Posted by:
steve benson
(
)
Date: July 13, 2013 01:15AM
The Battle Of Crooked River
Friday, May 20, 2005
by Anonymous
Faithful Mormons, following the instructions of their prophet Joseph and the Council of 50, burned to the ground the small town of Galeton, Missouri. Before setting the town on fire they looted all the homes and stores of anything "of worth". Many people failed to escape and were burned in their homes. Then the Battle of Crooked River was carried out by the Danites on Oct 25,1838. Upon receiving news of the injuries and death of state troops at Crooked River, Gov. Boggs drafted the extermination order on Oct 27, 1838. The Mormons had declared War on the Missourians well before the extermination order was issued. Haun's Mill was a terrible slaughter, but it occured after the events of destruction by the Mormons. The LDS know all about the Bogg's order and the Haun's Mill story, but nothing about the proceeding events at the hands of the JS followers.
The TBM's will no doubt not believe these facts of history. If they will listen, tell them to do a Google....LDS History/Battle of Crooked River.
- -
I read Stephan Le Sueur's book "the 1838 Mormon war in Missouri" As I recall it the people in Galletin saw the Mormons coming and ran for it. Both sides were burning cabins and nobody knows how many people may have died homeless in the cold.
The battle of Crooked River the Mormons didn't realize the guys dug in next to a river were Militiamen. They made a pre-dawn frontal attack. Naturally in that kind of military scenario the advantage is with the dug in defenders. 3 Mormons were killed and one militiamen drowned as they tried to retreat across the river. Reports of casualties were exagerated by the panicked militiamen and it convince any Missourians who may have been sitting on the fence that the Mormons were in full scale revolt.
When the Mormons surrendered at Far West, one of the terms of surrender was they were given a full night so they could pile all the loot they'd stolen in the town square where nobody could identify which individual Mormon had stolen it. As far as I'm concerned, my personal opinion is the greatest tragedy of the Mormon war is that Joseph Smith was not shot for Treason.
topic image.
_____
Boggs' Extermination Order Never Made It Legal To Kill Mormons
Tuesday, Aug 8, 2006
by Randy Jordan
Bogg's "extermination order" was typical of thousands of outmoded edicts that have remained on the books of cities and states across the country, for the simple reason that they no longer applied, and nobody bothered to remove them. The only reason the "extermination order" was officially rescinded in 1976 was because church leaders knew the move would make good PR press. Boggs' "extermination order" N-E-V-E-R made it "legal to kill Mormons." Boggs issued the order to address a specific circumstance, at a specific time:
"Twenty-four hours after the Crooked River fight, Boggs, armed with the affidavits of Marsh and Hyde plus complaints from frightened settlers describing a wholesale Mormon rebellion, ordered two thousand militiamen from five divisions into the field...Then Boggs received a message confirming an earlier report of Bogart's defeat but compounding the rumors of a massacre...this report prompted Boggs to issue his infamous 'Extermination Order' of October 27 to General John B. Clark. In effect, the order challenged Sidney Rigdon's Fourth of July address in which he defied the Gentiles and threatened a 'war of extermination.' It was more than coincidence that Boggs chose that particular word in his instruction to General Clark." ("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," Harold Schindler, pp. 56-58.)
The fact that Boggs did not intend for the Mormons to be murdered en masse is made obvious by the fact that only those Mormons who were identified as leaders of the insurrection and mobbing were arrested, and the remainder were given until the following spring to leave the state. However, I *DO* acknowledge that if Smith had not surrendered his 800 or so men at Far West, then Boggs' order gave General Clark the military authority to attack them---the Mormon men, that is---but not women or children. Clark had the legal authority to have Smith and his top leaders shot under martial law, but Alexander Doniphan (Smith's lawyer) persuaded him not to do so.
Bottom line---Boggs' order did not call for the "extermination" of every living Mormon in Missouri. Boggs only used that terminology to counter Rigdon's threat of a "war of extermination," and to show the Mormons that he meant business. It ONLY applied to the Mormon militia (a.k.a. Danites) who had looted and burned non-Mormon towns and atakced the Missouri militia at Crooked River. NOT A SINGLE MORMON WAS KILLED because of Boggs' order. Even the Haun's Mill massacre was committed by an unauthorized band of militiamen who were acting as vigilantes, avenging the Danites' looting and burning of Millport, Gallatin, and Grinders' Fork; Boggs' order did not even reach Missouri militiamen until AFTER the Haun's Mill tragedy, so Boggs' order cannot be blamed for it.
Nobody in Missouri could have used Boggs' specific-need order to wantonly kill Mormons at any time before 1976. Mormons have traveled through, and lived in Missouri ever since the 1838 trouble.
If you want to gain a good "perspective" of what happened in Missouri, I'd suggest you read the following historical sources, for starters:
Senate Document 189 (under construction)
Bishop John Corrill's "A Brief History of the Church"
Benjamin Johnson's "My Life's Review"
The "Reed Peck Manuscript"
Ebenezer Robinson's "The Return"
David Whitmer's "Address To All Believers in Christ"
David Whitmer's 1887 letter to Joseph Smith lll
John Whitmer's "History of the Church"
The church as an institution taught concepts and enacted practices that were the root causes of their troubles in Missouri. In that light, Mormon leaders "asked for" troubles which caused their followers harm.
I have posted numerous citations from historical sources that lay out the situation, beginning with Joseph Smith's 1832 "revelation" calling for the "consecration" of the property of the "Gentiles unto those who are of the House of Israel." (Book of Commandments 44:32.) I have provided accounts of such Mormons as David Whitmer, John Whitmer, John Corrill, John Cleminson, Thomas B. Marsh, George M. Hinkle,Reed Peck, and W. W. Phelps, as well as respected, legitimate historians who have pointed to this "revelation" of Smith's as being the root of the Missouri troubles.
The slavery issue is "left out of this whole discussion" because it is nothing more than a smokescreen created by Mormon apologists to hide the real reasons for the Mormon troubles in Missouri. Missouri became a state in 1821---ten years before the first Mormon even settled there. Mormonism had only come into existence in 1830. Missouri was admitted as a "slave state" under the "Missouri compromise", wherein every other new state was admitted to the union as a slave state.
Slavery was an issue between Mormons and Missourians for only a few weeks in 1833, when W. W. Phelps, acting on his own, wrote an editorial in his "Evening and Morning Star" which stated:
"Slaves are real estate in this and other states, and wisdom would dictate great care among the branches of the church of Christ on this subject. So long as we have no special rule in the church as to people of color, let prudence guide; and while they, as well as we, are in the hands of a merciful god, we say: shun every appearance of evil."
Some Missourians mistook Phelps' editorial to be an endorsement of the entry of "free people of color" into the State, which they thought might lead to an insurrection (similar to the Nat Turner rebellion in Virginia that same year, wherein slaves rose up and killed 51 whites.)
The misunderstanding forced Phelps to issue an immediate clarification in his next issue:
"Our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the church. Great care should be taken on this point. The saints must shun every appearance of evil. As to slaves we have nothing to say. In connection with the wonderful events of this age, much is doing towards abolishing slavery, and colonizing the blacks in Africa.
We often lament the situation of our sister states in the south, and we fear, lest, as has been the case, the blacks should rise and spill innocent blood: for they are ignorant, and a little may lead them to disturb the peace of society. To be short, we are opposed to have free people of color admitted into the state; and we say, that none will be admitted into the church, for we are determined to obey the laws and constitutions of our country....."
Mormon apologists have carefully cultivated the "slavery" angle of the Missouri period in order to make those Mormons appear as noble abolitionists, as though that was the major cause of tensions with the Missourians. That image is refuted by the following facts:
*Phelps' original comment was his own, and not sanctioned by church leaders
*Phelps quickly retracted his misunderstood statement in his next edition
*Joseph Smith himself stated "We do not believe in setting the Negroes free" and "We are not abolitionists"
*Joseph Smith produced the "Book of Moses" and the "Book of Abraham," which have been used as the basis for discrimination against Negroes by Mormons into modern times; Negroes were not actively proselyted nor encouraged to join the LDS church until 1978
*Several Mormons owned slaves, including Apostle Charles C. Rich
*The Utah Territory was slated to become the next slave state, to counter California's admittance as a free state; the Mormons' rebelliousness and refusal to end polygamy prevented Utah's admittance as a state until 1896.
To repeat: The TRUE cause of the Mormons' troubles in Missouri was their arrogance, their anti-social behavior, and their leaders' propagation of teachings and policies which brought the wrath of the state down upon them. To repeat from a previous post on this subject:
"The Mormons were partly responsible for causing, or at least reinforcing, the suspicions and prejudice against them. Their claims about establishing the Kingdom of God in Jackson County, that they would 'literally tread upon the ashes of the wicked after they are destroyed from off the face of the earth,' excited fears that the Mormons intended to obtain their 'inheritance' by force. According to Thomas Thorp, a Clay County resident, the Mormons told local settlers that 'this country was theirs [the Mormons'] by the gift of the Lord, and it was folly for them [the Missourians] to improve their lands, they would not enjoy the fruits of their labor; that it would finally fall into the hands of the saints.' In July 1832, a Mormon journal in Independence published a Joseph Smith revelation in which the Lord declared that 'I will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles [non-Mormons], unto my people which are of the house of Israel
.' " The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri," Stephen LeSueur, p. 18.)
_____
Mormon Church And Apologists Only Tell The Side Of The Story Which Favors The Church Concerning Boggs' Extermination Order
Thursday, Aug 10, 2006
by Randy Jordan
I'm no lawyer, but seeing as how Boggs was never prosecuted for issuing an illegal order, it was probably legal. As you know, church leaders and apologists only tell the side of the story which favors the church. The fact is that after hostilities ended and Smith, Rigdon, and several other Mormon/Danite leaders were arrested, legal depositions were taken from numerous eyewitnesses to determine guilt. You can read those depositions at
While awaiting trial in Liberty Jail, Smith & friends bribed the jailer with $600 and a jug of whiskey to let them escape to Illinois, where they joined their followers at Nauvoo. Shortly thereafter, Smith & Rigdon traveled to Washington to plead with President Martin van Buren to grant the Mormons financial reparations for their losses in Missouri. The church's "faith-promoting" version of that event is that van Buren told Smith "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." What actually happened was that van Buren reviewed the official state report of the Missouri conflict, where he learned that the Mormons had instigated the difficulties, and he refused to grant any reimbursements.
As other posters touched on---During those few months in 1838, the population of Mormons in the area swelled from about 1,200 to 15,000. Some 400-800 Mormon men had been initiated into the secret paramilitary group known as the "Danites." Boggs and his government had no way of differentiating between those fanatical, militant Mormons who had sworn unquestioning obedience to Joseph Smith, and passive, non-threatening ones.
It was the Crooked River skirmish, in which Mormon Danites attempted to free three of their brethren who had been arrested by state militiamen for burning and looting non-Mormon properties, that made Boggs fear that the Mormons' presence in the state would soon lead to all-out civil war, with hundreds or more deaths on both sides. It was that, and the affidavits of non-militant Mormon apostles Thomas Marsh and Orson Hyde, which specifically spurred Boggs to issue his extermination order.
Seeing as how Smith had vowed to "wage a wor of blood and gore from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic," and to "take this state [Missouri], then the United States, then the whole world" to rule over by force, Boggs had little choice other than to order the removal of the Mormons as a group. Of course, many pacifist Mormons apostasized and stayed in Missouri, and their lives weren't threatened by Boggs' order at all.
As for Dallin Oaks' assertion that the "Expositor" destruction wasn't illegal---when Oaks co-authored "Carthage Conspiracy" with Marvin Hill, he wrote that there was no legal justification for the destruction of the press. It was after he was made an apostle---which obligates one to take the church's side in all matters---that Oaks reversed himself.
_____
Tom Marsh And The Milk Strippings
Thursday, Jun 22, 2006
by Randy Jordan
On the Marsh incident, Gordon B. Hinckley offered the following comments in the April 1984 General Conference:
"According to the account given by George A. Smith, while the Saints were in Far West, Missouri, 'the wife of Thomas B. Marsh, who was then President of the Twelve Apostles, and Sister Harris concluded they would exchange milk, in order to make a little larger cheese than they otherwise could. To be sure to have justice done, it was agreed that they should not save the strippings (to themselves), but that the milk and strippings should go all together.....Mrs. Harris, it appeared, was faithful to the agreement and carried to Mrs. Marsh the milk and strippings, but Mrs. Marsh, wishing to make some extra good cheese, saved a pint of strippings from each cow and sent Mrs. Harris the milk without the strippings. A quarrel arose, and the matter was referred to the home teachers. They found Mrs. Marsh guilty of failure to keep her agreement. She and her husband were upset and, 'an appeal was taken from the teacher to the bishop, and a regular church trial was held. President Marsh did not consider that the bishop had done him and his lady justice for they (that is, the bishop's court) decided that the strippings were wrongfully saved, and that the woman had violated her covenant.
'Marsh immediately took an appeal to the High Council, who investigated the question with much patience, and,' says George A. Smith, .....'Marsh.....made a desperate defence, but the High Council finally confirmed the bishop's decision.....This little affair,' Brother Smith continues, 'kicked up a considerable breeze, and Thomas B. Marsh then declared that he would sustain the character of his wife even if he had to go to hell for it. The then President of the Twelve Apostles, the man who should have been the first to do justice and cause reparation to be made for wrong.....went before a magistrate and swore that the 'Mormons' were hostile towards the state of MIssouri. That affidavit brought from the government of Missouri an exterminating order, which drove some 15,000 Saints from their homes and habitations..... What a very small and trivial thing--a little cream over which two women quarreled. But it led to, or at least was a factor in, Governor Boggs' cruel exterminating order which drove the Saints from the state of Missouri." ("Ensign" Magazine, May 1984, p. 83.)
Note how Hinckley asserts that the "milk strippings" incident (if it even occurred at all) was a major factor in Marsh's defection, and the resulting Extermination Order. But were Hinckley's remarks (via George A. Smith) anywhere close to the truth? Let's compare Hinckley's assertions to the documented facts of history:
A "revelation" Smith produced, and published in his 1833 "Book of Commandments," read as follows:
"For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles, unto my people which are of the house of Israel." (BOC 44:32.)
In Smith's 1835 revision of the BOC, re-titled the "Doctrine and Covenants," Smith altered this verse to read:
"for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel." (D&C 42:39.)
David Whitmer explained why the original version of this "revelation" had enraged Missourians against the Mormon immigrants in 1833:
"In the spring of 1832, in Hiram, Ohio, Brothers Joseph and Sidney, and others, concluded that the revelations should be printed in a book. A few of the brethren -- including myself --objected to it seriously. We told them that if the revelations were published, the world would get the books, and it would not do; that it was not the will of the Lord that the revelations should be published. But Brothers Joseph and Sidney would not listen to us, and said they were going to send them to Independence to be published. I objected to it and withstood Brothers Joseph and Sidney to the face. Brother Joseph said as follows: "Any man who objects to having these revelations published, shall have his part taken out of the Tree of Life and out of the Holy City." The Spirit of God came upon me and I prophesied to them in the name of the Lord: "That if they sent those revelations to Independence to be published in a book, the people would come upon them and tear down the printing press, and the church would be driven out of Jackson county." Brothers Joseph and Sidney laughed at me. Early in the spring of 1833, at Independence, Mo., the revelations were printed in the Book of Commandments. Many of the books were finished and distributed among the members of the church, and through some of the unwise brethren, the world got hold of some of them. From that time the ill-feeling toward us began to increase; and in the summer of 1833 the mob came upon us, tore down the printing press, and drove the church out of Jackson county." ("An Address to all Believers in Christ")
It's obvious that Smith altered the verse which called for the "consecration of the riches of the Gentiles unto the house of Israel" because the publication of such a policy had gotten the Mormons booted out of Jackson County. Nonetheless, he and Rigdon secretly continued their advocacy of "consecrating" the personal property of non-Mormons, as well as those of Mormon dissenters, into his "kingdom," and that was the ultimate cause of the Mormons' final expulsion from Missouri in 1838.
To today's Mormons, "consecration" means giving of their money or goods to the church. In 1838, upon the failure of their Kirtland Bank and "United Order," Smith and Rigdon went to Missouri and again tried to institute an economic commune. The Missouri Mormons, who had been expelled from Jackson County in 1834, were living in relative (albeit temporary) peace in Clay County, buying land and starting farms. But the arrival of Smith and Rigdon in the spring of 1838 brought an influx of thousands more Mormons from Kirtland as well, spilling them over into "Gentile" areas, causing new tensions. Mormon population increased from 1,200 to 15,000 in just a few months. Having been stung by the Kirtland failure, Smith and Rigdon implemented new policies that they hoped would make the new commune succeed. The policy mandated that all Mormons sign their lands over to the church, and then the church would lease the land back to them as "stewardships." The Mormons who had bought and developed their lands and farms balked at the idea---among them being Cowdery, the Whitmers, Phelps, Lyman Johnson, etc. They correctly perceived that the new "consecration" policy was nothing more than Smith and Rigdon's latest scheme to fleece the flock. Their refusal to sign lands over to the church prompted Rigdon's "Salt Sermon" (which was heartily endorsed by Smith), and Rigdon's resulting letter informing the dissenters that they must "depart before a more fatal calamity" befell them. While the dissenters had gone to procure legal aid to prevent Smith and Rigdon from taking their land (or their lives), the "Danites" invaded and plundered their homes and property. So, for those Mormons, "consecration" meant having their goods taken away by force, upon the order of church leaders.
"A proposition was made and supported by some as being the best policy to kill these men that they would not be capable of injuring the church. All their measures were strenuously opposed by John Corrill and T. B. Marsh one of the twelve apostles of the church and in consequence nothing could be effected until the matter was taken up publicly BY THE PRESIDENCY the following (June 17th) in a large congregation..." ("Reed Peck Manuscript")
Thus, according to Peck, Marsh was already opposing Smith's and Rigdon's heinous policies as early as June 17----four months before Marsh swore his affidavit. That fact alone destroys the "milk strippings" business.
As many witnesses (including Thomas B. Marsh) testified in court, Smith's intention was to "take this State,...the United States and ultimately the whole world" for his theocratic empire. The swelling Mormon population disturbed the non-Mormons, who had heard that the "Gentiles" were to be evicted and the land become the Mormons' "New Jerusalem." One Missourian, William Peniston, remarked in August that the Mormons "are a set of horse thieves, liars, and counterfeiters. They'll swear a false oath on any occasion to save another Mormon....no property is safe in Daviess County if they continue to pour into this area." Tensions soon erupted into violence, with beatings, lootings and burnings being committed on both sides. By October, believing that they had enough manpower to "take the state," Smith and Rigdon then sent their "Danite" forces to begin "consecrating" from the "Gentiles" as well as the dissident "Saints," with the loot going to support their war effort. Church historian John Whitmer reported that the Mormon leaders claimed the stealing was justified because they were the "chosen people":
"After they had driven us and our families, they commenced a difficulty in Daviess County, adjoining this county, in which they began to rob and burn houses, etc. etc., took honey which they, (the Mormons) call sweet oil, and hogs which they call bear, and cattle which they called buffalo. Thus they would justify themselves by saying, "We are the people of God, and all things are God's; therefore, they are ours." (John Whitmer's "History of the Church")
John Whitmer's remarks revealed Smith's and Rigdon's true attitude: they viewed their organization as the literal "House of Israel," and "the Kingdom of God on Earth"; they taught the imminent return and millenial reign of Christ, wherein all the "enemies" of the "true church" would be defeated. Since, in the "millenium," all things on earth would be theirs, they haughtily taught their subordinates to appropriate the property of the "Gentiles."
Mormon historian Leland Gentry admits to Mormon thefts:
"The Danites were taught to take from the Gentiles and consecrate to the Church. Nearly every person who testified at the trial against the Mormon leaders made mention of this fact. John Clemenson stated that 'it was frequently observed among the troops at Diahman that the time had come when the riches of the Gentiles should be consecrated to the Saints.' Jeremiah Myers testified that 'the consecrated property...was dealt out to those in need' by Bishop Vinson Knight." (A History of the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri, p. 385-387.)
"Danites struck at Gallatin and two other towns, Millport and Grinding Fork. The three onslaughts occurred simultaneously and had a crushing impact on the Missourians who were unaccustomed to Mormon resistance. When Captains Lyman Wight, David W. Patten, and Seymour Brunson rode into Far West at the head of their companies, the sight of wagonloads of plunder was offensive to a number of less aggressively inclined Saints. That night they gathered their families together and abandoned the settlement. Among the defectors were two of Joseph's most trusted followers, Thomas B. Marsh and Orson Hyde, both members of the Council of Twelve Apostles. The two men fled to nearby Richmond and blurted out everything they knew." ("Orrin Porter 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".)
"Smith replied, the time had come when he should resist all law...I heard J. Smith remark, there was a store at Gallatin, and a grocery at Millport; and in the morning after the conversation between Smith and Wight about resisting the law, a plan of operations was agreed on, which was: that Captain Fearnaught, who was present, should take a company of 100 men, or more, and go to Gallatin, and take it that day; to take the goods out of Gallatin, bring them to Diahmon, and burn the store...On the same day, in the evening, I saw both these companies return; the foot company had some plunder..." (Testimony of WW Phelps, "Senate Document 189").
From Marsh's own sworn legal affidavit of October 24, 1838:
"At the request of citizens of Ray County, I make the following statement...Joseph Smith, the prophet, had preached a sermon in which he said that all the Mormons who refused to take up arms, if necessary, in the difficulties with the citizens, should be shot or otherwise put to death; and as I was there with my family, I thought it most prudent to go and did go with my wagon as the driver. We marched to Adam-ondi-Ahman and found no troops or mob in Davies County....a company of about eighty Mormons, commanded by a man fictitiously named Captain Fearnaught [apostle and Danite David Patten], marched to Gallatin...I afterwards learned from the Mormons that they had burnt Gallatin and that it was done by the aforesaid company that marched there. The Mormons informed me that they had hauled away all the goods from the store in Gallatin and deposited them at the Bishop's storehouse at Diahmon. On the same day, [apostle and Danite] Lyman Wight marched about eighty horsemen for Millport...The same evening a number of footmen came up from the direction of Millport laden with property which I was informed consisted of beds, clocks, and other household furniture...During the same time, a company called the Fur Company were sent out to bring in fat hogs and cattle, calling the hogs 'bears', and the cattle 'buffaloes.' They have among them a company consisting of all that are considered true Mormons, called the Danites, who have taken an oath to support the heads of the church in all things that they say or do, whether right or wrong.....The plan of said Smith, the prophet, is to take this State, and he professed to his people to intend taking the United States, and ultimately the whole world. This is the belief of the church, and my own opinion of the prophet's plans and intentions.....The prophet inculcates the notion, and it is believed by every true Mormon, that Smith's prophecies are superior to the law of the land. I have heard the prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies and walk over their dead bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahomet to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean....."
I don't find anything about "milk strippings" in Marsh's, or any other eyewitnesses' testimony of those events; and I have failed to find even one mention of the alleged "milk strippings" incident in any history on the subject by any reputable scholar. To the contrary, they all concur that the reason the Mormons were booted out of Missouri was because of Smith and Rigdon's haughty, belligerent attitudes and teachings; their calls for violence, their "revelations" that "justified" their followers stealing from their neighbors; and their boasts that their organization had a "divine right" to take the state of Missouri for themselves, by any means necessary, including force.
Late LDS author Harold Schindler recounted the series of events that caused Governor Boggs to issue his "Extermination Order," which came the day after the skirmish between Missouri militiamen and Mormon "Danites" at Crooked River:
"Twenty-four hours after the Crooked River fight, Boggs, armed with the affidavits of Marsh and Hyde plus complaints from frightened settlers describing a wholesale Mormon rebellion, ordered two thousand militiamen from five divisions into the field...Then Boggs received a message confirming an earlier report of Bogart's defeat but compounding the rumors of a massacre...this report prompted Boggs to issue his infamous 'Extermination Order' of October 27 to General John B. Clark. In effect, the order challenged Sidney Rigdon's Fourth of July address in which he defied the Gentiles and threatened a 'war of extermination.' It was more than coincidence that Boggs chose that particular word in his instruction to General Clark." ("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," Harold Schindler, pp. 56-58.)
Thus we see that the major incident which spurred Boggs to issue his "Extermination Order" was the Crooked River skirmish, wherein several men on both sides were killed. That event made Boggs realize that the Mormons would not peacefully cohabit the state with non-Mormons, and since many Mormons had taken a secret oath to obey Smith's every order, even those which called on them to commit crimes, Boggs was forced to evict all of the Mormons from the state.
So, in view of the documented facts, can anyone honestly believe that Thomas B. Marsh's "real gripe" was a fight between two women over "milk strippings"? And, was Gordon B. Hinckley being "honest with his fellow man" by using George A. Smith's "faith-promoting" version of events, rather than objectively relating the numerous testimonies of first-hand eyewitnesses and participants? Of course he wasn't. Hinckley, as well as most other LDS leaders and apologists, are not interested in relating the actual history of Mormonism; their agenda is to spin "faith-promoting" tales that attempt to "teach a lesson," while simultaneously obfuscating the actual facts. The average rank-and-file Mormon, upon learning that the first president of the Q12 had "apostasized," would naturally inquire as to the reasons for his "apostasy"; and the "milk strippings" story is propagated to conceal the actual reasons, and to provide an "object lesson" for Mormons sitting in Sunday School class.
So, when you say that "logic tells me that people have left the church for more legitimate concerns" than misspelled names and "milk strippings," you're right; Simonds Ryder's and Thomas B. Marsh's true "concerns" were a thousand times greater than the trivial "faith-promoting" smokescreens dispensed by LDS Inc.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2013 01:25AM by steve benson.