in Liberty Jail
to await trial on charges of murder, treason, and sedition. Before their
trial, they paid a jailer $600 and a jug of whiskey to allow them to escape.
Boggs didn't bother to bring them back for trial, because he was satisfied that
they were out of his state.
LDS-published works on this period are filled with one-sided, often false
information, which is designed to make readers sympathize with the Mormons, and
play up the "religious persecution" angle. For a scholarly, non-polemical
treatment of the period, I recommend Scott LeSeuer's "The 1838 Mormon War in
Missouri."
You'd also do well to read Bishop John Corrill's history, Reed Peck's memoirs,
and "Senate Document 189," which contains the affidavits and testimonies of
participants in the conflict.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 7/1/2002 5:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <afqgi3$e4g$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
>
>The threat was to Boggs political status, I guess. Apart from that is was
>pure hatred.
Maybe we should come up with a title for Mormons who write such things as the
above remark. How about AIM, for "Another Ignorant Mormon"?
Randy J.
gary0
> ... Someone explain the extermination order made
> by Govenor Boggs: I can see arresting a religious
> leader for alleged crimes, but an order to
> exterminate the followers? What was the perceived
> threat?
"Extermination order" is a little bit of spin; actual call was to
drive Mormons from the state because thy threatened order & decency.
Only if they refused to leave would "extermination" come into play. A
bit of "ethnic cleansing" long before the term was coined.
Can't vouch for accuracy, but the text at the following link looks
plausible:
http://www.unco.edu/drshaff/Hist330Spr2001/extermorder.htm
gary0
exmo
>
> alquijano ...
> > ... Someone explain the extermination order made
> > by Govenor Boggs: I can see arresting a religious
> > leader for alleged crimes, but an order to
> > exterminate the followers? What was the perceived
> > threat?
>
> "Extermination order" is a little bit of spin; actual call was to
> drive Mormons from the state because thy threatened order & decency.
> Only if they refused to leave would "extermination" come into play. A
> bit of "ethnic cleansing" long before the term was coined.
"Ethnic cleansing" has been going on since Joshua's armies invaded Zion
(the original, not the one in Missouri) and wiped out the Canaanites.
alquijano
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> LDS-published works on this period are filled with one-sided, often false
> information, which is designed to make readers sympathize with the Mormons,
> and
> play up the "religious persecution" angle. For a scholarly, non-polemical
> treatment of the period, I recommend Scott LeSeuer's "The 1838 Mormon War in
> Missouri."
>
> You'd also do well to read Bishop John Corrill's history, Reed Peck's
> memoirs,
> and "Senate Document 189," which contains the affidavits and testimonies of
> participants in the conflict.
Thank you for the references. I noticed Jeff Lindsay's remarks about
LeSueur's work Amazon.com
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0826207294/qid=1025581576/sr=1-1/
ref=sr_1_1/102-9461320-1183311> were quite negative. The other two who
reviewed the book spoke as highly of it as you did. I have found all of
the material you suggested except Reed Peck's memoirs. Is there another
title?
TheJordan6
>Date: 7/1/2002 7:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <705993fb.02070...@posting.google.com>
Boggs' Extermination Order was no more "ethnic cleansing" of Mormons than was
the Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944, "ethnic cleansing" of Germans.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 7/2/2002 12:07 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <alquijano-5BA2E...@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com>
>
>In article <20020701191846...@mb-ck.aol.com>,
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
>
>> LDS-published works on this period are filled with one-sided, often false
>> information, which is designed to make readers sympathize with the Mormons,
>
>> and
>> play up the "religious persecution" angle. For a scholarly, non-polemical
>> treatment of the period, I recommend Scott LeSeuer's "The 1838 Mormon War
>in
>> Missouri."
>>
>> You'd also do well to read Bishop John Corrill's history, Reed Peck's
>> memoirs,
>> and "Senate Document 189," which contains the affidavits and testimonies of
>> participants in the conflict.
>Thank you for the references. I noticed Jeff Lindsay's remarks about
>LeSueur's work Amazon.com
><http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0826207294/qid=1025581576/sr=1-1/
>ref=sr_1_1/102-9461320-1183311> were quite negative.
Jeff Lindsay is a lap-dog Mormon apologist. Every single assertion he makes in
his review is refuted by simply educating one's self on the facts. I've
written numerous posts on ARM about the Missouri War and the inception of the
Danites. I recommend you dig into the archives and read up on them. I don't
have the time to re-hash it yet again, but briefly:
Lindsay's assertion (from Leland Gentry) that there was a "good" band of
Danites led by Smith, and a "bad" one led by Sampson Avard, is pure crap.
Several Mormons who were members of the band testified that it was Smith
himself who ordered the raids on Gallatin, Millport, and Grinders Fork, mere
days before they surrendered to state authorities at Far West. Smith's letter
he wrote from Liberty Jail naming Avard as the Danite instigator, asserting
that "when we discovered what Avard was doing, he was excommunicated," is a
bald faced lie of Smith's. In his "Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of
Thunder," historian Harold Schindler pointed out that Avard had acted as a
surgeon within the Danite band, and that he in fact treated Danite leader (and
apostle) David W. Patten's mortal wounds which he incurred in the skirmish at
Crooked River----and that skirmish was mere DAYS before Smith & Co. surrendered
at Far West---and Joseph Smith was at Patten's and Avard's side while Patten
lay dying.
Also, Avard was not excommunicated until March 17, 1839---FIVE MONTHS after the
Far West surrender, and AFTER the main body of Mormons had settled in Nauvoo.
That makes it obvious that Smith invented his lie about Avard being the
Danites' founder because Smith was at the time, incarcerated in Liberty Jail
awaiting trial, and he needed someone to shift blame for the Mormon crimes
onto. Avard wasn't excommunicated because of allegedly leading the Danites,
but because he turned states' evidence and testified against Smith & Co.
Also, numerous other Mormons testified that it was Smith and Rigdon who
instigated the entire culture of violence against Mormon dissenters and
"Gentiles," beginning with Rigdon's "Salt Sermon" the previous June.
LDS apologist Jeff Lindsay trusts the viewpoints of fellow LDS apologist
Gentry, when the more scholarly and reliable method is to study the actual
statements of the first-hand participants, and draw one's own conclusions based
on that. It doesn't take much study to realize that Joseph Smith's assertions
don't hold water.
B. H. Roberts, in his "Comprehensive History of the Church," is the man most
responsible for propagating the one-sided, Smith-friendly view of events.
Since most Mormons over the decades have trusted in Roberts' writings because
Roberts was a GA and therefore "honest," Roberts' work has become the "truth"
for most modern Mormons like Lindsay.
>The other two who
>reviewed the book spoke as highly of it as you did.
Le Sueur is a legitimate historian, and his book was published by a university
press, rather than by a group dedicated to the furtherment of an agenda (IOW,
the LDS Church and its apologists.)
> I have found all of
>the material you suggested except Reed Peck's memoirs. Is there another
>title?
Some time ago, I compiled a list of web sources on the subject, so here it is
again, for interested parties:
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,E
benezer.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
To repeat: Rather than trusting in the slanted apologetics of the Jeff Lindsays
of the world, simply read the accounts from the actual participants, and draw
your own conclusions.
Randy J.
Winfried Nelson
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020702213532...@mb-fl.aol.com...
Germans.>
That's about the dumbest analogy I've ever seen.
TheJordan6
>Date: 7/5/2002 1:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <1hkV8.568934$%y.369...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
Then I guess that response makes you A.I.M.
Randy J.
clovis lark
Actually, Boggs' "extermination order" was a response to Sid (the
squid) Rigdon's extermination order in the Salt Sermon of the
preceding July 4, a speech applauded by JSjr, hissef(sic), and then
published for distribution by JSjr. Rigdon's speech coincided with
the formation of the Danites who proceeded to do some "enforcement" in
the region until some of them were apprehended. Whilst transporting
these gentlemen, the Missouri Militia was attacked by Danites,
including the very same JSjr, resulting in fatalities on both sides.
At this point, AFTER Rigdon's extermination speech, AFTER the Danite
attacks, AFTER the assault on Missouri troops on official business,
Monsieur Bogg's issued his order. As a result Rigdon and JSjr ended
up in the pokey. But they weren't exterminated, they were allowed to
escape and wend their various ways to a certain Commerce IL.
>
> Randy J.