Where has Jeffrey been? This information has been available for over 50 years in Fawn Brodies book, No man knows my history.

Same thing that is going on in the housing market right now!

I think the difference between this report, and Fawning all over herself Brodie's book, is: This report uses facts, and Brodie's book uses conjecture. One uses truth, and the other make believe.

No big surprise here, greed was the underlying reason for Hitler's persecution of Jews. He gained tremendous wealth from their forfeited properties. However, just as in Nazi Germany, the masses accepted the actions of their leaders based on their own religious prejudices and NOT because of greed.

What ever profits they made were lost in the civil war. If the president doesn't act, I will vex the nation I think were the words.

In July 1838, Sidney Rigdon gave a speech known as the "salt sermon". In this speech, Rigdon argued that those members (like the Cowderys and Whitmers) who had apostatized should be trod down like salt that had lost it's savor. Feeling threatened, the Cowdery and Whitmer families fled Far West.

A few months later Mormon militia headed up by Lyman Wight and Joseph Smith, if I recall correctly, launched offensive raids against non Mormon living in the county north of Far West. I don't recall the rationale exactly (see Wikipedia and internet articles on "Mormon War in Missouri"). Non Mormon homes were burned and the settlers driven from their homes. At that time the persecutions had come from the southern counties not from the North, these folks were driven from their homes by the Mormons.

As a result of these actions & words, Gov Boggs issued the illegal extermination order against the Mormons. It was wrong and awful but there was wrong on both sides--Mormon & non Mormon. All that is typically presented is the Mormon side and no one will argue in favor of the actions of Gov Boggs but there were two sides to this story.

Whoa Chris....
Facts?????
I think you should study "why" the Mormons were driven away.
Your facts won't shed such in interesting light.

BYU's one sided research is historically suspect!

Real History is correct. Mormons attacked non Mormons and JS threatened to take their homes and property BEFORE the extermination order by Gov Boggs.

if it is on the internet it must be true. sounds like you could do more research that is not internet base, like some actual history.

An interesting article...I enjoy history and appreciate reading about the past. But, we need to seperate the past from the present.

Let's forgive others and move on. There is already too much religiously motivated violence in the world today. Just look at Irag: Shia killing Sunni and Sunni killing Shia. Let's focus on the goodness in others rather than the sins committed in the past. I'm happy that we as an LDS people are generally looking to the future rather than seeking revenge for past wrongs.

I've talked to people that lived in Germany at the time you site.
The citizens of Germany were starving. The jews had jobs and as such gave preferential treatment to other Jews often locking out Germans from working.
The Germans were starving. No work, no food. No food for their children.

This set the stage for bigotry and jealousy. Hilter used this to get the masses behind him.

Hmmmm. not too unlike the hatred toward Mexicans and others in this country illegally right now.

Ernest T bass, all I have to say is

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.

As I recall there was pressure from the Daviess Country Missourians on LDS from the North. JS never took part in raids or militia, that was generally Lyman Wight. I believe that they felt justified in taking from the Missourians because their homes had already been torched and felt it was their just compensation as the government ignored their pleas for help.

The Daviess Missourians tried to prevent Mormons from voting in Gallaton and beat them with clubs as they tried to enter the voting area. Daviess felt justified in torching Mormon homes because they were supposed to not leave Caldwell county.

Frontier/mob justice was cruel back then. There were some wrongs committed by the Mormons as well, but I would hardly say that it justified the treatment received. You could see why they felt they were justified after the Jackson County driving out, and then to have Missourians begin the same things in Daviess and Caldwell. Most likely they came to the conslusion the government wouldn't help so they needed to protect themselved. It's hard for us to understand, but there was many motives from both sides.

...isn't ever, EVER on Wikipedia! Full agreement with anonymous@8:11.

'Nuff said.

Yes, Real History, there are two sides to every story, and you have only presented one, and rather badly.

If you look at the Wikipedia articles you mentioned, in detail, the following reasons led to the non-mormons being driven from their homes and the homes being plundered (although you conveniently didn't remember the rationale):

- In Gallatin, over 200 non-mormons attempted to forcibly prevent Mormons from voting because they didn't like who they were going to vote for

-vigilantes harried the Latter-day Saints in DeWitt on and off through September and burned the home and stables of Smith Humphrey on October 1. After a lengthy siege (October 1 – October 11) in which hundreds of armed anti-Mormon vigilantes encamped around the town, Mormon leaders agreed to abandon the settlement and move to Caldwell County.

-Meanwhile, a group of non-Mormons from Clinton, Platte, and other counties began to harass Mormons in Daviess County, burning outlying homes and plundering property

Hmmm...seems like the Mormon actions were justified to me

Come on... sounds like someone is trying to come up with a more likeable answer for why Mormons fled Missouri. The fact that the land they gave up went up in value and was eventually sold is a symptom, not a cause of the situation. Mormons were kicked out because they were not liked for their practices... marrying underage girls (lots of them), smashing printing presses and other heavy handed actions.

I've read the same thing about the saints in Missouri. They did attack non-members homes. The carnage was not the result of just one side acting. The ensuing expulsion was unfair to the Mormons, but their hands were not completely clean. And, I did not read this on the internet. FYI.

Is it too late to claim some of the land my ancestors were driven off of? The Mormons could technically file a huge class-action suit against the Missouri government.

You won't find validation of your religious beliefs in a grab for land two centuries ago. If this involved your ancestors, great. Its interesting. But it means nothing to most of today's membership.

Oh really? Gee I guess I'll have to read all the volumes of Church History BY BHR. Check, done that.

Next, Rough Stone Rolling. Yup, check that read that. Neither are available on line.

Next, In Sacred Lonliness, yup, read that too, not all on the internet, checked the book out at the library.

Next, Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner, read that too.

Next, Quinn's books on Church History, check, read those too.

And on and on. I know what I'm talking about, I've got to many of the original sources to verify things.

Maybe YOU should do some research.

Case closed.

re: Randy

You singlehandedly just destroyed your own credibility!

IF you're going to bash the Church, at least get your facts straight! The Church was not kicked out of Missouri for polygamy and smashing printing presses. Joseph did not reveal plurality of wives until they got to Nauvoo, and destroying the Nauvoo expositor did not happen until 1844. We're talking 1838 here!

Michael: Laugh all you want but it's fact.
Do yourself a favor and study church history that hasn't been edited and white-washed.
There are all sorts of interesting FACTS out there that may open your eyes to TRUTH.
Read up on the Mormon War and find out who threatened whom first.

I've submitted three, relevant, polite comments and only the first and third got published. Why? What are you afraid off in my second post? It was an additional clarification of the first Real History post and was absolutely historically accurate. The Deseret News must not like some truths because not all truths are useful--huh?

Here's the gist of the second post. The Whitmers, Cowderys and Pages (all essentially one family) left Far West (during the Missouri War) in 1838 in fear of their lives after Rigdon's "salt sermon". Rigdon called for the "extermination" of apostates, compared them to salt that had lost it's savor. That was the first use of the word extermination (pre-dated the "extermination" order by 4 montths). Mormons did burn non Mormon homes north of Far West, that's a historical fact and one that Parley P. Pratt said he regretted.

Of course, the worst atrocities were done by the Missourians, I'm not arguing that. But the Mormons did do alot of nasty things too. And the "Danites" were a real organization of LDS Church members who took the law into their own hands with quasi Church approval and instilled fear in many (see Cowdery/Whitmers reaction). Real History.

Hey RANDY, you are correct!

Guys and Gals, let's be civil. Let us tackle the big questions in life.

Has anyone ever had a really good pickle?

OK, I think that when I checked last, the year is 2008, and if I do my math correctly, everyone that was treated poorly by Missouri and Illinois and also the people at Mountain Meadow are no longer alive. Even the youngest of youngest are not alive anymore. So yes it is a important part of history, mistakes were made on LDS and non-LDS parts, goodness gracious, Mormons are also human. But if there are still resentments from Mormons or towards Mormons, depending on what side you are on, both sides need to grow up. We need to learn from our mistakes and heal, I have five step kids that really hated me for a couple of years, I am very close to a couple of them now, and have a pleasant relationship with a couple, if you would have told me that was possible two years ago, I would not have believed it, but we "got over it".

I agree. It's interesting and all, but the real fact of the matter is that history is what one person wants to make of it. Actual written historical accounts can vary widely depending on who wrote it, their views of the events, and their personal grudges against one another, etc. Just look at the four gospels in the new testament. My brother and I still disagree on many things that we did as kids, and I'm not that old!

I think the value of the complete article, not just the commentary on it (I've read the complete article in addition to the reviews), is the bringing to attention a more base reason for persecution, supported by actual historical evidence. Perhaps the comments should focus on the article at hand, and not the religion it discusses or the summary made by a few people on it. Go out and get your own copy of the COMPLETE article- then make judgements on it's worth.

To Seeker,

I think greed plays a bigger part in the whole rocess than you will admit. How many German and French "Christians" willingly moved in and took over businesses that had been seized from Jews?

Also, I am not sure that there were enough people in Davies county for there to be unbenefitting masses. I guess there were some slaves, but they were not marching around with guns either, so they were not persecuting masses.

I am not sure what Brodie said on this issue, but people like Bagley in "The Mormons" definantly did not admit that the Missourians were involved in a land grab of this magnitude and this well timed.

I wish I had a subscription to BYU Studies so I could read the article. Too bad Wayne State University cancelled its subscription a decade ago.

To Randy,

There was no marriage to "underage" girls in Missouri. You will be really pressed to find a case of any plural marriage in Missouri. You might be able to find someone who alleged it, but there is no evidence that Joseph Smith was practicing plural marriage in Missouri and it is clear he did not tell members of the 12 about it until well into the Nauvoo period.

Smashing printing presses seems to be an allusion to the destruction of the press of the Nauvoo expositor. The Nauvoo city governement may have acted excessvely, but this is understandable because they did not want to see their wives and daughter raped again, their homes burned and their eleven year old sons shot. It was not underpecented, and it was done in an orderly manner. Maybe you would prefer mobs to plice action, but mobs normally hurt people and not just presses.

However, that was in 1844, six years after Governor Boogs issued the extermination order.

To Randy continued,

The only disruption of a press in Missouri was the mob suppression of the Latter-day Saints press in Jackson County in the early 1830s. You have the wrong people attacking presses.

Although it is true that one event coming after another does not prove they are related, so we can not prove just because the extermination order came after the lands were opened for purchase it was related to it, what is true is that people do not react to events before they happened.

Although I think you misinterpret the reaction to the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor based on your 21st Century views on what is meant by "freedom of the press", even if you were 100% right on why people hated the Mormons in 1844, your statements have no bearing at all to why people hated the Mormons in 1838.

Quinn's books are a bunch of lies. He misreads his sources, misquotes soures, pads his footnotes so you can not find where he got his aleged information, redefines the English language and then pretends others who use the terms meant them the way he did, and on and on and on.

Quinn claims people practiced things that they deney. He claims astrological charts in early Utah almanacs meant people in early Utah believed in astrology, even when the author of the almanac spoke against astrology and said he was just using the symbols to show where things would be in the sky.

Read responses to Quinn by people who have actually studied primary sources like Hamblin and James.

To anonymous,

The highest number of aditional wives Joseph may have taken before getting to Nauvoo is one. Even at that, she was not his wife in Missouri but only in Kirtland. Also, you have absolutly no proof that Joseph ever consumated the marriage and its existence is not totally proven.

For all we know at that point Joseph felt he could fulfill the command by having a marriage performed with an additional female and then ignoring it for all intents and purposes.

I find it interesting that denouncers of the church always assume that the church leadership does everything out of a desire for money but get all mad when someone suggests that the enemys of the church are motivated by money.

John Lambert: You are incorrect. Quinn's research is some of the best in the LDS genre of books.
He cites all of his sources making it simple and easy to verify his facts.

To: John Lambert,

Please stop posting messages. You have already posted over 15 on this board alone. The other day I was reading another board where you had posted almost a third of all of the messages.

Give someone else a chance to speak their mind. We all know your opinion by now.

Thanks

I agree with John Lambert and Hans. I don't know or care what Quinn may have said, but there's no way that the Mormons were taking plural wives, let alone young girls, to wed during the Far West, Missouri period, and there was nothing going on there with Mormons destroying printing presses.

It was wild west, mob/vigilante justice in Missouri. We can relate to it no better than we can to today's "justice system" in Zimbabwe or Somalia.

I always understood that the Missourians were highly concerned that the Mormons would take over their counties and elect only Mormons to positions of influence. If greed and a land grab also came into the equation, that's not surprising.

D. Michael Quinn has a job where? Oh, that's right nobody will touch him with a ten-foot pole. Not even the U.

Quinn's work is sloppy and agenda-driven (cf. Same-sex Dynamics among 19th-century Mormons). What a waste of a Yale education.

To John Lambert,

Your desire to defend your faith is admirable. However, you are delusional and completely misinformed. Furthermore, continually attacking other posters without facts is rather humorous to those of us that have studied these issues in depth.

If you will open up your mind and really study these issues without bias, using both LDS AND non-LDS sources, you will come to an understanding (as I did) that everything in church history is not all black and white. The truth can be rather scary to those of us raised in the faith, but knowing both sides of the story can be liberating. And, knowing the whole truth puts you in a better position to defend your beliefs. Good luck and God bless.

I think the extermination order was because of what Joseph Smith said 30 years prior to the civil war. He said, "That the Black man has a soul and is an heir to salvation." Also he said things like, "the government should let recently stolen slaves return home and those that want to stay to be given moneys for farms" And something like "a black man given the opportunity would best his white counterpart" This country was full of hate towards any who were abolitionists or blacks. Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. Two black men had the priesthood for their entire lives. But the rest would wait. I think that greed was a small part of Boggs order but more likely it was what Joseph said about freeing the blacks.

Even today black people in the South are at risk of being murdered by some black hater. Look at Martin Luther King, Jr. he was murdered in 1960 something. Look at the story of Percy Julius as well as that Reverend. Talk about attemped murder. It took one high school until 2007 before its prom wasn't segregated anymore! 1978 they get the priesthood (power to act in God's name) again!

To John Lambert,

It is obvious that you are obsessed with defending the church based on your innumerable posts to these message board. Unfortunately it appears that you are ignorant or in denial about several key issues including how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. It was certainly much more than him marrying one token wife and then not living it.

It's uncertain whether or not he sired children from his many polygamous relationships, but there is at least one case where it is strongly suspected. Perhaps DNA testing might reveal something.

To Juan Diego,

I was not commenting on Joseph Smith's following of polygamy in Nauvoo. I was solely speaking on his following of polygamy before coming to Nauvoo which is the only issue of relevance to this discussion.

Also, I guess I am not surprsed that those who hate the church laud Quinn's dishonesty. The fact he tried to put a picture in which one of the people had been cut out to distort its meaning on the cover of a book is just the beganing of his lies.

Read Hamblin and James to get a small taste of the other lies he puts out.

To enough already,

You are trying to deny the truth by suppressing the one person who speaks it.

You also evidently are using some numbering system other than the normal one. I had only made six posts when you responded. I am not good enough at math to figure out what system writes six as 15.

I consulted my brother on this issues and realized what system you are using. I am now to 35 posts by your system. It is a nice one, but next time use the normal base-ten system.

To Truth,

I have studied many sources. I have reasons behind what I say.

I urge you to read the Book of Mormon and pray and ask God if it is true. The works of God can not be understood through logic and intelectual thought but only through the confirmation of the spirit.

John Lambert wrote:

"To enough already,

You are trying to deny the truth by suppressing the one person who speaks it.

You also evidently are using some numbering system other than the normal one. I had only made six posts when you responded. I am not good enough at math to figure out what system writes six as 15.

I consulted my brother on this issues and realized what system you are using. I am now to 35 posts by your system. It is a nice one, but next time use the normal base-ten system."

John Lambert, I don't mind you posting numerous times, but I don't like the way you are treating some people on these boards. The above post was bordering on being completely rude. This is not the way LDS people treat each other. Tone it down or don't post at all.

I read the Book of Mormon. I prayed and asked God if it is true. He told me through the spirit that it's not. Now what?

I agree with Brother Chuck Schroeder. John Lambert needs to "tone it down" or he may find himself in his bishop's office having to explain why he is treating people in this manner.

If you can't have a civil conversation with people, don't post at all.

Mr Schroder,

Perhaps you would also appreciate it if people kept posting that you should keep quiet.

Also, I do not like it when people post outright lies about what I say. I for one also do not appreciate it when people imply I must have less inteligence if I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Maybe I was overbearing in my response. It is even more frustrating when I am open enough to use my name but many of those who attack me have never used their real names on here at all.

I think this is post 55, but I am not sure. Acrtually, I think I have been doing it wrong. This is probably post 511111. The next post would be something like 7, then 71 and so on. It is sort of interesting to deal with this system, but I do not understand it.

... that just because SOMEONE with a Ph.D. somewhere writes something, people will believe it--especially if they WANT it to be true!

Fawn Brodie had an ax to grind against the church. Michael Quinn gave too much credibility to anti-Mormons in his work. Other sources likewise have a lot of bias--and some of you are listening pretty darn well to them without questioning. "Critical thinking" isn't about being negative--it's about EVALUATING EVIDENCE.

True, when the church tells its own story, it leaves out some things--THAT'S ALWAYS A PART OF STORYTELLING. Every media outlet does it. Every author does it. YOU YOURSELVES do it whenever you tell people ANY story. And you'd better believe Brodie/Quinn/friends left out plenty of facts themselves! The question is--is the selective representation still factual at its core?

So looking at facts: The LDS church has no need to "admit" it ever practiced FLDS-style underage polygamy--IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Sheesh, NO DARN WONDER you don't read about it in LDS history! It's a wonderful little shell game anti-Mormons play--make up a "fact" about LDS history, then accuse the church of a "cover-up" for not admitting something that never happened in the first place!

Think, people, think.