Two Apologists for Genocide
Russell McGregor
"Everybody always talks about what Hitler did to the Jews. Don't nobody
ever talk about what the Jews did to Hitler."
And, in the same spirit,
In article <19991223154559...@ng-fn1.aol.com>,
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
>
> The Extermination Order was neither evil nor indefensible.
Except to people who think Mormons should be treated like other
citizens.
> There is nothing to
> recant. Governor Boggs issued his order because Mormon Danites were
looting
> and burning local non-Mormons out, as well as some dissident Mormons.
The Danite business was over by this time; he issued his order after the
battle of Crooked River.
> Several
> of those Mormons wouldn't go along with the pillaging, realizing that
it would
> escalate into civil war, and possibly cost many lives. The dissident
Mormons
> swore affidavits that JS had threatened a "war of blood and gore."
Actually he had threatened no such thing, but why let facts obscure an
apology for hatred?
> Sidney
> Rigdon, in his "Salt Sermon," had threatened a "war of extermination"
between
> Mormons and Missourians.
Yes, this example of nineteenth-century Fourth of July rhetoric did go
over the top. But in what circumstance did Rigdon say that such a war
would ensue?
*ONLY* if the Missouri mobs attacked the Saints again. As they had done
for five years.
I know you prefer to suppress the truth about the preceding five years
of harassment and depredations that your Missourian pals had subjected
the Saints to. I'm sure you approve of those depredations as well, but
*that* is why the Mormons finally lost patience, and *that* is why Avard
was able to find supporters for his Danite scheme.
> When Boggs received word of the dissidents'
> affidavits, with Smith's and Rigdon's treasonous, murderous
statements, Boggs
> issued the "Extermination Order" as a last resort.
He was pretty quick to go to the "last resort," wasn't he? A
responsible public official might have thought about investigating the
reports to find out the facts.
> The Mormon Danites had
> vowed an oath to support any order JS gave them, even if it was
illegal;
Which is irrelevant because Joseph had already suppressed them, once he
found out what they were on about.
> because Boggs couldn't discern which Mormons were Danites and
therefore
> pillagers, from the non-participants, he had to order ALL the Mormons
removed.
You know Randy, this kind of logic is what gives apologetics a bad name.
He didn't *have to* do anything of the kind -- he seized upon the
excuses you offer him because it suited his own hatred, as well as his
political agenda.
> Because the Order mobilized enough militiamen to outnumber the
Danites,
who were never very numerous anyway, even before Joseph broke them up,
> it caused JS to "beg like a dog for peace"
thus showing that the claims of him wanting a "war of extermination"
were utterly bogus. I notice that you even find a way to insult him for
seeking peace. Your utterly vicious prejudices are in full view here,
"Ranty."
> and submit to arrest on
trumped-up
> murder and treason charges, along with his top Danite leaders.
No, along with other Church leaders. Sampson Avard, THE "top Danite
leader," had already thrown in with the mob -- for which, I'm sure, he
gets the Randy Jordan seal of approval.
> Their arrest ended hostilities.
Clearly because their arrest was the primary purpose for the
"hostilities."
> The Mormons weren't "exterminated",
Only about fifty of them,
> nor "driven from the state,"
> but were allowed to leave peaceably, with militia escort.
"*Allowed* to leave?" Why, how gracious of the kind Missourians, to
actually let people leave -- in the dead of winter, abandoning their
homes. And what was the "militia escort" for -- to protect them from
"Danites?" That bit of spin-doctoring would be hilariously funny if it
weren't so viciously offensive. The so-called "militia escort" drove
them from the state, in accordance with the Extermination order, and you
are a bare-faced liar if you try and pretend anything else.
> Perhaps you should just read the accounts of the period, Russell. If
you did
> so, you wouldn't be constantly wrong.
Say that to a mirror, Randy.
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
TheJordan6
>> The Mormon Danites had
>> vowed an oath to support any order JS gave them, even if it was
>illegal;
Russell wrote:
>Which is irrelevant because Joseph had already suppressed them, once he
>found out what they were on about.
Russell,
To respond to all of your absolutely incorrect, unsupportable drivel would take
time that I don't have at the moment. If I had the time, I could write 100
pages on this subject to refute your absolute ignorance.
You continue to repeat the lie that "JS suppressed the Danites when he found
out what they were doing." Your ignorant statement on this subject could not
be further from the actual truth. It is Mormon apologists like Hugh Nibley
whom you are ignorantly trusting in for your information.
Reputable scholars are well aware that Smith and Rigdon organized the Danites
to drive away Mormon dissenters and to loot and burn "Gentile" towns. There
are literally hundreds of bits of evidence to support this, nearly all of them
from Mormon sources. Smith wrote his letter disavowing the Danites AFTER he
and Rigdon had been arrested and were facing the prospect of execution. Some
of their followers, such as TB Marsh, Orson Hyde, John Corrill, Reed Peck,
George Hinkle, and Sampson Avard turned state's evidence and testified against
Smith and Rigdon. Because of the weight of the testimony against him, Smith
shifted the blame Avard for the whole "Danite" system, in order to save his
neck----in the same manner he shifted the blame for polygamy onto JC Bennett.
About a year ago, I provided documentation to you from JS' own journal that
showed his involvement in the Danites. Because you have selective memory, I'll
repeat it:
"27 July 1838--Friday--Some time past the brethren or saints have come up day
after day to consecrate, and to bring their offerings into the store house of
the lord, to prove him now herewith and see if he will not pour us out a
blessing that there will not be room enough to contain it, They have come up
hither (p. 60) Thus far, according to the (Revelater) order of the Danites, we
have a company of Danites in these times, to put right physically that which is
not right, and to cleanse the Church of very great evils which hath hitherto
existed among us inasmuch as they cannot be put right by teachings and
persuasions, This company or a part of them exhibited on the fourth of July
They come up to consecrate, by companies of tens, commanded by their captain
over ten."
("The Papers of Joseph Smith," vol. 2, p. 262, Deseret Book, 1992, ed. by Dean
Jessee.)
LDS historian Jessee's footnote to this entry reads:
"The part of this entry following page 60 has been crossed out in the original
manuscript, evidently by a later hand."
What we can extrapolate from this entry in Joseph Smith's own journal is:
1. To "consecrate" was the code word for the Mormon practice of stealing goods
from their "Gentile" neighbors, as can be read in many accounts of the day.
The "store house of the lord" was a stone building that they appropriated from
a displaced "Gentile" to store their stolen goods.
2. "According to the (Revelater)" apparently was JS' unschooled way of trying
to say that the "Danites" were organized via "revelation." Accounts from
Danites themselves reveal that they took an oath to obey the "Prophet" in his
every command, as it was the "revealed word of God.' The "oath of obedience",
in the original Nauvoo temple ceremony, was the next evolution of this Danite
oath of obedience. A vestige of it still remains in today's temple ceremony,
wherein patrons swear to "speak no evil of the Lord's anointed."
3. Where Smith wrote "to put right *PHYSICALLY*....to cleanse the Church", he
is obviously referring to Rigdon's well-documented letter to Mormon dissenters
such as David Whitmer, John Whitmer, W. W. Phelps, Lyman Johnson, informing
them to "depart, depart, or a MORE FATAL CALAMITY shall befall you..." ("Senate
Document 189," 26th Congress, p. 9.)
Those named men and their families were driven out of their homes in Caldwell
County by the "Danites." Smith's journal entry, written *BEFORE* those men
were driven out, confirms his complicity in that future act.
"In all probability, the eighty-three signers of the ultimatum comprised the
charter members of the Danite Society which grew to include an estimated four
hundred men. Ebenezer Robinson, a close associate of Joseph's during these
troubled times, said, 'The above manifesto was signed by 83 determined men.
Among the names we recognize some of the members of the high council, and
others holding high positions in the church, including that of Hyrum Smith, one
of the First Presidency.' Robinson himself was one of the letter's
signatories."
(Schindler, "Orrin Porter Rockwell," p. 39.)
Those 83 signers of Rigdon's letter was a virtual "who's who" of prominent,
insider, leading Mormon men, including apostles Lyman Wight and David Patten,
and others later known to be deeply involved as "Danites" in later periods,
including Rockwell, Hosea Stout, and Bill Hickman.
Other known Danites were:
*George Harris, Far West High Councilor
*Dimick Baker, brother of JS' plural wife Zina Huntington
*Oliver Huntington, same
*Jabez Durfee, husband of JS' plural wife Elizabeth Durfee
*John Smith, JS' own uncle
*Vinson Knight, bishop of "Adam-ondi-Ahman" (the man who received and stored
"consecrated" plunder)
*Cornelius Lott, father of JS' plural wife Melissa Lott (a Danite "general")
*Stephen Winchester, father of JS' plural wife Nancy Winchester (Apostle and
Danite David Patten died in his home from wounds at Crooked River)
*Jared Carter
*George W. Robinson
*John D. Lee
It goes beyond the bounds of sanity to believe that all these prominent men,
close associates of JS, and church leaders, would participate in a "renegade"
band, the details of which JS was ignorant.
Many of these men, and others, remained Danites once in Nauvoo---some acted as
JS' bodyguards and some as Nauvoo policemen. They were identified by wearing
white. John D. Lee confessed to Danite crimes in Nauvoo, and Brigham Young
used the threat of Danites to keep his people in line in sermons years later in
Utah:
"If men come here and do not behave themselves, they will not only find the
Danites, whom they talk so much about, biting their heels, but the scoundrels
will find something biting their THEIR heels. In my plain remarks I merely
call things by their right names." (JoD, vol. v. p. 6, July 15, 1857.)
The "Danites" did not cease to function until BY's death in 1877.
4. Smith wrote that "they exhibited (paraded) on the fourth of July...", is
extremely relevant, because that was the day of Rigdon's "Salt Sermon", wherein
he advocated "ridding the county" of dissenters, and promising a "war of
extermination" against the Missourians.
Smith's entry was obviously referring to the "Danites", and his tone is
obviously approving of them. Contradicting your repeated ignorant assertion,
JS knew very well what they were up to.
5. Where Smith wrote "by companies of ten, commanded by their captain over
ten," is illustrative of Mormon military organization both before and after the
"Danite" period. That obviously means that the "Danites" was merely that
period's Mormon army unit, and not some "unauthorized" or "renegade" group.
6. Jessee's footnote indicating that this journal entry was "crossed out by a
later hand" proves that either Smith, or one of his followers, tried to strike
his approval of the "Danites" from his own journal. But the fact that Jessee
deciphered the crossed-out portion, and re-inserted it, conclusively proves
Smith's knowledge and approval of the "Danite" band.
7. In the same letter written from Liberty Jail (where he was facing trial and
execution), wherein he denied and disavowed the Danites, JS also denied his
secret polygamy practice. This shows his willingness to lie to save himself.
In the same letter, he also wrote:
"I would further suggest the impropriety of the organization of bands or
companies, by COVENANT OR OATH, by PENALTIES OR SECRECIES; but let the time
past of our experience and sufferings by the wickedness of Doctor Avard suffice
and let our covenant be that of the Everlasting Covenant, as contained in the
Holy Writ and the things that God hath revealed to us. Pure friendship always
becomes weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stornger by PENAL
OATHS AND SECRECY."
("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 146.)
So we see, that while disavowing "penal oaths and secrecy" in March of
1839---in an effort to blame the "Danites" on Avard---just three years later,
in April, 1842, JS instituted his "endowment ceremony," wherein initiates took
part in the very rituals he had counseled against---"penal oaths and secrecy."
A quick study of the "Danite" oaths and JS' 1842 endowment ceremony oaths will
reveal their similarities, making it obvious that both rituals were from the
same mind and attitude.
Russell, if you were not afraid of truth, you could investigate this
information from many sources, so that you could in some small way, begin to
divest yourself of the Mormon brainwashing in which you have immersed yourself.
Another Mormon scholar, Harold Schindler, also affirms Smith's part in the
instigation of the "Danites":
"One of the great controversies surrounding the Sons of Dan concerns the
question of whether Joseph knew and approved of its existence prior to the
society's public exposure in November, 1838. The point is relevant because if
his denials of such knowledge are true, it marked the only occasion in Orrin
Porter Rockwell's life when he strayed from the dictates of the church by
entering into an unauthorized doctrinal venture. His close relationship and
devoted obedience to the prophet maked it inconceivable that he would have
failed to inform Joseph of the Danites. Even so, the prophet's absolute grip
on the church precludes the possibility that Avard could have carried out an
undertaking of such magnitude in secrecy. Finally, the argument presents
itself that the prophet probably encouraged the concept, since it played a dual
role of preventing a recurrence of the Kirtland rebellion by uncovering
potential apostates almost immediately while at the same time protecting the
Mormons against their Gentile enemies.....John Corrill, a prominent Saint
during the Jackson County persecutions, described a gathering of the Sons of
Dan at which the entire First Presidency was introduced to officers of the
order and 'pronounced blessings on each of them.' Corrill added that Joseph
arose and 'made some general remarks...relating to the oppressions members had
suffered, and said they wanted to be prepared for further events.'
"Reed Peck, adjutant of the band, substantiated Corrill's statements on this
point...And John Cleminson added, 'Dr. Avard called on Joseph Smith, Jr., who
gave them a pledge, that if they (the first Presidency) led them into
difficulty he would give them his head for a foot-ball, and that it was the
will of God these things should be so. The teacher and active agent of the
society was Dr. Avard and his teachings were approved of by the presidency."
("Orrin Porter Rockwell," Harold Schindler, p. 44.)
Russell, if you wish to continue repeating your ignorant assertion that JS
"suppressed the Danites when he found out what they were up to," I'll just
write page after page of historical documentation to show you how utterly wrong
you are.
Please, before you continue to embarrass yourself before dozens of readers, do
some actual study on the subject.
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
<russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Louis Farrakan is reputed to have said,
>
> "Everybody always talks about what Hitler did to the Jews. Don't nobody
> ever talk about what the Jews did to Hitler."
>
> And, in the same spirit,
> In article <19991223154559...@ng-fn1.aol.com>,
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
>
> >
> > The Extermination Order was neither evil nor indefensible.
>
> Except to people who think Mormons should be treated like other
> citizens.
>
> > There is nothing to
> > recant. Governor Boggs issued his order because Mormon Danites were
> looting
> > and burning local non-Mormons out, as well as some dissident Mormons.
>
> The Danite business was over by this time; he issued his order after the
> battle of Crooked River.
€ The predations of the Danite Band on non-members and members continued
in Utah according to testimony in Congress.
>
..
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> Randy wrote:
>
> >> The Mormon Danites had
> >> vowed an oath to support any order JS gave them, even if it was
> >illegal;
>
> Russell wrote:
>
> >.........
>.....
> Russell, if you wish to continue repeating your ignorant assertion that JS
> "suppressed the Danites when he found out what they were up to," I'll just
> write page after page of historical documentation to show you how
utterly wrong
> you are.
> Please, before you continue to embarrass yourself before dozens of readers, do
> some actual study on the subject.
>
€ A too-bitter pill to swallow, Randy. Like Lady Macbeth, Russ is
apparently beyond the point of no return. // For JS, the Danite Band was
his primary "persecution" generator.
PatentWorm
TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991229213348...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> Randy wrote:
>
<snip>
We have a white Louis Farakhan in our midst. Wouldn't you rather change
your name to "TheBigoted1"?
Russell McGregor
>
> >> The Mormon Danites had
> >> vowed an oath to support any order JS gave them, even if it was
> >illegal;
>
> Russell wrote:
A whole lot more than this, but Randy has completely ignored 98% of it.
Shall we take the rest as conceded?
> >Which is irrelevant because Joseph had already suppressed them, once
he
> >found out what they were on about.
>
> Russell,
>
> To respond to all of your absolutely incorrect, unsupportable drivel
would take
> time that I don't have at the moment. If I had the time, I could
write 100
> pages on this subject to refute your absolute ignorance.
The nice thing about "absolute ignorance" is that it doesn't take 100
pages to "refute."
> You continue to repeat the lie that "JS suppressed the Danites when
he found
> out what they were doing."
I continue to repeat it because it is the truth.
> Your ignorant statement on this subject could not
> be further from the actual truth. It is Mormon apologists like Hugh
Nibley
> whom you are ignorantly trusting in for your information.
Then there is a little source you might have heard of, called _History
of the Church_.
> Reputable scholars are well aware that Smith and Rigdon organized the
Danites
> to drive away Mormon dissenters and to loot and burn "Gentile" towns.
Actually, *reputable* scholars are aware that this is the *accusation*
brought by tendentious propagandists; but *reputable* scholars reject
this accusation.
> There
> are literally hundreds of bits of evidence to support this, nearly
all of them
> from Mormon sources.
Pity there aren't any good ones.
> Smith wrote his letter disavowing the Danites AFTER he
> and Rigdon had been arrested and were facing the prospect of
execution. Some
> of their followers, such as TB Marsh, Orson Hyde,
Name-dropping does you no good, Randy. Marsh and Hyde later recanted
their accusations. But in the first place, Marsh's accusations re
Danites were all second-hand, and Hyde simply said that he agreed with
Marsh's statement.
> John Corrill, Reed Peck,
> George Hinkle, and Sampson Avard turned state's evidence and
testified against
> Smith and Rigdon.
All of which was done entirely *without* any self-interest??????
> Because of the weight of the testimony against him, Smith
> shifted the blame Avard for the whole "Danite" system, in order to
save his
> neck----in the same manner he shifted the blame for polygamy onto JC
Bennett.
Two lies in one paragraph. Now:
1) If "the weight of the testimony against him" had been as great as
you like to pretend, Joseph wouldn't have been able to "shift[] the
blame [to] Avard." Joseph blamed Avard because Avard was to blame.
2) Joseph *didn't* "shift[] the blame for polygamy onto JC Bennett" at
all -- plural marriage was practiced in secrecy at that time, and
Bennett took advantage of the secrecy to invent his own corrupted
version, which he called "spiritual wifery," whereby he attempted to
seduce a number of women. He was rightly excommunicated for that.
Now if you want to start a polygamy argument, kindly do so on another
thread. This one is about the Extermination order, and your apology
therefor.
That's a blatant and unsupported lie, knowingly invented by haters and
wilfully perpetuated by malignant individuals who know it is a lie.
The *real* meaning of the word "consecrate," as used by the Saints, is
found in such sources as D&C 42:30,39. It meant that they gave their
*own* property. Theft was NEVER part of the plan.
> The "store house of the lord" was a stone building that they
appropriated from
> a displaced "Gentile" to store their stolen goods.
It was whatever building they happened to use for the purpose of
storing consecrated -- NOT stolen -- goods.
It is mere spiteful slander to call the goods consecrated by the
sacrifice of the Saints "stolen."
Snip
> 3. Where Smith wrote "to put right *PHYSICALLY*....to cleanse the
Church", he
> is obviously referring to Rigdon's well-documented letter to Mormon
dissenters
> such as David Whitmer, John Whitmer, W. W. Phelps, Lyman Johnson,
informing
> them to "depart, depart, or a MORE FATAL CALAMITY shall befall
you..." ("Senate
> Document 189," 26th Congress, p. 9.)
> Those named men and their families were driven out of their homes in
Caldwell
> County by the "Danites." Smith's journal entry, written *BEFORE*
those men
> were driven out, confirms his complicity in that future act.
Eh? That journal entry, "written *BEFORE* those men were driven out,"
cannot **for that very reason** confirm "his complicity in that" or any
other "future act" that the said journal entry does not explicitly
authorise. Had he written approvingly of the driving out *after* it
happened, that might show complicity, or at least a condoning; as it
is, your attempt to implicate Joseph in the later act by a previous
diary notation is feeble, desperate, and I dare say disingenuous.
> "In all probability, the eighty-three signers of the ultimatum
comprised the
> charter members of the Danite Society which grew to include an
estimated four
> hundred men.
"In all probability?" How much probability is "all?" Is your
statistically savvy informant prepared to give us a percentage?
I doubt that he really means to use that term mathematically, in which
case he's telling us that this is his opinion, and that he cannot prove
it.
Which is really the only useful bit of information in the whole quote.
Randy's found another name to drop. Woopee.
> Ebenezer Robinson, a close associate of Joseph's during these
> troubled times, said, 'The above manifesto was signed by 83
determined men.
> Among the names we recognize some of the members of the high council,
and
> others holding high positions in the church, including that of Hyrum
Smith, one
> of the First Presidency.' Robinson himself was one of the letter's
> signatories."
> (Schindler, "Orrin Porter Rockwell," p. 39.)
And where is Joseph's signature?
> Those 83 signers of Rigdon's letter was a virtual "who's who" of
prominent,
> insider, leading Mormon men, including apostles Lyman Wight and David
Patten,
> and others later known to be deeply involved as "Danites" in later
periods,
> including Rockwell, Hosea Stout, and Bill Hickman.
But not Joseph Smith. I see.
Snip undocumented "who's who" of accused Danites.
> Many of these men, and others, remained Danites once in Nauvoo
That is false. There were no Danites in Nauvoo.
> ---some acted as
> JS' bodyguards and some as Nauvoo policemen. They were identified by
wearing
> white. John D. Lee confessed to Danite crimes in Nauvoo,
Oh yes, Lee's "confessions" are soooo credible, right?
> and Brigham Young
> used the threat of Danites to keep his people in line in sermons
years later in
> Utah:
>
> "If men come here and do not behave themselves, they will not only
find the
> Danites, whom they talk so much about, biting their heels,
Actually it was the horse's heels. If you can't use your sources
responsibly, at least get your quotes right.
> but the scoundrels
> will find something biting their THEIR heels. In my plain remarks I
merely
> call things by their right names." (JoD, vol. v. p. 6, July 15, 1857.)
Four questions:
1) You accuse Brigham of using "the threat of Danites to keep *his*
people in line" (emphasis added.) Yet whose horse's are the Danites to
bite the heels of? The "men [who] come here and do not behave
themselves" -- i.e. strangers and "scoundrels" -- NOT Brigham's people.
2) And what Danites were they? Answer: "the Danites, whom *they* talk
so much about" -- i.e. the fictitious Danites, figments of the anti-
Mormon imagination.
3) And what were these yeah-right Danites doing? Biting the horses'
heels. What is that supposed to accomplish?
4) What actual evidence is there of Danite depredations? Why is it
that people who want to accuse us of secret murders always have to
refer to public sermons?
Now Randy, if you really want to believe that Brigham was publicly
confirming the existence of the super-duper-secret "Danites," then I
won't disabuse you. Anyone who is willing to take that obvious bit of
irony literally does not need disabusing -- quite the opposite.
> The "Danites" did not cease to function until BY's death in 1877.
You assert. Show us, please, that they actually functioned at all.
> 4. Smith wrote that "they exhibited (paraded) on the fourth of
July...", is
> extremely relevant,
... even though everyone else was parading on the 4th of July as well,
somehow the word "Danites" in connection with a 4/7 parade becomes
sinister...
> because that was the day of Rigdon's "Salt Sermon", wherein
> he advocated "ridding the county" of dissenters, and promising a "war
of
> extermination" against the Missourians.
**IF AND ONLY IF** the Missourians came after them first.
Now Randy, if you want to establish some credibility, please concede
this indisputable fact.
> Smith's entry was obviously referring to the "Danites", and his tone
is
> obviously approving of them. Contradicting your repeated ignorant
assertion,
> JS knew very well what they were up to.
So you assert. But see below.
> 5. Where Smith wrote "by companies of ten, commanded by their captain
over
> ten," is illustrative of Mormon military organization both before and
after the
> "Danite" period. That obviously means that the "Danites" was merely
that
> period's Mormon army unit, and not some "unauthorized" or "renegade"
group.
Thank you, Randy, for so nearly hitting the nail on the head.
The word "Danites" was originally used by Joseph Smith, in Far West, as
a metaphor for "the brethren in self-defense" (see HC 6:165.) It was
then picked up and used with reference to the regularly organised
militia units. Thus, when Avard wanted to organise his own private
army, he leveraged off that word, which had already been used by others
a few times, and made it his own.
This is how it was. If you prefer to persist in your abominable
libels, that is your affair.
> 6. Jessee's footnote indicating that this journal entry was "crossed
out by a
> later hand" proves that either Smith, or one of his followers, tried
to strike
> his approval of the "Danites" from his own journal. But the fact
that Jessee
> deciphered the crossed-out portion, and re-inserted it, conclusively
proves
> Smith's knowledge and approval of the "Danite" band.
It proves only that he used that *word* with approval. See above.
> 7. In the same letter written from Liberty Jail (where he was facing
trial and
> execution), wherein he denied and disavowed the Danites, JS also
denied his
> secret polygamy practice. This shows his willingness to lie to save
himself.
> In the same letter, he also wrote:
> "I would further suggest the impropriety of the organization of bands
or
> companies, by COVENANT OR OATH, by PENALTIES OR SECRECIES; but let
the time
> past of our experience and sufferings by the wickedness of Doctor
Avard suffice
> and let our covenant be that of the Everlasting Covenant, as
contained in the
> Holy Writ and the things that God hath revealed to us. Pure
friendship always
> becomes weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stornger by
PENAL
> OATHS AND SECRECY."
> ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 146.)
Thank you. The evidence shows that he was opposed to such things.
Snip irrelevant attempt to drag the Endowment through the mud.
> Russell, if you were not afraid of truth, you could investigate this
> information from many sources, so that you could in some small way,
begin to
> divest yourself of the Mormon brainwashing in which you have immersed
yourself.
Randy, if you were not afraid of truth, you could investigate this
information from many sources, so that you could in some small way,
begin to divest yourself of the anti-Mormon brainwashing in which you
have immersed yourself.
> Another Mormon scholar, Harold Schindler,
Who? Never heard of him.
Is he another "Mormon scholar" who publishes via the devoutly orthodox
Signature Press?
> also affirms Smith's part in the instigation of the "Danites":
On what basis? Was he there?
> "One of the great controversies surrounding the Sons of Dan concerns
the
> question of whether Joseph knew and approved of its existence prior
to the
> society's public exposure in November, 1838.
This is indeed a relevant question.
Another question is whether the "Danites" he knew and approved of were
simply the Church's ordinary militia unit, or Avard's little aberration.
A further question is whether he knew of what Avard intended. It is
one thing to approve of an Italian social club called "La Cosa Nostra,"
especially if you've never heard of them or what they are up to.
> The point is relevant because if
> his denials of such knowledge are true, it marked the only occasion
in Orrin
> Porter Rockwell's life when he strayed from the dictates of the
church by
> entering into an unauthorized doctrinal venture. His close
relationship and
> devoted obedience to the prophet maked it inconceivable that he would
have
> failed to inform Joseph of the Danites. Even so, the prophet's
absolute grip
> on the church precludes the possibility that Avard could have carried
out an
> undertaking of such magnitude in secrecy.
It "precludes" no such thing. Avard was the president of the local
branch -- "the prophet's absolute grip" consisted in the fact that the
local leaders reported to him.
> Finally, the argument presents
> itself that the prophet probably encouraged the concept,
Probably? Has the man no evidence of anything at all?
> since it played a dual
> role of preventing a recurrence of the Kirtland rebellion by
uncovering
> potential apostates almost immediately while at the same time
protecting the
> Mormons against their Gentile enemies.....
What does that have to do with your favourite allegations of murder and
robbery? Do you have any concept of consistency?
> John Corrill, a prominent Saint
> during the Jackson County persecutions, described a gathering of the
Sons of
> Dan at which the entire First Presidency was introduced to officers
of the
> order and 'pronounced blessings on each of them.' Corrill added that
Joseph
> arose and 'made some general remarks...relating to the oppressions
members had
> suffered, and said they wanted to be prepared for further events.'
Thank you for posting this information, Randy. This clearly shows that
Joseph clearly thought that the group he was addressing was a self-
defence organisation.
It probably was, too.
> "Reed Peck, adjutant of the band, substantiated Corrill's statements
on this
> point...And John Cleminson added, 'Dr. Avard called on Joseph Smith,
Jr., who
> gave them a pledge, that if they (the first Presidency) led them into
> difficulty he would give them his head for a foot-ball, and that it
was the
> will of God these things should be so.
And now for the ultimate admission:
> The teacher and active agent of the society was Dr. Avard
As we know,
> and his teachings were approved of by the presidency."
... according to Avard, and those apostates -- sorry, Tabitha, those
people who "had grown beyond the need to obey the gospel" -- who went
with him.
> ("Orrin Porter Rockwell," Harold Schindler, p. 44.)
>
> Russell, if you wish to continue repeating your ignorant assertion
that JS
> "suppressed the Danites when he found out what they were up to,"
I'll just
> write page after page of historical documentation to show you how
utterly wrong
> you are.
It had better be extraordinarily better than what you have produced so
far.
> Please, before you continue to embarrass yourself before dozens of
readers, do
> some actual study on the subject.
>
> Randy J.
Guess what, Randy:
Joseph Smith suppressed the Danites, once he found out what they were
on about.
Now if you can do no better than prove that Joseph used the word
approvingly as a metaphor for the ordinary self-defence organisation of
the Church members, or that he didn't mind Avard's lot before they
showed their true colours, or that apostates and traitors originated
the libels you here repeat, or that Brigham Young made fun of those
"scoundrels" who "talk so much about" the so-called "Danites" -- then I
suggest you find something else to fulminate about.
Russell McGregor
Ah, Rich. You are so delightfully predictable.
May I remind you of one of your favourite standby arguments?
... and O.J. didn't own those golf shoes, according to testimony in
court.
Now I want you to do a little favour for me.
Go to a mirror, look in it, and repeat three times:
"Accusations do not equal proof.
Accusations do not equal proof.
Accusations do not equal proof."
Then come back to your computer and read the following article.
Thanks, Rich.
Wild Bill Rides Again:
The Tanners on the Danites.
Review of “Brigham Young and Wild Bill Hickman” in The Salt Lake City
Messenger, Issue No. 77, February, 1991.
In _Sounding Brass_ (Bookcraft, 1963) Hugh W. Nibley wrote a long
chapter entitled “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book.” That chapter
explains 36 rules of the genre which Nibley extrapolates from the
examples before him. Although the chapter is a fine example of
Socratic irony, and is written with tongue firmly in cheek, the rules
are thought-provoking, and very applicable. The article under review
is a magazine article, and not a book; nevertheless, it faithfully
adheres to many of the rules which Nibley describes. [1] So
faithfully, in fact, that it would be possible, using the methods the
Tanners employ on The Book of Mormon, to “prove” that Nibley’s essay
provided the “ground plan” for that article. There is no doubt that
they have seen _Sounding Brass_, since they quote from it, thus:
“Nobody had been able to pin anything on the Mormons until 14 years
later, when Bill Hickman came to the rescue with his thrice-welcome
‘confessions’… a long and lurid catalogue of blood in which every major
crime committed in Utah is mechanically and unimaginatively pinned on
Brigham Young…. Hickman, as we shall see, never dreamed of such a
thing until Beadle put him up to it… Beadle was a professional purveyor
of scandal… we believe that those tales are Beadle’s invention… The
patent absurdity of the ‘Confessions’ becomes apparent on the most
superficial investigation and grows with every monotonous episode…. The
Hickman stories were not true.” (_Sounding Brass_, 1963, pp. 254, 256,
263-65)
It is a fairly representative Tanner quote, telescoping phrases from
four non-contiguous pages into a single paragraph. One would imagine,
reading this quote, that Nibley’s argument had been summarised for us.
In fact those eleven pages of closely-reasoned arguments, including
some full and explicit quotes, are simply devastating to the Tanners’
thesis, but you wouldn’t know that from the way they handle them.
Nevertheless, this quote is valuable because it proves that they have
read _Sounding Brass_.
Having read the book, we might expect them to take account of those
arguments it makes which impact their own thesis; but they pass by
these in complete silence (rule 16.) Since the article repeats the
Tanners’ stock accusation that the Church “suppresses” unhelpful
documents, this is rather revealing. For example, the Tanners’ star
witness is William A. Hickman, a frontier roughneck who happened to be
a member of the Church. The Tanners use a lot of column space arguing
that Hickman’s turgid “confession,” _Brigham's Destroying Angel_, was
not substantially altered by J. H. Beadle, and that it was true. In
making this argument they address issues raised by Arrington and
Hilton, but they completely ignore Nibley’s two most important
arguments.
The Tanners fail to mention that Hickman met several times with
Governor Stephen S. Harding and told him all. In fact, Harding’s name
is nowhere mentioned in the article. Nibley points out that Harding’s
career as Governor was in trouble, and he desperately needed to pin
something on Brigham Young. Furthermore, Hickman was, at this
juncture, more than willing to give him all the help he needed; but
their partnership was entirely fruitless. Hickman’s allegations must
have been of immense value to Governor Harding if they were true; so
why did the good Governor not make use of them? Not only were the two
of them unable pin anything on Brigham; they didn’t even have enough to
start proceedings against him. Why, Nibley asks, were Hickman’s
allegations of no help to Harding? Is it because those allegations
were simply untrue? Nibley’s argument is sound; it seems apparent that
the Tanners simply ignore it because they are unable to deal with it.
Indeed, the fact that Harding’s name does not appear anywhere in the
article is even more revealing when we realise that Beadle, in editing
_Brigham's Destroying Angel_, relies upon Harding and quotes him at
length.
Nibley also mentions – almost in passing – the fact that Hickman,
despite his published “confessions”, lived alone on an isolated ranch
for years afterwards; why did the “Danites” never avenge Hickman’s
breaking of their oaths by killing him? And we might add – why did
Hickman himself show no concern for his safety after “blowing the
whistle”? There was no “witness protection program” in those days, and
people who run murder rackets are not known for their forbearance
towards those of their number who “rat” on their former colleagues.
Again, the Tanners offer no answer to this issue, preferring to simply
ignore it. For sure, they trot out the old chestnut “that Hickman
could commit the atrocious crimes he did while the Mormons were in
power without being punished seems to show that he was being protected
by church leaders.” But what about afterwards, when the leaders were
definitely not protecting him? They do not say. An argument that is
not addressed is an argument that is not refuted, and these arguments
are quite strong enough to lead to the conclusion that Hickman’s book
is untrue. This is all the more significant because these arguments
are embedded in the very same pages from which they cull their quote,
cited above.
They give the same cavalier treatment to Nibley’s analysis of some of
their source material. For instance, they quote a statement of Brigham
Young, which, they claim, proves that Brigham was acknowledging both
the existence and the bloodthirsty propensities of the Danites. In
_Sounding Brass_ Nibley analysed that quote, and clearly demonstrated
that such was not the case at all, but did the Tanners answer, or even
acknowledge his argument? No.
In discussing Joseph Smith’s statements on the Danites, the Tanners
enjoy the prerogatives of “unequal scholarship” (rule 26); they strain
at a number of gnats about what was or was not in his “scriptory book”
but completely ignore his own full account of his dealings with Avard
and the Danites in Missouri. Once again, Nibley gave this account a
full treatment in _Sounding Brass_, but the Tanners seem quite
inexplicably to have missed it.
The way the Tanners handle Nibley is important; since they are so
manipulative of such a widely-available source, there is no reason to
expect them to be any more responsible with their other sources. They
rely heavily on Hope Hilton’s book, _“Wild Bill” Hickman and the Mormon
Frontier_, but it is unlikely that Mrs. Hilton would endorse their
conclusions.
The section that comes under the heading “HICKMAN'S WORK FOUND?” is as
perfect an example of what Nibley called “the ‘House-that-Jack-Built’
technique” (rule 17) as we could hope to find. There, the Tanners give
full rein to their penchant for drawing firm conclusions from their own
uninformed speculations. In this case, the speculation is based upon
what Hope Hilton does not say in her book (rule 18). Mrs. Hilton draws
some different conclusions than those she presented in an earlier paper
co-authored with Leonard J. Arrington. Proceeding from this, the
Tanners ask, “Is it possible that she has located the original
manuscript of _Brigham's Destroying Angel_?” And so they commence to
build their argument, in signature Tanner style:
"Mrs. Hilton's statements concerning the matter are rather strange… she
would be suspicious…. She, of course, would not know for certain….
Anyone… could have added the words… Is this document something the
church is trying to suppress…? It could also he [sic] possible that
someone… was forbidden to release any information concerning the
manuscript's existence…. We may never know the truth about this
matter…. In any case [an admission that the case has not been
established] Arrington and Hilton felt…. Today, however, Hope Hilton
feels…."
And so the case is built; it is all their own reaction (“rather
strange”) and speculation (“would be suspicious”, “would know”, “could
have added”) subtle hints of conspiracy and cover-up (“we may never
know the truth”) and of course the inevitable mind reading without
which the Tanners would be able to publish considerably less material.
It is perfect “house-that-Jack-built” speculation that leaves the
unwary reader with the impression that something very significant has
been proven, when in fact nothing at all has been.
The Tanners expend several paragraphs on the so-called “Blood
Atonement” doctrine, i.e. the idea that people could atone for their
own sins by allowing their own blood to be shed. This, they argue, was
the doctrinal/ideological basis for the many murders the Danites
committed. They argue from this as though it has been established as
doctrine, (it hasn’t) but this is a peripheral issue here. The main
problem, for their purposes, is that the idea of “Blood Atonement”
seems always to relate back to Mormons breaking covenants, or otherwise
transgressing against the greater light. In fact, the passages which
they cite from the _Journal of Discourses_, which are used to support
the claim that Brigham believed in Blood Atonement, make it absolutely
clear that people guilty of capital crimes should voluntarily submit
themselves to be executed.
And so, having established “Blood Atonement” as the ideological basis
for “Danite” atrocities, they proceed to prove that those atrocities
actually took place. Which atrocities? Why, various murders of
hostile or well-heeled gentiles, of course! But what on earth has that
to do with “Blood Atonement”? Did any of those gentiles commit capital
offences, or break Mormon covenants? Did they step forward and ask to
be executed for those crimes? The Tanners offer no evidence for this.
“Hosea Stout was a member of the Danite Band and later served as a body
guard for Joseph Smith. Besides serving as Chief of Police in Nauvoo,
he was an officer in the Nauvoo legion.” With these words, the Tanners
introduce the figure of Hosea Stout, whom Hickman implicates in some of
his best atrocity stories. Stout, the Tanners tell us, was “a very
brutal man”, as evidenced by his diary. And so, to prove how brutal he
was, they cite two incidents recorded in that diary in which he did not
kill anyone. The first, in April 1845, concerned a trespasser on the
grounds of the Temple at night, who had been roughed up by the police.
In a time when shooting trespassers on sight was not rare, this is not
a very good atrocity. The second incident took place the following
January, when one William Hibbard, whom Stout suspected of spying,
appeared among the guard; Stout hit him on the head with a stone.
Hibbard subsequently walked off the Temple grounds, somewhat dazed, but
not seriously injured.
It is interesting that both of these incidents happened during the last
months at Nauvoo. This was a dangerous time; the city, from the
martyrdom to the exodus, was always embattled and frequently close to
besieged. The Temple, in the grounds of which the trespasser had been
found, was destroyed by an arsonist only months later. (We may ask –
was not that arsonist trespassing at the time he started the fire?
Does that not vindicate “stern measures” against trespassers?) Mob
activity was at its peak, as the mob leaders sought to keep up the
pressure on the Saints to ensure their speedy departure. And it is to
this dangerous time that the Tanners must go to find the evidence of
Stout’s brutality. To be sure, they make a vague reference to other
diary entries which they do not cite; but this does not inspire our
confidence, since it is abundantly clear that the entries that were
cited were the best ones available. (This is called “controlling one’s
sources” – rule 11.) Certainly, Stout was neither a milquetoast nor an
academic theologian; a man of action in a violent time, he did what had
to be done and made no apologies for it. Whatever his failings may
have been, the Tanners have not made their case that he was a man
willing to commit murder at a moment’s notice.
The Tanners’ patriotism (rule 34) appears in their treatment of
conflicts between the Saints and various federal officials. The latter
are always regarded as responsible public servants; the LDS perception
of them as careerist scoundrels is carefully suppressed. Just as the
Johnson and Grant administrations, during the Reconstruction, were able
to find an inexhaustible supply of self-serving opportunists who hated
both Southerners and the South, so a series of administrations were
never short of self-serving opportunists who hated both Mormons and
Mormonism, and who were willing to feather their own nests in Utah.
The Tanners report the scornful comments of R. N. Baskin, who claimed
that he would gladly have indicted Brigham Young but for opposition
from non-LDS Utahns, which opposition he characterised as “fire from
the rear”. This, he claimed, was because the gentiles thought that
arresting Brigham would bring wholesale reprisals. The very next
paragraph, we learn that Brigham was arrested and that there were
(surprise surprise) no reprisals. In fact, there was no reason at all
for the gentiles to fear reprisals; on the other hand, the Saints had
every reason to fear for the safety of their leaders in the hands of
the government, if their experience in Nauvoo was anything to go on.
Actually, when the gentiles protest, it can only be because they think
the “feds” are going too far; the fear of “reprisals” is a necessary
fiction to lead us away from the obvious conclusion that the
authorities in general, and Baskin in particular, were getting carried
away in their own bigoted zealotry.
The Tanners show their skill at using the unfulfilled condition (rule
19) in their treatment of Rockwell’s death. They said, “Finally, on
Sept. 29, 1877, Rockwell was arrested for his part in the Aiken
massacre. He was 64 years old at the time. On June 9, 1878, Orrin
Porter Rockwell died, and therefore he did not have to face a trial
which could have been very embarrassing for the Mormon Church”
(emphasis added.) If they wanted to be fair, they would have admitted
that the only conclusion to be drawn about a trial that did not happen
was that it did not happen. Arguing that it “could have been”
embarrassing to the Church is pointless; it equally “could have”
exonerated Rockwell and the Church completely, but the Tanners have
evidently not heard of the presumption of innocence.
The Tanners take a strange line on the name “Danite.” “Some Mormon
apologists have tried to make an issue over the fact that Bill Hickman
was called a ‘Danite’ on the title page of Brigham’s Destroying Angel,”
they say. And in the next paragraph, “it seems rather ridiculous to
quibble over the word ‘Danite’ when the evidence shows that Bill
Hickman functioned in the same way that the Danite band did in
Missouri.” Yet that selfsame evidence is as insistent upon the name as
it is upon the activities it links to that name; the two go together.
If the men in question are not truly Danites, then which of the
allegations against them can be trusted? If the evidence is sound,
then Hickman and others were Danites in Utah. If they were not
Danites, then the evidence that says that they were is not reliable;
and if we discard that evidence, then we have nothing left to go on.
The Tanners are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
The Tanners ensure that they preserve the gap (rule 30) between their
modern audience and those wicked Mormons in this manner:
"While all the evidence seems to show that everyone who opposed the
Mormon Church in early Utah risked the possibility of losing their
property or even their lives, things are different today. The police
in Salt Lake City give full protection to both Mormons and Gentiles."
Thus, they excuse themselves for having to explain how it is that
modern Utah Saints are so entirely unlike their predecessors; for their
whole premise begs this important question. The fact is that the
Saints in Utah today are by and large what their (mostly LDS) parents
taught them to be; those parents were pretty much what their (mostly
LDS) parents taught them to be, and so on back to Brigham’s day. Thus,
if modern Latter-day Saints will only take up arms in self-defence, we
can reasonably infer that that was also true of their ancestors.
And does “all the evidence” really show that “everyone who opposed the
Mormon Church in early Utah” did so at the risk of life and limb?
Everyone? Well, all the evidence that the Tanners are willing to
admit, and there’s the rub, for that evidence is pretty poor stuff. As
Nibley (again) pointed out, again in the very pages that the Tanners
quoted, Beadle himself had to live in Utah for years before he even
began to suspect that not all was well. In fact “all the evidence”
does not show what the Tanners want us to believe it shows, and only by
playing fast and loose with that evidence can they make it do so.
[1] Nibley’s rules are:
Rule 1: Don’t be modest! Your first concern should be to make it
clear that you are the man for the job. Rule 2: A benign criticism of
your predecessors will go far towards confirming your own pre-eminence
in the field. Rule 3: Curtsies and bouquets to everyone. Rule 4:
Proclaim the purity of your motives. Rule 5: Proclaim your love for
the Mormon people. Rule 6: Allow the Mormons a few normal human
failings. Rule 7: Furnish documents! Rule 8: Avoid footnotes! Rule
9: Be lavish in your appendix! Pour it on! Rule 10: Be a name
dropper! Rule 11: Control your sources! Rule 12: Wave your
credentials! Rule 13: Establish immediate intellectual ascendancy.
Rule 14: Have something new to sell. Rule 15: Get an inside track!
Rule 16: Don’t answer questions! Rule 17: In place of evidence use
Rhetoric! Rule 18: Use lack of evidence as evidence! Rule 19: Use
the unfulfilled condition to make out a case against the Mormons. Rule
20: Be generous with hints – they are very effective and you never
have to prove anything. Rule 21: Use quotation marks without sources
– the most effective hinting device, and the most popular with anti-
Mormon writers. Rule 22: Discuss motives; read minds! Rule 23: Be
cute! Rule 24: Make atmosphere your objective. Rule 25: Attack not
the thing but the Image! For your readers Mormonism is what you say it
is. Rule 26: Enjoy the prerogatives of “unequal scholarship,” i.e.,
“the scrupulous straining at small historical gnats which diverts
attention from the silent digestion of large and inconvenient camels.”
Rule 27: Be literary! Rule 28: Develop a special vocabulary of
loaded and emotive words. Rule 29: Study the techniques of gossip.
Rule 30: Preserve a gap between your readers and the Mormons. Rule
31: Learn when to be silent. Rule 32: Be bloody, bold, and
resolute! Rule 33: Uphold the tradition! Correct and improve the
legends! Rule 34: Be patriotic. Rule 35: Join the Ladies. Rule
36: Your target is Mormonism! The Tanners adhere to at least half of
these rules in a short magazine article.
Snip to end
R. L. Measures
<russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <19991229213348...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> > Randy wrote:
> >
> > >> The Mormon Danites had
> > >> vowed an oath to support any order JS gave them, even if it was
> > >illegal;
> >
> > Russell wrote:
>
> A whole lot more than this, but Randy has completely ignored 98% of it.
>
> Shall we take the rest as conceded?
>
> > >Which is irrelevant because Joseph had already suppressed them, once he
> > >found out what they were on about.
> >
> > Russell,
> >
> > To respond to all of your absolutely incorrect, unsupportable drivel
€ SOP
> > would take
> > time that I don't have at the moment. If I had the time, I could write 100
> > pages on this subject to refute your absolute ignorance.
>
> The nice thing about "absolute ignorance" is that it doesn't take 100
> pages to "refute."
>
> > You continue to repeat the lie that "JS suppressed the Danites when he found
> > out what they were doing."
>
> I continue to repeat it because it is the truth.
€ Russ -- the text of the Danite oath are fairly obviously Smith's
prophet personality writing style, not Avard's.
>
> > Your ignorant statement on this subject could not
> > be further from the actual truth. It is Mormon apologists like Hugh Nibley
> > whom you are ignorantly trusting in for your information.
>
> Then there is a little source you might have heard of, called _History
> of the Church_.
€ which we all know is fully revisable.
>
> > Reputable scholars are well aware that Smith and Rigdon organized the
Danites
> > to drive away
€ (and castrate)
>.>...Mormon dissenters and to loot and burn "Gentile" towns.
>
> Actually, *reputable* scholars are aware that this is the *accusation*
> brought by tendentious propagandists; but *reputable* scholars reject
> this accusation.
>
> > There
> > are literally hundreds of bits of evidence to support this, nearly
> all of them
> > from Mormon sources.
>
> Pity there aren't any good ones.
€ any source of unflatterment is not good.
>
> > Smith wrote his letter disavowing the Danites AFTER he
> > and Rigdon had been arrested and were facing the prospect of
> execution. Some
> > of their followers, such as TB Marsh, Orson Hyde,
>
> Name-dropping does you no good, Randy. Marsh and Hyde later recanted
> their accusations.
€ behold ye, the threat of exing.
> But in the first place, Marsh's accusations re
> Danites were all second-hand, and Hyde simply said that he agreed with
> Marsh's statement.
>
> > John Corrill, Reed Peck,
> > George Hinkle, and Sampson Avard turned state's evidence and
> testified against
> > Smith and Rigdon.
>
> All of which was done entirely *without* any self-interest??????
>
> > Because of the weight of the testimony against him, Smith
> > shifted the blame Avard for the whole "Danite" system, in order to
> save his
> > neck----in the same manner he shifted the blame for polygamy onto JC
> Bennett.
>
> Two lies in one paragraph.
€ [chortle]
> Now:
>
> 1) If "the weight of the testimony against him" had been as great as
> you like to pretend, Joseph wouldn't have been able to "shift[] the
> blame [to] Avard." Joseph blamed Avard because Avard was to blame.
>
> 2) Joseph *didn't* "shift[] the blame for polygamy onto JC Bennett" at
> all -- plural marriage was practiced in secrecy at that time, and
> Bennett took advantage of the secrecy to invent his own corrupted
> version, which he called "spiritual wifery," whereby he attempted to
> seduce a number of women. He was rightly excommunicated for that.
€ Yea, verily, for only God's true prophet is permitted full access to
the most gorgeous young stuff.
>
> Now if you want to start a polygamy argument, kindly do so on another
> thread. This one is about the Extermination order, and your apology
> therefor.
€ I fail to see what this has to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Russ.
>
> > About a year ago, I provided documentation to you from JS' own journal that
> > showed his involvement in the Danites. Because you have selective
memory, I'll
> > repeat it:
€ as I understand it, Randy, this is often called a "logic-unit filter"
€ damnable haters and liars. John Dean was also claimed to be to one of
these.
>
> The *real* meaning of the word "consecrate," as used by the Saints, is
> found in such sources as D&C 42:30,39. It meant that they gave their
> *own* property. Theft was NEVER part of the plan.
€ If God allowed the ancient Hebrews to partake of neighbor's property
for their own use, why couldn't God allow the members of God's church to
so partake? .
>
> > The "store house of the lord" was a stone building that they
> appropriated from
> > a displaced "Gentile" to store their stolen goods.
>
> It was whatever building they happened to use for the purpose of
> storing consecrated -- NOT stolen -- goods.
>
> It is mere spiteful slander to call the goods consecrated by the
> sacrifice of the Saints "stolen."
€ one definition of consecration in the (anti-Mormon) English dictionary
means to set something apart.
>
> Snip
> .........
enough of this time-sap
R. L. Measures
<russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
€ Introduced into evidence were not less than 34 photographs - taken my
an admitted OJ fan no less - of "The Juice" wearing a pair of Bruno Magli
shoes at a 'photo op.' nine months before his wife's throat was cut.
> Now I want you to do a little favour for me.
>
> Go to a mirror, look in it, and repeat three times:
>
> "Accusations do not equal proof.
> Accusations do not equal proof.
> Accusations do not equal proof."
>
> Then come back to your computer and read the following article.
>
> Thanks, Rich.
>
€ [chortle]
> Wild Bill Rides Again:
€ Enough. ...... Rich is not playing the Saintly time-sap game today,
Mr. McGregor.
cheerio
--
TheJordan6
>"Everybody always talks about what Hitler did to the Jews. Don't nobody
>ever talk about what the Jews did to Hitler."
And Randy replied:
"Mormons always talk about what the Missourians did to the Mormons. But
Mormons don't want to talk about what the Mormons did to the Missourians."
Most Mormons know the church's version of that period in history, Russell. But
few of them know what the Mormons did to invite destruction on themselves. And
then there are Mormons like you, when educated on the evidence, assume your
typical denial mode.
>And, in the same spirit, thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
>>The Extermination Order was neither evil nor indefensible.
>Except to people who think Mormons should be treated like other citizens.
If the Mormons had acted like other citizens in Missouri, they would have had
no trouble. Criminals do not deserve to be treated like other citizens.
>>There is nothing to recant. Governor Boggs issued his order because Mormon
>>Danites were looting and burning local non-Mormons out, as well as some
>>dissident Mormons.
>The Danite business was over by this time;
The "Danites" did not die until BY did, in 1877. The Mountain Meadows Massacre
of 1857 was a "Danite" atrocity; other "Danites" continued to commit crimes at
the behest of BY until his death. When Porter Rockwell died in 1878---while
awaiting trial on charges of murdering the Aiken party---the "Salt Lake
Tribune" noted his passing with "Porter Rockwell the chief of the Danite band
shuffles off in a stable---and cheats the hangman of a worthy candidate."
>he issued his order after the battle of Crooked River.
Boggs issued his order *BECAUSE OF* the battle of Crooked River, and other
recent events. The Mormon attack of the Missouri militia at Crooked River was
a Danite act, ordered by Joseph Smith, and was led by Danites (and apostles)
David W. Patten and Parley P. Pratt.
"When Joseph received an express reporting a 'party of the enemy were
plundering houses, carrying off prisoners, killing cattle and ordering families
out of their homes on pain of having them burned over their heads,' he asked
for volunteers to ride with David Patten to 'surprise and scatter Bogart's
forces at Crooked River, retake the prisoners and prevent the threatened attack
on Far West. Sixty men saddled up and followed 'Captain Fearnaught' to the
river...John D. Lee later said Patten's raiders were composed primarily of
Danites, and at the sound of the shot Patten shouted the Jewish battle cry,
'The sword of God and Gideon!' Then he ordered, 'Charge, Danites! Charge!'
and plunged into the thick of the fight. Garbed in a white greatcoat, the
Mormon captain made an excellent target for Bogart's sharpshooters. A rifle
ball smashed into his hip and penetrated his bladder in what was to be a fatal
wound...(Parley) Pratt searched for Captain Fearnaught and found him....Pratt
ordered a captured wagon brought up and the casualties placed in it...A rider
was dispatched to Far West with news of the triumph. Five miles from the
settlement a relief party met the column with a surgeon, the Danite, Dr.
Sampson Avard. Patten died that evening.
"Although three Mormons were killed and Bogart counted one of his men dead in
the skirmish, reports of the encounter were outrageously distorted by the time
they reached the ears of Lilburn W. Boggs.....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.)
Note that the surgeon who treated Patten's mortal wounds was Sampson Avard,
whom Smith later tried to blame the Danite band's existence on-----revealing
that Patten, Pratt, and Avard were in cahoots on October 26, 1838. Note also
that a messenger was dispatched to Far West to report the victory. The only
superiors to whom Pratt would want to send such a report would be Smith and
Rigdon, as the other Dainte leaders, Patten and Avard, were with Pratt.
Incidentally, Pratt himself killed a Missourian by the name of Moses Rowlands
in the battle, and was jailed for several months on murder charges, a fact that
Pratt mysteriously omitted from his autobiography.
>>Several of those Mormons wouldn't go along with the pillaging, realizing that
>>it would escalate into civil war, and possibly cost many lives. The
dissident
>>Mormons swore affidavits that JS had threatened a "war of blood and gore."
>Actually he had threatened no such thing, but why let facts obscure an
>apology for hatred?
JS' threat was sworn to in a legal affidavit by his own president of the 12
apostles, Thomas W. Marsh, affirmed by another apostle, Orson Hyde, and sworn
before a Mormon justice of the peace (and close friend of JS'), Henry Jacobs.
I realize that your position is that for some untold reason, Marsh and Hyde
were lying, but your assertion is made moot by the fact that other Mormons
corroborated Marsh's testimony. It's quite amusing that you believe that two
"special witnesses of Jesus Christ" would swear false legal affidavits, causing
the removal of their fellow Mormons from the state, and several of their
leaders to be imprisoned----and then decide later that their testimony was
somehow just a huge mistake. Fascinating too, that Smith would allow a known
liar, Hyde, to return as an "apostle."
>>Sidney Rigdon, in his "Salt Sermon," had threatened a "war of extermination"
>>between Mormons and Missourians.
>Yes, this example of nineteenth-century Fourth of July rhetoric did go over
the top.
Hmmm...you believe that Boggs' "Extermination Order" was one of the most
heinous acts in the history of the world----but you characterize Rigdon's
statement, which was a factor in Bogg's issuance of his order, as mere "19th
century rhetoric." Danite acts between July 4 and JS' arrest reveal Rigdon's
threat as far more than "rhetoric."
>But in what circumstance did Rigdon say that such a war would ensue? *ONLY*
if >the Missouri mobs attacked the Saints again.
That was Rigdon's PUBLIC assertion; however, his, and his fellows' private
actions following his speech reveal that they didn't wait for any "mob" action
against them; the Danites' first act was to drive off and burn the houses of
their own fellow 'Saints'---the Whitmers, Cowdery, Lyman Johnson, WW Phelps,
etc.
>As they had done for five years. I know you prefer to suppress the truth
about the >preceding five years of harassment and depredations that your
Missourian pals had >subjected the Saints to.
Nonsense. First off---I don't have any "Missouri pals." I was born and raised
Mormon, and my family has been Mormon since 1893. Like most Mormons, I was
"taught" of the Missouri period in church. What I was NOT taught were the
reasons for the conflict. You can read about the 'poor, persecuted Mormons'
from your faith-promoting pap like Nibley etc., all day long---but you will
hear little from the church's side about what the Mormons themselves did to
cause their own problems. I'm here to tell the side of the story that the
church keeps from you, Russell.
>I'm sure you approve of those depredations as well,
What have I ever written to make you assume that? Where have I ever written so
much as one word of approval for crimes or murders on EITHER side of the issue?
>but *that* is why the Mormons finally lost patience, and *that* is why Avard
>was able to find supporters for his Danite scheme.
To repeat---the Danites were Smith's and Rigdon's doing, as many witnesses
testified to. Avard was installed as a loudmouth to stir the troops. It
wasn't Missouri "mobs" that spurred the Danite atrocities, but the Mormons' own
dissident members, who after having been evicted from their homes and lands via
Rigdon's order, sought legal protection from their own "prophet."
>>When Boggs received word of the dissidents' affidavits, with Smith's and
Rigdon's >>treasonous, murderous statements, Boggs issued the "Extermination
Order" as a >>last resort.
>He was pretty quick to go to the "last resort," wasn't he?
Not at all. He issued the order AFTER he received reports of the Danites
defeating his state militia at Crooked River, killing several, and AFTER he
received affidavits from Mormons themselves who told of Smith's treasonous
intentions. Also, Smith, along with known Danites Lyman Wight, Avard, and 15
other men, had invaded the home of Daviess County JoP Adam Black and forced him
to sign an affidavit under duress; and Smith's forces had commandereed a
wagonload of munitions belonging to the State. Both of those acts were
treasons, and Boggs' order itself alludes to these acts, stating that "it
places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws,
and of having made war upon the people of this state."
Boggs had tried to deal fairly with the Mormons since 1834; he was the man who
had signed the bill giving them Clay County to settle in after they had been
expelled from Jackson County. The final troubles, resulting in the
"Extermination Order," began when Smith and Rigdon fled Kirtland in the winter
of 1837, and they tried once again to set up their empire in Missouri,
demanding unquestioning obedience; If Smith had not gone back to Missouri, the
Mormons could have stayed there.
>A responsible public official might have thought about investigating the
reports to >find out the facts.
Although Boggs received some exaggerated reports (not unusual in frontier
times), the evidence of what Smith & Co. did to force their arrest speaks for
itself.
>because Boggs couldn't discern which Mormons were Danites and therefore
>pillagers, from the non-participants, he had to order ALL the Mormons removed.
>You know Randy, this kind of logic is what gives apologetics a bad name. He
didn't >*have to* do anything of the kind -- he seized upon the excuses you
offer him >because it suited his own hatred, as well as his political agenda.
The Danites were in effect "guerilla warriors." Some of them even served as
regular Missouri militiamen; but they had sworn an oath to obey Smith above any
earthly law. Boggs realized that he was dealing with a fanatical religious
cult, with megalomaniacal leaders, to whom they swore blind obedience. Boggs
had no way of discerning fanatical "Danites" from rank-and-file Mormons; all he
knew was what the Mormon dissenters had testified to. After five years of
conflict----with Smith and Rigdon making new threats to "take over" Missouri,
and then the entire nation----Boggs realized that the Mormons could never
co-exist peacefully in the state. His "Extermination Order" was indeed his last
resort. And it's remarkable that you are offended by the order, because it
probably saved hundreds of Mormon lives, including JS'.
>>Because the Order mobilized enough militiamen to outnumber the Danites,
>who were never very numerous anyway,
The first wave of Danites were the 83 men who signed off on Rigdon's order to
drive off dissenters. By the time of JS' arrest four months later, sworn
Danites numbered about 400, including many top Mormon leaders.
>even before Joseph broke them up,
Smith never broke them up. The Danites remained as his bodyguards and police
force in Nauvoo. His statement disavowing them, and blaming them on Avard, was
merely a public lie designed to shift blame and prevent his own prosecution.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>> it caused JS to "beg like a dog for peace"
Russell wrote:
>thus showing that the claims of him wanting a "war of extermination" were
utterly >bogus.
Nonsense. It showed that when he himself, rather than his lackeys, was facing
the bullets, he suddenly decided that a "war of extermination" wasn't such a
good idea.
>I notice that you even find a way to insult him for seeking peace.
By October 30, JS' 800 men had been surrounded in Far West by an estimated 4000
Missouri militia. Facing annihilation, Smith secretly sent two of his more
level-headed men, John Corrill and Reed Peck, to "Find General Doniphan, and
beg like a dog for peace." Those exact words of Smith's were reported by both
Peck and Corrill. However, after Corrill and Peck had left for Doniphan, Smith
still deceptively told the remainder of his troops to prepare for a fight to
the death. Smith later denied that he had surrendered, claiming that he had
been betrayed by Corrill, Peck, and George Hinkle. All of this reveals further
cowardice and deception on Smith's part.
>Your utterly vicious prejudices are in full view here, "Ranty."
I don't consider myself prejudiced in the least, Russell; however, your abject
ignorance of Mormon history is obvious.
>>and submit to arrest on
>trumped-up
Smith's charges weren't "trumped up" in the least. They were sworn to by his
own followers, and became the subject of a U. S. Senate investigation and
determination.
>>murder and treason charges, along with his top Danite leaders.
>No, along with other Church leaders.
The only Mormons who were arrested and imprisoned were Smith and his top
military leaders, who had had charges sworn against them. All other Mormons
who were not implicated as traitors or leaders were released, except for those
who had already fled. Many Mormon ecclesiastical leaders were not arrested,
because they had not participated in the insurrection.
>Sampson Avard, THE "top Danite leader," had already thrown in with the mob
Nonsense. Avard, along with Corrill, Peck, Marsh, Hyde, Phelps, Frederick G.
Williams, Burr Riggs, and others, turned states' evidence against Smith,
Rigdon, & Co. Contrary to your repeated assertion that Smith "cut off " Avard
when he learned of the Danites----Smith was arrested on October 31; Avard did
not testify against him until November 13; however, Avard, along with the other
witnesses, was not excommunicated until March 17, 1839-----almost five months
after Smith's arrest. That timeline puts the lie to your repeated assertion
that Smith dumped Avard because of Avard's Danite activities "as soon as he
ofund out what they were up to"; it reveals instead, that Avard and the others
were excommunicated because they testified against Smith, therefore Smith
retaliated by pegging Avard as the Danite instigator.
>for which, I'm sure, he gets the Randy Jordan seal of approval.
My view gets the "seal of approval" of historians who have written on the
subject. I suggest that you research some actual history, rather than the
apologetic pap dispensed by LDS Inc.
>>Their arrest ended hostilities.
>Clearly because their arrest was the primary purpose for the "hostilities."
More ignorance. The hostilities occurred because Joseph Smith and Sidney
Rigdon held Napoleonic delusions of grandeur, wanting the entire state of
Missouri as the base of their theocratic empire.
>>The Mormons weren't "exterminated",
>Only about fifty of them,
I've only found evidence for about half that number. The mob who killed the 17
at Haun's Mill were not regular Missouri militia, but an unauthorized mob
retaliating for the Danite burnings and lootings of Gallatin and Millport. I
do not support nor condone the Haun's Mill massacre, nor any murder, by any
party on either side. And it is relevant to realize that Smith had advised the
Haun's Mill settlers to evacuate the area, because Smith knew that conflict
would likely occur there. The victims simply failed to follow Smith's advice.
The day AFTER the Haun's Mill massacre, regular Missouri militia happened upon
the site, and taking pity on the survivors, caught and slaughtered a hog for
their use.
The few Mormon deaths in Missouri do not translate into the "genocide" that
fanatical Mormons like yourself try to claim the State of Missouri intended for
them. If the State had wanted to "exterminate" them, they could have done so
when they surrounded 800 Mormon men at Far West.
>>nor "driven from the state," but were allowed to leave peaceably, with
militia >>escort.
>"*Allowed* to leave?" Why, how gracious of the kind Missourians, to
>actually let people leave --
The Mormons had shown for five years that they could not peacefully co-exist in
Missouri. They could not stay there, any more than they could stay in Fayette,
Kirtland, or Nauvoo. If the Mormons had not abandoned polygamy, and their
theocratic dictatorship in Utah, they would have had to leave there as well.
The Mormons only began to live in peace with their neighbors when they
separated church from state in 1896.
>in the dead of winter, abandoning their homes.
The timing of the conflict was Smith and Rigdon's fault, not Missouri's.
Emigrants typically traveled during the winter so as to plow and plant in their
new locations the next spring. General Lucas' order advised "I do not say you
shall go now, but you must not think of staying here another season, or of
putting in crops, for the moment you do this the citizens will be upon you."
"Non-Mormons were appealed to for aid and many came forward generously. Agents
were sent down the Missouri River to make caches of corn for the use of the
Saints while making their way out of the state." (The Restored Church, William
R. Berrett, p. 144.)
And where you write of "abandoning their homes," remember that the Danites
themselves had burned the homes of the entire Missouri Stake Presidency and
others, months before. They had no homes to abandon.
>And what was the "militia escort" for -- to protect them from "Danites?"
No, ignoramus, to protect them from Missouri mobbers who might wish to kill or
plunder them.
>The so-called "militia escort" drove them from the state, in accordance with
the >Extermination order, and you are a bare-faced liar if you try and pretend
anything >else.
General Lucas' terms of surrender proposed that the Mormons "give up their
leaders to be tried and punished...and...that the balance should leave the
state, and be protected out by the militia, but to be permitted to remain under
protection until further orders were received from the commander-in-chief."
The only way that the State could effect a peaceful end to the conflict was to
arrest those who were giving orders to wage insurrection, and then escort the
rest out. If Smith, Rigdon, & Co. had not been arrested, and most of the other
Danite leaders not fled, many hundreds, if not thousands, of Mormons may have
died in Missouri. When you talk about 'extermination' and 'genocide,' Russell,
think about what might have happened had Smith and Rigdon continued their "war
of extermination". If the Danites could burn out and drive off the "three
witnesses," and the entire Missouri Stake Presidency, what would they have done
to lower-ranking dissenters?
>>Perhaps you should just read the accounts of the period, Russell. If you did
>>so, you wouldn't be constantly wrong.
>Say that to a mirror, Randy.
Russell, a sure sign that someone is ignorant of what he speaks, is if he fails
to quote from historical accounts, and instead simply voices unfounded,
uncited, unsupported, opinions. I believe that rational thinkers on ARM can
differentiate between those who actually read and research history, and those
who merely spout apologetic blather.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Randy wrote:
>>About a year ago, I provided documentation to you from JS' own journal that
>>showed his involvement in the Danites. Because you have selective memory,
I'll
>>repeat it:
>>"27 July 1838--Friday--Some time past the brethren or saints have come up
day
>>after day to consecrate, and to bring their offerings into the store house
of
>>the lord, to prove him now herewith and see if he will not pour us out a
blessing >>that there will not be room enough to contain it, They have come up
hither (p. 60) >>Thus far, according to the (Revelater) order of the Danites,
we have a company of >>Danites in these times, to put right physically that
which is not right, and to >>cleanse the Church of very great evils which hath
hitherto existed among us >>inasmuch as they cannot be put right by teachings
and persuasions, This >>company or a part of them exhibited on the fourth of
July They come up to >>consecrate, by companies of tens, commanded by their
captain over ten."
>>("The Papers of Joseph Smith," vol. 2, p. 262, Deseret Book, 1992, ed. by
Dean
>>Jessee.)
>>LDS historian Jessee's footnote to this entry reads:
>>"The part of this entry following page 60 has been crossed out in the
original
>>manuscript, evidently by a later hand."
>>What we can extrapolate from this entry in Joseph Smith's own journal is:
>>1. To "consecrate" was the code word for the Mormon practice of stealing
goods
>>from their "Gentile" neighbors, as can be read in many accounts of the day.
And Russell answered:
>That's a blatant and unsupported lie, knowingly invented by haters and
wilfully >perpetuated by malignant individuals who know it is a lie. The *real*
meaning of the >word "consecrate," as used by the Saints, is found in such
sources as D&C >42:30,39. It meant that they gave their *own* property. Theft
was NEVER part of >the plan.
Russell, when analyzing Mormon history, it's best to keep in mind that there
are at least two meanings for many concepts and practices---a public meaning,
which often sounds innocuous, and a private meaning, which can only be
discovered by researching and interpreting events in their historical context.
Of course "consecration" to Mormons today means giving of their goods to the
church. But what happened in Missouri in 1838 is that Smith and Rigdon, upon
the failure of their Kirtland Bank and "United Order," 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 brought an influx of thousands more Mormons from
Kirtland as well, spilling them over into "Gentile" areas, causing new
tensions. Mormon population increased from 1200 to 15,000. Smith and Rigdon,
having been stung by the Kirtland failure, implemented new policies that they
believed would make the new commune succeed. The policy mandated that all
Mormons sign their land over to the church, and then the church would lease the
land back to them. 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 rightly believed that the 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), Rigdon's Danites invaded and plundered
their homes and property. So, for those Mormons, "consecration" meant having
their goods taken away by force.
As many witnesses testified, Smith's intention was to "take this State,...the
United States and ultimately the whole world" for his theocratic empire. The
swelling Mormon population frightened 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. Believing
that they had enough manpower to "take the state," Smith and Rigdon then sent
their forces to begin "consecrating" from the "Gentiles" as well as the
dissident "Saints," with the loot going to support their war effort. 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 "History of the Church")
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 Rockwell, 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".)
Thus we see that both Marsh and Hinkle were bothered by the plundering of
"Gentiles", and that obviously was a major factor in their turning against
Smith.
"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")
Russell, is this enough documentation for you? Or do you require more? Or
were all these high-ranking Mormons just a bunch of unabashed liars?
>>The "store house of the lord" was a stone building that they appropriated
from
>>a displaced "Gentile" to store their stolen goods.
>It was whatever building they happened to use for the purpose of storing
>consecrated -- NOT stolen -- goods. It is mere spiteful slander to call the
goods >consecrated by the sacrifice of the Saints "stolen."
"As there had been a great many things plundered by us which were then in our
houses we thought it good to one night to get it all out of our houses to a
general place of deposit. Therefore nearly all the brethren were employed in
taking all plundered property to a general plunder depot; that they should not
know who had this man's or that man's, and thereby perhaps save some lives.
This employment lasted until daylight...At the appointed hour the brethren were
at Lyman Wight's new block building, not finished, where also all the plundered
property was stowed."
(Oliver B. Huntington Journal, Utah State Historical Society)
"Captain Patten...led the troops to Gallatin...He made a rush into Gallatin,
dispersed the few men there, and took the goods out of Stolling's store, and
carried them to Diahmon, and I afterwards saw the storehouse on fire. When we
returned to Diahmon, the goods were deposited in the Lord's storehouse, under
the care of Bishop Vinson Knight. Orders were strictly given that all the
goods should be deposited in the Lord's storehouse."
(Testimony of Sampson Avard, "Senate Document 189")
"Consecrating" from the Gentiles did not end in Missouri. One of the factors
in the Mormons being forced out of Illinois in 1846 was the fact that stolen
property often seemed to wind up in Nauvoo. Porter Rockwell killed and robbed
the Aiken party of some $20,000 in California gold dust; Mormon guerillas stole
cattle from Johnson's Army and drove it to SLC, and the Mormons who committed
the MMM drove the Fancher cattle to SLC as well, indicating that a policy was
in place wherein stolen goods were to be delivered to church HQ. Those
practices only ended after BY's death in 1877.
As I've advised you many times before, Russell, you would save yourself a lot
of embarrassment if you would actually study some history before you attempt to
comment on a subject.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Randy wrote:
>>You continue to repeat the lie that "JS suppressed the Danites when he found
>>out what they were doing."
And Russell replied:
>I continue to repeat it because it is the truth.
With that, you continue to exhibit your ignorance and naivete.
>>Your ignorant statement on this subject could not be further from the actual
truth. >>It is Mormon apologists like Hugh Nibley whom you are ignorantly
trusting in for >>your information.
>Then there is a little source you might have heard of, called _History
>of the Church_.
Russell, I realize that you're far too brainwashed to comprehend this, but the
HoC was revised and redacted to edit out negative and/or embarrassing facts
concerning JS. BY made several journal entries documenting the fact that he
was "revising" the HoC. It's an accepted fact that only about 40% of JS'
history was compiled during his life; that means that much of it was added
after-the-fact.
I have already shown that JS' journal entry of July 27, 1838, wherein he wrote
approvingly of his Danites, was crossed out. It was obviously stricken through
in an attempt to cover up JS' involvement, most likely after his own followers
had turned states' evidence and testified against him.
Many historical events have been edited out or "cleaned up" in current
editions of the HoC, including failed prophecies and JS' alcohol and tobacco
use. The HoC isn't "history"; it is an apologetic work designed to be
"faith-promoting" to people such as yourself---and in your case, it's an
obvious success. Your reliance on the HoC for "truth" equates to a juror
listening to only O. J.'s side of what happened in his case. If you wish to
continue being a naive, irrational apologist, relying on the HoC is fine; but
if you wish to learn some actual history, you need to look elsewhere.
>>Reputable scholars are well aware that Smith and Rigdon organized the
Danites
>>to drive away Mormon dissenters and to loot and burn "Gentile" towns.
>Actually, *reputable* scholars are aware that this is the *accusation*
brought by >tendentious propagandists; but *reputable* scholars reject this
accusation.
More nonsense. Danite crimes were reported by many of the perpetrators,
victims, and witnesses themselves. Name your so-called "reputable scholars"
who reject Smith and Rigdon's instigation of the Danites. Please don't bother
to quote JS' own denials; he did so while he was in prison, to save his neck.
Your largest stumbling block is your assumption that Joseph Smith was an honest
person.
>>There are literally hundreds of bits of evidence to support this, nearly all
of them
>>from Mormon sources.
>Pity there aren't any good ones.
Here are a few:
From David Whitmer, Missouri Stake President and "gold plate witness":
In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members
had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them
for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting,
and for my labors I received only persecutions. In June, 1838, a secret
organization was formed, Doctor Avard being put in as the leader of the
band; a certain oath was to be administered to all the brethren to bind
them to support the heads of the church in every thing they should
teach. All who refused to take this oath were considered dissenters from
the church, and certain things were to be done concerning these
dissenters, by Dr. Avard's secret band. I make no farther statements
now; but suffice it to say that my persecutions, for trying to show them
their errors, become of such a nature, that I had to leave the Latter
Day Saints, and as I rode on horseback out of Far West, in June 1838,
the voice of God from heaven spake to me as I have stated above. I was
called out to hold the authority.
I see from a letter written by the heads of the church while they were
in Liberty Jail, that they repented while in jail of having anything to
do with this secret organization, and came out against Dr. Avard,
declaring it all wickedness; and resolved to henceforth disapprobate
everything that was not according to the gospel, and which was not of a
bold, frank, and upright nature. I quote from this letter, printed in
the "Times and Seasons," July, 1840:
"We farther caution our brethren against the impropriety of the
organizations of bands or companies, by covenants, oaths, penalties, or
secrecies; but let the time past of our experience and suffering by the
wickedness of Dr. Avard suffice: And let our covenants be that of the
everlasting covenant, as it is contained in the Holy Writ, and the
things which God has revealed unto us. Pure friendship always becomes
weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stronger by penal
oaths and secrecy. Your humble servants intend from henceforth to
disapprobate every thing that is not in accordance with the fulness of
the gospel of Jesus Christ, and which is not of a bold, frank, and
upright nature."
They were put in jail in November, after I had left them. Now you see
why I left the Latter Day Saints. After I left them they say they gave
me a trial and cut me off. About the same time that I came out, the
Spirit of God moved upon quite a number of the brethren who came out,
with their families. All of the eight witnesses who were then living,
(except the three Smiths), came out, Peter and Christian Whitmer were
dead. Oliver Cowdery came out also. Martin Harris was then in Ohio. The
church went deeper and deeper into wickedness. They were driven out of
Missouri, and went to Nauvoo; and were driven out of Nauvoo, and went to
Salt Lake, where they are to-day living in polygamy.
(David Whitmer, letter to the "Kansas City Daily Journal")
John Whitmer was "called of God" to be the official church historian according
to D&C 47. He wrote of the Missouri period in his "History of the Church."
After he left the church, Smith attempted to make him turn over what he had
written, but Whitmer refused to. The church has therefore suppressed his
history, because of its damaging contents, including the following:
Joseph Smith, Jr., S. Rigdon and Hyrum Smith moved their families to
this place, Far West, in the spring of 1838. As soon as they came here,
they began to enforce their new organized plan, which caused dissensions
and difficulties, threatenings and even murders. Smith called a council
of the leaders together, in which council he stated that any person who
said a word against the heads of the Church, should be driven over these
prairies as a chased deer by a pack of hounds, having an illusion to the
Gidionites, as they were termed, to justify themselves in their wicked
designs. Thus on the 19th of June, 1838, they preached a sermon called
the salt sermon, in which these Gideonites understood that they should
drive the dissenters, as they termed those who believed not in their
secret bands, in fornication, adultery or midnight machinations.
Therefore they commenced suing at the law of the land by attachment for
debts which they knew were paid, and justly paid, according to the laws
of God and the land, and thus foreswore themselves in these things.
Joseph Smith, Jr., S. Rigdon and Hyrum Smith were the instigators, and
George W. Robinson the prosecutor against David Whitmer, Lyman E.
Johnson, Oliver Cowdery, F. G. Williams, W. W. Phelps and myself. They
had threatened us, to kill us, if we did not make restitutions to them,
by upholding them in their wicked purposes and designs. After they had
instituted the foregoing suits Oliver Cowdery, D. Whitmer, L. E. Johnson
and myself went to Clay County to obtain legal council, to prepare to
overthrow these attachments which they had caused to be issued against
us, which we were abundantly able to do by good and substantial
witnesses.
But to our great astonishment, when we were on our way home from
Liberty, Clay County, we met the families of Oliver Cowdery and L. E.
Johnson, whom they had driven from their homes, and robbed them of all
their goods, save clothing, bedding, etc.
While we were gone Jo. and Rigdon and their band of Gadiation kept up a
guard, and watched our houses, and abused our families, and threatened
them, if they were not gone by morning, they would be drove out, and
threatened our lives, if they ever saw us in Far West.
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." The
old inhabitants were not slack in paying them in their own coin. Thus
war and bloodshed commenced and the result was the Church was driven
from this land, the pure in heart and innocent, as well as the more
wicked, save a few dissenters who were left here to fulfill some of the
former commandments.
Now, before the Church left, Joseph Smith, Jr., Sidney Rigdon, H. Smith,
P. P. Pratt, Lyman Wight and Amasa Lyman were delivered up to General
Lucas and General Clark, and the rest of the officers of the government,
and were ordered out by the governor of this state to stop the
difficulties between the citizens and the Mormons. Smith and those
others were tried by those officers for treason, etc., and found that
they were not legally authorized to execute them after having found them
guilty of many breaches of the law of the land, and were committed to
jail; but before the trial came on, which was named to some of the
counties of this state, where the people were not so much prejudiced
against them, as they were moved from Clay County to the county where
they were to be tried, they hired the guard to let them go, etc., which
they did and informed the brethren that an angel had delivered them from
the guard; when in fact money hired those base and corrupt men, who let
them go; and this through the wickedness of those to whom their
safe-keeping were committed, these men escaped the justice of the law of
the land which they had transgressed, and went unpunished at this time. (end
quote)
Thomas B. Marsh, the president of the Q12, was so sickened by the unChristian,
militant stance that Smith and Rigdon had adopted, that he left the church and
testified against the perpetrators. Today, Mormons are taught the lie that
Marsh "apostasized" because his wife had an argument with another Mormon over
ownership of "milk strippings." Few Mormons know that the real reason for
Marsh's disaffection was his disgust, and his resulting testimony against Smith
and his band of criminals:
"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..."
I could cite many others, but these statements from three top Mormon insiders
are enough to show who started the Danites, and the acts they were ordered to
commit.
>>Smith wrote his letter disavowing the Danites AFTER he and Rigdon had been
>>arrested and were facing the prospect of execution. Some of their followers,
>>such as TB Marsh, Orson Hyde,
>Name-dropping does you no good, Randy. Marsh and Hyde later recanted
>their accusations.
<chuckle> A lawyer might ask Marsh and Hyde, "Were you lying then, or are you
lying now?" As I wrote earlier, their apparent recantations are moot in light
of many other testimonies----among them John and David Whitmers', above.
>But in the first place, Marsh's accusations re Danites were all second-hand,
I've quoted what Marsh testified to. Although he didn't ride with the
Danites, he saw the loot, and his testimony was corroborated by many others.
>and Hyde simply said that he agreed with Marsh's statement.
Was Hyde lying before, or after? Why would JS allow Hyde---whom you cast as a
liar---resume his position as an "apostle?"
>>John Corrill, Reed Peck, George Hinkle, and Sampson Avard turned state's
>>evidence and testified against Smith and Rigdon.
>All of which was done entirely *without* any self-interest??????
Of course they had self-interest, just as did Joseph Valachi, John Dean and
Sammy "the Bull" Gravano. That doesn't make their testimony false. Law
officers routinely use the testimony of underlings of criminal organizations to
prosecute the ringleaders.
Hinkle (alias "the Thunderbolt") was the top Mormon militia leader. Like
Marsh, Hinkle was disturbed by the plundering, and believed that it would lead
to the Mormons' destruction. After the killings at Crooked River on October
25, and then the massacre at Haun's Mill on October 30, it's likely that Hinkle
perceived that violence would escalate into an all-out civil war, if "cooler
heads" took no action to prevent it. When Smith sent out Corrill and Peck to
"beg like a dog for peace", they met with Hinkle and General Lucas, and
negotiated the terms of surrender that required giving up Smith and his other
leaders to arrest. And those negotiations undoubtedly saved many Mormon lives,
including Joseph Smith's. A good indicator of Smith's true colors is that he
later portrayed Hinkle, Corrill, and Peck as "traitors", to enhance his own
image; when in fact, their actions probably saved Smith's life.
>>Because of the weight of the testimony against him, Smith shifted the blame
>>upon Avard for the whole "Danite" system, in order to save his neck----in the
>>same manner he shifted the blame for polygamy onto JC Bennett.
>Two lies in one paragraph. Now: 1) If "the weight of the testimony against
him" >had been as great as you like to pretend, Joseph wouldn't have been able
to >"shift[] the blame [to] Avard." Joseph blamed Avard because Avard was to
blame.
"Joseph denied any existence of the Danites until their existence was disclosed
in a court of law. And then he placed the blame for the organization squarely
on Avard's shoulders." (Orrin Porter Rockwell, Harold Schindler, p. 43.)
As JS' own journal entry of July 27, 1838, indicates, he not only knew about
the Danites, but spoke approvingly of them. The attempted striking out of that
journal entry, at a later date, is prima facie evidence that JS, or a
supporter, knew that such information would impeach him. JS' denial of the
Danites' existence in his court appearance after his arrest---when in fact, he
DID know of their existence---is more prima facie evidence of his guilt.
Smith's motivation to lie was his possible conviction and execution for
treason. The testimony of numerous witnesses, some of which I've quoted, all
point to Smith and Rigdon---not Avard---as the Danite founders. The idea that
Avard was the founder was invented by Smith, and has been repeated by Mormon
apologists ever since. And it's absolutely false.
May I remind you that Smith was not found innocent of the charges against him,
but in fact bribed a jail guard and escaped.
>2) Joseph *didn't* "shift[] the blame for polygamy onto JC Bennett" at all
-- plural >marriage was practiced in secrecy at that time, and Bennett took
advantage of the >secrecy to invent his own corrupted version, which he called
"spiritual wifery," >whereby he attempted to seduce a number of women. He was
rightly >excommunicated for that.
I have written the facts on this issue many times, and you continue to
mischaracterize it. You are once again relying on redacted, revised,
apologetic history. PM was indeed practiced in secret because it was illegal,
and because Smith wanted to keep his position as church president, while also
having sex with numerous women. Smith blamed the *ENTIRE* polygamy practice on
Bennett, denying ANY sort of non-monogamous practices.
The term "spiritual wifery" was used to describe Smith's PM practice both
before and after the Bennett period of 1840-42. Mormon apologists have
invented the idea that there was an "authorized" type from JS, and a "renegade"
type from Bennett, to try to make Smith's adultery appear more palatable.
Smith's shifting of the PM practice onto Bennett was exactly the same tactic he
had used to shift the Danite band onto Avard. I remind you that in the same
letter in which Smith disavowed the Danites, and claimed that Avard was the
instigator, he also denied having a "community of wives"----when in fact, at
the time of that letter, he had already had relationships with Fannie Alger and
Lucinda Harris.
Smith and Bennett had cut a private deal to not expose each other; but Smith
could not rid himself of the polygamy rumors, so he broke his agreement and
publicly laid PM at Bennett's feet. Smith excommunicated Bennett to make him
the scapegoat for polygamy. And Smith denied PM until his dying day, claiming
that those who accused him of polygamy were "perjurers."
Smith also used the same tactic of character assassination, and blaming his
secret practices onto others, upon Martha Brotherton and Nancy Rigdon. When he
proposed plural marriage to them, and they refused, he threatened to ruin their
reputations. Smith's tactic of blaming Avard for the Danites was merely a
pattern he used for years.
>Now if you want to start a polygamy argument, kindly do so on another thread.
>This one is about the Extermination order, and your apology therefor.
I've written tons of material on polygamy on ARM. Smith's shifting of blame
for both polygamy and the Danites onto others demonstrates a pattern of
deceptive behavior and cowardice.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Randy wrote:
>>3. Where Smith wrote "to put right *PHYSICALLY*....to cleanse the Church", he
>>is obviously referring to Rigdon's well-documented letter to Mormon
dissenters
>>such as David Whitmer, John Whitmer, W. W. Phelps, Lyman Johnson, >>informing
>>them to "depart, depart, or a MORE FATAL CALAMITY shall befall you..."
>>("Senate Document 189," 26th Congress, p. 9.)
>>Those named men and their families were driven out of their homes in Caldwell
>>County by the "Danites." Smith's journal entry, written *BEFORE* those men
>>were driven out, confirms his complicity in that future act.
>Eh? That journal entry, "written *BEFORE* those men were driven out," cannot
>**for that very reason** confirm "his complicity in that" or any other "future
act" >that the said journal entry does not explicitly authorise. Had he
written >approvingly of the driving out *after* it happened, that might show
complicity, or at >least a condoning; as it is, your attempt to implicate
Joseph in the later act by a >previous diary notation is feeble, desperate, and
I dare say disingenuous.
Sorry---my mistake in the timeline. Rigdon delivered his "Salt Sermon" on June
17, wherein he gave the dissenters three days to depart; the dissenters were
turned out at that time. Smith's journal of July 27, therefore, came AFTER the
Whitmers, Cowdery, Phelps, etc., were driven off. So thanks for correcting me
on that point; it makes Smith's journal entry even more damning, as it speaks
of "putting right physically...cleansing the church of great evils..."
"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")
And even if Smith's journal entry was made before the dissenters were driven
off, that would indicate premeditation.
>>"In all probability, the eighty-three signers of the ultimatum comprised the
charter >>members of the Danite Society which grew to include an estimated four
hundred >>men.
>"In all probability?" How much probability is "all?" Is your statistically
savvy >informant prepared to give us a percentage? I doubt that he really means
to use >that term mathematically, in which case he's telling us that this is
his opinion, and >that he cannot prove it. Which is really the only useful bit
of information in the >whole quote. Randy's found another name to drop.
Whoopee.
My "informant"---which you could have identified by reading his name in the
parentheses which followed the quote---is Harold Schindler, the historian who
authored "Orrin Porter Rockwell: Son of God, Man of Thunder." Schindler
obviously compared the list of 83 signers to known Danites through court
testimony, journals and diaries, etc.
B. H. Roberts concurred with Schindler, writing "The document was signed by 84
men, more or less prominent in the church..." (Comprehensive History of the
Church, pp. 438-439.)
>>Ebenezer Robinson, a close associate of Joseph's during these troubled times,
>>said, 'The above manifesto was signed by 83 determined men. Among the
>>names we recognize some of the members of the high council, and others
>>holding high positions in the church, including that of Hyrum Smith, one of
the >>First Presidency.' Robinson himself was one of the letter's
signatories."
>>(Schindler, "Orrin Porter Rockwell," p. 39.)
>And where is Joseph's signature?
Smith didn't sign it. That doesn't mean he didn't know of it, or didn't
approve of it, as other evidence shows; it simply means that he was smart
enough not to let his signature appear on a potentially incriminating document.
But the fact that Hyrum, and several members of the High Council and twelve
apostles signed it, indicates that Rigdon's letter was approved of at the
highest levels of the church. The most highly visible Danite leaders---Patten,
Wight, and Pratt---were all apostles, making it ludicrous to believe that Smith
himself wasn't up to his eyeballs in the organization.
>>Those 83 signers of Rigdon's letter was a virtual "who's who" of prominent,
>>insider, leading Mormon men, including apostles Lyman Wight and David Patten,
>>and others later known to be deeply involved as "Danites" in later periods,
>>including Rockwell, Hosea Stout, and Bill Hickman.
>But not Joseph Smith. I see.
Explained above. If you can believe that all these prominent, high-ranking,
loyal Mormons were able to commit crimes as an organized, though renegade body,
unbeknownst to JS, from June 17 to October 24, then you're smack-dab in the
middle of that long river in Egypt.
>Snip undocumented "who's who" of accused Danites.
When I get time, I'll compile a list of the 83 signers, and their close
relationships with JS.
>>Many of these men, and others, remained Danites once in Nauvoo
>That is false. There were no Danites in Nauvoo.
Only if you believe that JS was a truth-teller. Once again: long river, Egypt.
>>---some acted as JS' bodyguards and some as Nauvoo policemen. They were
>>identified by wearing white. John D. Lee confessed to Danite crimes in
Nauvoo,
>Oh yes, Lee's "confessions" are soooo credible, right?
Uhhhh....why, yes. You might try actually reading them sometime. Lee was one
of Smith's most loyal followers. He became an "adopted son" of BY's in Utah,
was a prominent bishop, and one of the most prolific polygamists, with 18
wives. All plural marriages had to be approved of by BY, and that reveals BY's
closeness to Lee. Lee wrote his "confessions", as a condemned man, to unburden
his conscience and prepare to meet his Maker. And much of Lee's information is
corroborated by others.
>>and Brigham Young used the threat of Danites to keep his people in line in
>>sermons years later in Utah: "If men come here and do not behave themselves,
>>they will not only find the Danites, whom they talk so much about, biting
their >>heels,
>Actually it was the horse's heels. If you can't use your sources responsibly,
at >least get your quotes right.
A mere typo. At least, as opposed to you, I actually HAVE sources and quotes.
>>but the scoundrels will find something biting their THEIR heels. In my plain
>>remarks I merely call things by their right names." (JoD, vol. v. p. 6, July
15, >>1857.)
>Four questions:
>1) You accuse Brigham of using "the threat of Danites to keep *his* people in
>line" (emphasis added.) Yet whose horse's are the Danites to bite the heels
of?
>The"men [who] come here and do not behave
>themselves" -- i.e. strangers and "scoundrels" -- NOT Brigham's people.
BY's threat applied equally to Gentiles and dissident Mormons, and Danites
killed some of both.
>2) And what Danites were they? Answer: "the Danites, whom *they* talk so
>much about" -- i.e. the fictitious Danites, figments of the anti-Mormon
imagination.
If the Danites didn't exist, why would BY use them as a threat? And to repeat,
if you believe they didn't exist, see long/river/Egypt.
>3) And what were these yeah-right Danites doing? Biting the horses'
>heels. What is that supposed to accomplish?
BY was obviously making a veiled threat, sorta like when Rigdon warned of a
"more fatal calamity."
>4) What actual evidence is there of Danite depredations?
You mean, other than the sworn testimony of witnesses in the hearings after the
Missouri War? You mean other than many admisions and confessions in journals,
diaries, and articles, some from known Danites themselves?
Why don't you just read the history books? Start with Schindler's "Orrin
Porter Rockwell," Lee's "Confessions", Hickman's "Avenging Angel," Brooks'
"Mountain Meadows Massacre," Samuel Taylor's "Nightfall At Nauvoo," David
Whitmer's Addresses and letters, John Whitmer's History, the official report of
the investigation of the Missouri War, etc.
Oh! I forgot! All of that is "anti-Mormon literature," which you reject.
Silly me.
>Why is it that people who want to accuse us of secret murders always have to
>refer to public sermons?
Uhhhh.....Maybe it's because BY USED THE THREAT OF DANITES IN A PUBLIC SERMON,
that is published in the "Journal of Discourses?" What greater evidence do you
want? A signed confession?
>Now Randy, if you really want to believe that Brigham was publicly confirming
the >existence of the super-duper-secret "Danites," then I won't disabuse you.
Now, Russell, if you really want to believe that Brigham used the threat of a
non-existent group to keep people in line, then I will definitely abuse you.
Do you think BY planned to kill all those interracial couples all by himself?
Wouldn't he need some help in thrusting those javelins through his wives whom
he caught sleeping around? Are you familiar with the Aiken murders, the
Parrish murders, the Springville murders, the Captain Gunnison murder, the
Almon Babbitt murder, the Philip Klingensmith murder? How about the Mountain
Meadows Massacre? Are you familiar with the "Oath of Obedience," and the "Oath
of Vengeance", two "Danite" oaths that somehow mysteriously got inserted into
the "holy" temple ceremony?
>Anyone who is willing to take that obvious bit of
>irony literally does not need disabusing -- quite the opposite.
>>The "Danites" did not cease to function until BY's death in 1877.
>You assert. Show us, please, that they actually functioned at all.
I don't have the power to show you ANYTHING, Russell. Brainwashed fanatics
must deprogram themselves. I could cite you 20 pages on Danite crimes, and you
would retort with "Was the historian who wrote this actually there at the
scene? If he wasn't, it didn't happen."
>>4. Smith's comment that "they exhibited (paraded) on the fourth of July...",
is
>>extremely relevant,
>... even though everyone else was parading on the 4th of July as well, somehow
>the word "Danites" in connection with a 4/7 parade becomes sinister...
Smith's journal entry states specifically that "this company, or a part of
them, exhibited," implying a military-style parade. Nowhere does the journal
entry state that any non-Danites were so "exhibiting." You assumed so, to try
to change the implication of the entry. It's a fact of history that Smith
enjoyed military pageantry, having himself made a "lieutenant general" and
parading on his white horse with the "Nauvoo Legion." His journal entry,
speaking fondly of the Danites "exhibiting," was obviously a reflection of his
approval of them. Known Danite Hosea Stout wrote in his journal in 1846 of
running the Nauvoo Legion through the "old Missouri Danite drill" and the
"Danite system of horsemanship," indicating that contrary to JS' allegedly
"suppression" of the Danites---eight years later, they were still using the
same military pomp, which Stout wrote approvingly of.
>>because that was the day of Rigdon's "Salt Sermon", wherein he advocated
>>"ridding the county" of dissenters, and promising a "war of extermination"
>>against the Missourians.
>**IF AND ONLY IF** the Missourians came after them first.
>Now Randy, if you want to establish some credibility, please concede
>this indisputable fact.
Already covered. The Danites' first action---driving off the Mormon
dissenters, upon Rigdon's order---was not precipitated by actions of
Missourians. And the Missourians' actions against the Mormons was precipitated
by the growth of Mormon population in the area from 1,200 to 15,000, and the
Mormon's boasts that they were going to drive out all the Gentiles and build
"Zion." That does not excuse depradations that Missourians committed against
innocent Mormons; but it explains WHY the conflict occurred.
>>Smith's entry was obviously referring to the "Danites", and his tone is
obviously >>approving of them. Contradicting your repeated ignorant assertion,
JS knew >>very well what they were up to.
>So you assert. But see below.
>>5. Where Smith wrote "by companies of ten, commanded by their captain over
>>ten," is illustrative of Mormon military organization both before and after
the
>>"Danite" period. That obviously means that the "Danites" was merely that
>>period's Mormon army unit, and not some "unauthorized" or "renegade" group.
>Thank you, Randy, for so nearly hitting the nail on the head. The word
"Danites" >was originally used by Joseph Smith, in Far West, as a metaphor for
"the brethren >in self-defense" (see HC 6:165.)
So claimed Smith, as he languished in jail, trying to come up with some defense
to avoid execution. But the evidence proves otherwise.
>It was then picked up and used with reference to the regularly organised
militia >units.
Many Mormon militiamen were also Danites---the Danites being the most loyal to
JS. Marsh's affidavit confirmed this: "They have among them a company 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..." (Incidentally, this oath was the origin of the "thinking
has been done" teaching of Mormonism.)
"The so-called 'Armies of Israel' created at Far West and Adam-ondi-Ahman by
order of General Alexander Doniphan were later confused with the Danites. The
confusion was natural, since both groups were broken down into smaller units
and since many Danites also belonged to the legitimate militia. The latter
made no attempt, apparently, to distinguish between their services for one
group or the other." (History of the Latter-Day Saints in Missouri, Leland
Gentry, p. 362.)
The Missouri-period Danites, from Rigdon's organization of them on June 19th,
to JS' arrest on October 31, had grown from 83 to about 400. The number of
armed Mormon men who surrendered at Far West was estimated at between 250 and
800.
That reveals that a good percentage of them had to have been sworn Danites.
The fact that so many prominent Mormons were also known Danites cinches the
idea that the Mormon militia and the Danites were virtually one and the same.
In other words---while the Mormons pretended to be a law-abiding citizen
militia, they were in secret, an army who obeyed the orders of their religious
leaders.
>Thus, when Avard wanted to organise his own private army, he leveraged off
that >word, which had already been used by others a few times, and made it his
own.
>This is how it was.
That is what Smith so claimed, AFTER he had been arrested, and needed a
defense.
>If you prefer to persist in your abominable libels, that is your affair.
I don't libel, Russell; I just do the research and post the history.
>>6. Jessee's footnote indicating that this journal entry was "crossed out by a
>>later hand" proves that either Smith, or one of his followers, tried to
strike
>>his approval of the "Danites" from his own journal. But the fact that Jessee
>>deciphered the crossed-out portion, and re-inserted it, conclusively proves
>>Smith's knowledge and approval of the "Danite" band.
>It proves only that he used that *word* with approval. See above.
The fact that someone crossed out the mention of the Danites in JS' journal is
prima facie evidence of an attempt to cover up JS' involvement. The journal
entry was on July 27, early in the game; the general Mormon militia didn't
become called "Danites" by the Missourians until weeks later, when hostilities
began.
If the journal entry had not been damaging to JS' later claim of innocence, no
one would have felt the need to cross it out.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Randy wrote:
>>7. In the same letter written from Liberty Jail (where he was facing trial
and
>>execution), wherein he denied and disavowed the Danites, JS also denied his
>>secret polygamy practice. This shows his willingness to lie to save himself.
In >>the same letter, he also wrote: "I would further suggest the impropriety
of the >>organization of bands or companies, by COVENANT OR OATH, by PENALTIES
>>OR SECRECIES; but let the time past of our experience and sufferings by the
>>wickedness of Doctor Avard suffice and let our covenant be that of the
Everlasting >>Covenant, as contained in the Holy Writ and the things that God
hath revealed to >>us. Pure friendship always becomes weakened the very moment
you undertake >>to make it stornger by PENAL OATHS AND SECRECY." ("Teachings of
the >>Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 146.)
Russell wrote:
>Thank you. The evidence shows that he was opposed to such things.
The above quote was his attempted defense while in jail. While you assert that
"he was opposed to such things," you're perfectly aware that just three years
later, in 1842, he made "penal oaths and secrecy" the basis of his highest
church ritual. And I notice you had no comment on JS' denial of polygamy in
the same letter in which he disavowed the Danites, showing his propensity for
prevarication.
>Snip irrelevant attempt to drag the Endowment through the mud.
That's okay; through the miracle of the cut-and-paste, I'll repeat it:
>>A quick study of the "Danite" oaths and JS' 1842 endowment ceremony oaths
will
>>reveal their similarities, making it obvious that both rituals were from the
>>same mind and attitude.
Russell, a person who was interested in learning truth would surely have
inquired as to the similarities of the Danite oath and the Mormon temple oaths.
Your characterization of that as "irrelevant" and "dragging the endowment
through the mud" is an attempt to hide truth, not reveal it.
If the 1838 Danite initiation oaths and the 1842 Mormon temple oaths are
similar, it indicates a likely common origin and mindset. The following is the
1838 Danite initiation oath, as reported by two former members of the band:
(caps mine for emphasis)
"In the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, I now promise and swear, truly,
faithfully, and without reserve, that I will serve the Lord with a perfect
heart and a willing mind, dedicating myself, wholly, and unreservedly, in my
person and effects, to the upbuilding of His kingdom on earth, according to His
revealed will. I furthermore promise and swear that I will regard THE FIRST
PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, as the SUPREME
HEAD OF THE CHURCH on earth, and OBEY HIM the same as the Supreme God, IN ALL
WRITTEN REVELATIONS given under the solemnities of a 'Thus saith the Lord,' and
that I WILL ALWAYS UPHOLD THE PRESIDENCY, RIGHT OR WRONG. I furthermore
promise and swear that I will never touch a daughter of Adam, unless she is
given me of the Lord. I furthermore swear that no Gentile shall ever be
admitted to the secrets of this HOLY INSTITUTION or participate in its
blessings. I furthermore promise and swear that I will assist the Daughter of
Zion [Sons of Dan] in the utter destruction of apostates, and that I will
assist in setting up the kingdom of Daniel in these last days, by the power of
the Highest and the sword of His might. I furthermore promise and swear that I
will never communicate the secrets of this degree to any person in the known
world, except it be to a true and lawful brother, binding myself UNDER NO LESS
PENALTY THAN TO HAVE MY BLOOD SHED. So help me God and keep me faithful."
("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," Harold Schindler, pp.
46-47.)
Now, Russell, does that "drag the endowment through the mud?" If the "Danites"
were a "renegade" band, which JS had nothing to do with, then there shouldn't
be any similarity between that nasty ol' Danite oath, and JS' 1842 endowment
ceremony-----right?
There shouldn't be anything in the Danite oath about "building up the kingdom
of God on earth."
Nor anything about obeying the Church President's revelations.
Nor anything about not having sexual relations with someone to whom one is not
married.
Nor anything about wreaking vengeance on "apostates."
Nor anything about forfeiting one's life if one revealed the secrets of the
organization.
So, the Danite oath being completely unrelated to JS' 1842 endowment oaths---no
similarities, no hint of a common author whatsoever----I haven't "dragged the
endowment through the mud"----right?
Russell, how do you suppose that evil, wicked, renegade Sampson Avard was able
to draft a Danite initiation oath in 1838, that was remarkably similar to the
"holy, inspired" Mormon temple endowment oath of 1842? Was Avard just
incredibly psychic?
>>Russell, if you were not afraid of truth, you could investigate this
information from >>many sources, so that you could in some small way, begin to
divest yourself of >>the Mormon brainwashing in which you have immersed
yourself.
>Randy, if you were not afraid of truth, you could investigate this information
from >many sources, so that you could in some small way, begin to divest
yourself of the anti-Mormon brainwashing in which you have immersed yourself.
I'll leave it up to the readers of this thread to determine who is brainwashed.
>>Another Mormon scholar, Harold Schindler,
>Who? Never heard of him.
Author of Rockwell's bio. Your claim to ignorance of him is very revealing of
your level of scholarship.
>Is he another "Mormon scholar" who publishes via the devoutly orthodox
Signature >Press?
Here you employ the continually laughable tactic of trying to discredit an
author by opining that he's either "anti-Mormon", or if that fails, merely a
"liberal Mormon," rather than by researching, comparing, and analyzing what is
actually written.
Sorry to be so unaccommodating, but Schindler's book was published by the
University of Utah Press in 1966. It won the 1967 Award of Merit from The
American Association For State And Local History.
And I'm sorry that his surname wasn't "Brodie" or "Tanner," so your attempt to
discredit him would be easier for you. Maybe you could have him investigated,
to see if he's committed adultery, or something similar, so you could discredit
him on that basis.
>>also affirms Smith's part in the instigation of the "Danites":
>On what basis? Was he there?
Well you see, Russell, these historian types research old books, journals,
diaries, articles, legal documents, and newspapers, and descendants of
subjects, in compiling their works. Now, if you wish to discredit the work of
all historians who weren't actually there at the scene of every minute of the
life of their subjects, then I'd say that you are pretty close to finishing
your boat ride down that long river. And you've also shown us again just how
cuckoo you really are.
>>"One of the great controversies surrounding the Sons of Dan concerns the
>>question of whether Joseph knew and approved of its existence prior to the
>>society's public exposure in November, 1838.
>This is indeed a relevant question. Another question is whether the "Danites"
he >knew and approved of were simply the Church's ordinary militia unit, or
Avard's >little aberration.
A question that readers can satisfy themselves on by perusing the evidence
which I have so painstakingly provided. Unless they want to join you on that
boat ride, wearing rose-colored glasses and blinders.
>A further question is whether he knew of what Avard intended.
Hmmm....Seeing as how Avard was with Smith when Smith and Lyman Wight invaded
the home of JoP Adam Black and forced him to sign an affidavit under duress;
and Avard was the doctor who tended Apostle David Patten's mortal wounds, five
days before Smith was arrested-----I believe that people of average
intelligence can solve that little riddle.
>It is one thing to approve of an Italian social club called "La Cosa Nostra,"
>especially if you've never heard of them or what they are up to.
How ironic that you should mention the Mafia, when JS' secret organization and
activities were so similar to those Sicilian gentlemen.
>>"The point is relevant because if his denials of such knowledge are true, it
>>marked the only occasion in Orrin Porter Rockwell's life when he strayed from
>>the dictates of the church by entering into an unauthorized doctrinal
venture. His >>close relationship and devoted obedience to the prophet maked
it inconceivable >>that he would have failed to inform Joseph of the Danites.
Even so, the prophet's
>>absolute grip on the church precludes the possibility that Avard could have
>>carried out an undertaking of such magnitude in secrecy.
>It "precludes" no such thing. Avard was the president of the local branch --
So a lowly branch president was able to recruit three apostles, several high
councilors, JS' uncle, and about 80 other devout Mormons into an unauthorized,
renegade secret combination? Did you even read the above quote, Russell?
Rockwell had been JS' buddy since the money-digging days. Do you really think
he would join in a group like Avard's without so much as running it by Joe
first? Rockwell was one of the 83 men who signed off on Rigdon's letter to the
dissenters to "depart."
>"the prophet's absolute grip" consisted in the fact that the local leaders
reported to >him.
So, between June 19th, and JS' arrest on October 31, none of those three
apostles, high councilors, and other close friends and relatives of JS never
bothered to report to him that they, under branch president Avard's orders,
were riding off in the night, driving off people and looting their farms and
stores? Apostles Pratt and Patten went out both shooting and getting shot,
because a branch president talked them into doing so? Gee, Russell, that Avard
must have been one charismatic dude. Woulda made a heckuva commission
salesman.
>>Finally, the argument presents itself that the prophet probably encouraged
the >>concept,
>Probably? Has the man no evidence of anything at all?
I've given you the evidence.
>>since it played a dual role of preventing a recurrence of the Kirtland
rebellion by
>>uncovering potential apostates almost immediately while at the same time
>>protecting the Mormons against their Gentile enemies.....
>What does that have to do with your favourite allegations of murder and
>robbery? Do you have any concept of consistency?
I've posted the evidence of Danite crimes. There's no better way to prevent
apostasy than to threaten them with blood atonement. Just ask Brig.
>>John Corrill, a prominent Saint during the Jackson County persecutions,
>>described a gathering of the Sons of Dan at which the entire First Presidency
>>was introduced to officers of the order and 'pronounced blessings on each of
>>them.' Corrill added that Joseph arose and 'made some
>>generalremarks...relating to the oppressions
>>members had suffered, and said they wanted to be prepared for further
events.'
>Thank you for posting this information, Randy. This clearly shows that Joseph
>clearly thought that the group he was addressing was a self-defence
organisation.
>It probably was, too.
Do you suppose David Whitmer, John Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and
WW Phelps thought the Danites were out for "self-defense?" Does JS' threat to
start a "war of blood and gore from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic" sound
like "self-defense?" How about JS' attempt to raise a 100,000--man army? How
about JS' "Council of Fifty"---which he intended to be his replacement
government once had had taken control of the U. S.? Does that sound like
"self-defense?"
>>"Reed Peck, adjutant of the band, substantiated Corrill's statements on this
>>point...And John Cleminson added, 'Dr. Avard called on Joseph Smith, Jr., who
>>gave them a pledge, that if they (the first Presidency) led them into
difficulty he >>would give them his head for a foot-ball, and that it was the
>>will of God these things should be so.
>And now for the ultimate admission:
>>The teacher and active agent of the society was Dr. Avard
>As we know,
Avard, as Peck testified, was the "teacher and active agent"---not the supreme
leader. As I've already documented, the Danite oath dictated that members'
obedience was to the president of the church, and his 'revelations'---not to
Avard. Many witnesses testified that the First Presidency instituted the
Danites, and that Avard was "put in as leader", to quote David Whitmer. And to
repeat, it's ludicrous for you to believe that all those prominent,
high-ranking Mormons could be sucked into a "crime spree" by a lowly branch
president.
>>and his teachings were approved of by the presidency."
>... according to Avard, and those apostates who went with him.
What apostates? Don't you mean "apostles?" Like Patten, Pratt, and Wight? Not
to mention those Far West High Councilors?
>>("Orrin Porter Rockwell," Harold Schindler, p. 44.)
>>Russell, if you wish to continue repeating your ignorant assertion that JS
>>"suppressed the Danites when he found out what they were up to," I'll just
>>write page after page of historical documentation to show you how utterly
wrong
>>you are.
>It had better be extraordinarily better than what you have produced so far.
I've provided a substantial amount of documentation from numerous
sources---including first-hand accounts from many people who lived through the
events. All I've seen you half-heartedly quote from is JS' apologetic defense,
which he invented while awaiting trial---which defense was utterly destroyed by
the testimony of multiple witnesses.
If you have some actual documentation to rebut with----you know, actual works,
by actual authors, rather than your own unscholarly opinions----you're welcome
to post them.
>>Please, before you continue to embarrass yourself before dozens of readers,
do
>>some actual study on the subject.
>>Randy J.
>Guess what, Randy:
>Joseph Smith suppressed the Danites, once he found out what they were on
about.
To repeat a refuted assertion is the act of an imbecile. I'm surprised you
didn't write "it's an arm."
>Now if you can do no better than prove that Joseph used the word approvingly
as a >metaphor for the ordinary self-defence organisation of the Church
members,
Done it.
>or that he didn't mind Avard's lot before they showed their true colours,
Done it.
>or that apostates and traitors originated the libels you here repeat,
Done it.
>or that Brigham Young made fun of those "scoundrels" who "talk so much about"
>the so-called "Danites" --
Done it.
>then I suggest you find something else to fulminate about.
Having done it, on to the next subject. Unless you'd like to take another
stab.
>Russell C. McGregor
>"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
>(Brigham Young)
But since your opinion is all you've got to debate with, you're pretty much
stuck with using it.
Randy J.
R L Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ Yea, verily.
>Your reliance on the HoC for "truth" equates to a juror
> listening to only O. J.'s side of what happened in his case. If you wish to
> continue being a naive, irrational apologist, relying on the HoC is fine; but
> if you wish to learn some actual history, you need to look elsewhere.
€ Russ' course of action can hardly be described as irrational. I
believe that his logic-unit is somehow being rapidly switched off and on
by the ''thinking has been done''. logic-inhibit instruction (1945).
Whenever you provide unfavourable references, Russ' lds logic-unit simply
blanks them out. I saw the same phenomenon in Mr. Shirts, but to a lesser
degree.
>
> >>Reputable scholars are well aware that Smith and Rigdon organized the
Danites
> >>to drive away Mormon dissenters and to loot and burn "Gentile" towns.
>
>..........
> I've written tons of material on polygamy on ARM. Smith's shifting of blame
> for both polygamy and the Danites onto others demonstrates a pattern of
> deceptive behavior and cowardice.
>
€ But, Randy, bro. Smith had to lie about plural-marriage
(polyandry/polygamy) because the same Lord who said "I am the truth"
really and truly ordered Smith to lie about it. // Thanks for the
delightsome history lesson on JS' Danites. The Danite Oath has JS'
prophet-personality writen all over it.
.
cheers
bromw...@gmail.com
> (Brigham Young)