THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"PERSECUTION".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
PERSECUTION
Total Articles:
9
The LDS Church claims that it was persecuted since Joseph Smith received his "First Vision". The LDS Church claims these persecutions were the product of Satan trying to stop the "True Church" from being restored. The LDS Church uses past persecution as grounds for "Faith Promoting Rumors". Mormon Apologists go to great lengths to convince Mormons that all those persecuted were completely innocent. This topic is devoted to exposing the truth behind the persecutions.
|
|
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.
| Boggs' Extermination Order Never Made It Legal To Kill Mormons Tuesday, Aug 8, 2006, at 08:04 AM Original Author(s): Randy Jordan Topic: PERSECUTION -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | 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):
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhom...
Bishop John Corrill's "A Brief History of the Church":
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhom...
Benjamin Johnson's "My Life's Review".
The "Reed Peck Manuscript":
http://www.connect-a.net/users/drshad...
Ebenezer Robinson's "The Return":
http://www.kingdomofzion.org/doctrine...
David Whitmer's "Address To All Believers in Christ":
http://www.helpingmormons.org/address...
David Whitmer's 1887 letter to Joseph Smith lll:
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reas...
John Whitmer's "History of the Church":
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reas...
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, at 08:28 AM Original Author(s): Randy Jordan Topic: PERSECUTION -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | 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
http://www.farwesthistory.com/docco.h...
While awaiting trial in Liberty Jail, Smith and 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 and 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.
Read my comments on what caused the difficulties at:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.re...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.re...
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. You can read my rebuttal to Oaks' reasoning at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.re...
| Mormon Apologists: "Mormons Were Abolitionists And Opposed Slavery, This Is Why They Were Driven Out Of Missouri" Friday, May 11, 2007, at 08:42 AM Original Author(s): Randy Jordan Topic: PERSECUTION -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | "Are the Mormons abolitionists?" "No.....we do not believe in setting the Negroes free." (Joseph Smith Jr., May 8, 1838, Far West, Missouri, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," p. 118.)
The assertion that "the Mormons were abolitionists." I have quoted from "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," published by Deseret Book, wherein he stated in exact words that the Mormons were not abolitionists.
Mormons typically quote the "Evening and Morning Star" article entitled "Free People of Color", to argue that the Mormons' expulsion from Jackson County was because they were supposedly anti-slavery. However, what typical Mormons are too stupid to understand is that that article was written by W. W. Phelps, entirely on his own, and did not reflect the position of church leaders.
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.)
That misunderstanding forced Phelps to issue a retraction 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 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 was 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; but the Civil War ended slavery, and
the Mormons' rebelliousness and refusal to end polygamy prevented Utah's admittance as a state until 1896.
- Church leaders, particularly Brigham Young, made numerous statements
supportive of Negro slavery; Young declared that Negroes were "decreed of God"
to be the servants of the white race until God himself removed the "curse," and
Young "prophesied" that the Civil War would not free the slaves.
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:
"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.)
| Joseph Smith's And Sidney Rigdon's Tarring In February 1832 Thursday, Oct 4, 2007, at 02:22 AM Original Author(s): Deconstructor Topic: PERSECUTION -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | Most Mormons believe that Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's tarring in February 1832 was done by an "anti-Mormon mob" inspired by the devil.
To the contrary, they were tarred not by an "anti-Mormon mob," but by their own followers, for two primary reasons.
First was their plan to have all of their church members sign over all of their assets and properties to the "United Order" communal experiment. Some members saw this as Smith and
Rigdon's scheme to fleece them, and rightly so; the financial disaster that was the United Order, which culminated in the Kirtland Bank scandal, caused many Mormons to lose their life savings, and about half of all church members abandoned the faith over the incident, including most of the original twelve apostles.
The proof that it was his own church members who did the tarring was Smith's own statement that he recognized the perpetrators in church the morning after the incident, primarily one Symonds Rider and the sons of John Johnson. Smith, Emma, and Rigdon had been boarding with the Johnson family 35 miles from Kirtland at Hiram, Ohio. They weren't subjecting themselves to the communal lifestyle that they demanded of their followers at Kirtland.
Second, it was alleged that Smith made a pass at Johnson's 15 year-old daughter, Nancy Marinda, and that was her brothers' motivation for attacking Smith. "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith" supports this idea, but in his "In Sacred Loneliness" Todd Compton doubts it for lack of convincing evidence. It's likely true that Smith made the pass at Marinda for five reasons:
- Joseph Smith had already taught his "plural marriage" concept in his 1831 "revelation" commanding a group of married men to "take ye wives from among the Lamanites" in 1831 (the tarring occurred in February 1832). This indicates that he had extra-marital relations on his mind during that period.
- Joseph Smith eventually "plural married" Marinda in April of 1842, after sending her husband, Orson Hyde, on a mission. (Marinda later said she thought Smith was the father of her son, Frank.) Thus, it is likely that Smith had his eye on Marinda since he had met the 15-year-old girl at Hiram in 1831, and that his 1842 "plural marriage" to her was his formalization of a long-existing desire for her (as it was also in the documented cases of Mary Rollins and Sarah Ann Whitney). The essence of Smith's "spiritual wifery" concept was that people knew each other in the "pre-existence," and that part of their earthly mission was to find their "soul mates" (Remember "Saturday's Warrior?") Once Smith had designated a female as one of his "soul mates," or "spiritual wives," they were to be "his" for eternity, even if they were already married to someone else; in this case, Orson Hyde.
- Third, Smith's "plural" relationship with the 16-year-old Fanny Alger began in 1833. Since the 1832 tarring incident occurred between the 1831 marry-the-Lamanite-girls revelation and the 1833 beginning of his affair with Fanny, it's entirely likely that the tarring was at least partly because of Smith's budding unorthodox sexual concepts, which he tried out on fifteen year-old Marinda.
- Fourth, it seems more likely that Marinda's brothers would want to castrate a man because of a sexual advance on their teenage sister, rather than over an issue of money.
- The mob of church members that attacked Rigdon and Smith that night did not attempt to castrate Rigdon. Smith was the sole target of castration by Marinda's brothers.
Here is a little of LDS member and historian Todd Compton's views on the subject:
According to Luke Johnson, Smth was stretched on a board, then 'they tore off the night clothes that he had on, for the purpose of emasculating him, and had Dr. Dennison there to perform the operation. But when the Doctor saw the prophet stripped and stretched on the plank, his heart failed him, and he refused to operate.
The motivation for this mobbing has been debated. Clark Braden, a late, antagonastic, secondhand witness, alleged in a polemic public debate that Marinda's brother Eli led a mob against Smith because the prophet had been too intimate with Marinda. This tradition suggests that Smith may have married Marinda at this early time, and some circumstantial factors support such a possibility. The castration attempt might be taken as evidence that the mob felt that Joseph had committed a sexual impropriety; since the attempt is reported by Luke Johnson, there is no reason to doubt it. Also, they had planned the operation in advance, as they brought along a doctor to perform it.
The first revelations on polygamy had been received in 1831, by historian Daniel Bachman's dating. Also, Joseph Smith did tend to marry women who had stayed at his house or in whose house he had stayed. [Joseph Smith was living in the home of Marinda at the time.]
Many other factors, however, argue against this theory. First, Marinda had no brother named Eli, which suggests that Braden's accusation, late as it is, is garbled and unreliable. In addition, two antagonistic accounts by Hayden and S. F. Whitney give an entirely different reason for the mobbing, with an entirely different leader, Simonds Ryder, an ex-Mormon, though the Johnson brothers are still participants. In these accounts the reason for the violence is economic: the Johnson boys were in the mob because of 'the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it in the control of Smith.' The castration, in this scenario, may have only been a threat, meant to intimidate Smith and cause him to leave Hiram, Ohio.
While it is not impossible that Marinda became Smith's first plural wife in 1831, the evidence for such a marriage, resting chiefly on the late, unreliable Braden, is not compelling. Unless more credible evidence is found, it is best to proceed under the assumption that Joseph and Marinda did not marry or have a relationship in 1831.
- ""http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASI..."," 231-232.
Of course, Braden's recollection of an "Eli" could possibly have referred to a nickname for one of Marinda's brothers.
Faithful Latter-day Saint Mary Elizabeth Rollins testified that Joseph had a private conversation with her in 1831; she was then twelve years old. She said Joseph 'told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife.'
- Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner to Emmeline B. Wells, summer 1905, LDS Archives
Within six months of Joseph's conversation with 12 year-old Mary Elizabeth Rollins, he and Emma had moved into the John Johnson home, where 15 year-old Marinda lived. Orson Pratt later quoted Lyman Johnson as saying that 'Joseph had made known to him as early as 1831 that plural marriage was a correct principle,' but remarked also that 'the time had not yet come to teach and practice it.'
- Orson Pratt, "Latter-day Saints Millennial Star (Liverpool England), 40 (16 Dec. 1878):788)
Perhaps Joseph was not discreet in his discussions about plural marriage, because rumor and insinuation fed the fury of the mob that tarred and feathered him. When the Johnson boys joined the mob that entered their own home, they clearly suspected an improper association between Joseph and their sixteen-year-old sister, Nancy Marinda."
- "Joseph Smith: the First Mormon", p.146.
If Joseph Smith had been successfuly castrated that night in 1832, it's unlikely that there would ever have been secret Mormon temple ceremonies, sealings, garments or even temples as they exist today. After all, these are all relics of Joseph Smith's attempts to practice and conceal his plural marriage.
See: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temp..."
Castration that night in 1832 may have done Joseph Smith and his followers more harm than good.
| My observation is that inside Utah, Mormons have a huge persecution complex. In a popular youth activity, the LDS kids here reenact handcart treks every summer. It is important to remind the children that their ancestors lost life and limb due to the horrible persecutions suffered at the hands of the Missourians.
After all, this persecution is the very heritage of the people of Utah. And the young people here are taught to make it their cultural identity. The persecution complex is what binds the chosen people of this great state together as members of an holy and peculiar culture. The persecution complex just may be what has made the Mormons of Utah who they are today.
Utah history is taught in fourth, seventh, and tenth grades according to Utah state mandated curriculum. So in spring of 1990, the fourth grade students from all three classrooms at my child's elementary school were led in another role-playing reenactment. In the name of social studies, approximately one hundred children were carefully taught what fleeing Missouri for the refuge of Utah must have been like.
Mr. Applegate divided the nine and ten-year-old students into two groups. The "ones" were to play ravenously mad Missouri mob members and thirst after Mormon blood. The "twos" were to take the role of the poor persecuted LDS victims and re-experience the horrors of their forbears. One student was chosen to role play the part of Satan himself: The honorable governor Lilburn Boggs. Then Mr. Applegate let the kids go at it in a pretend bloodbath which only ended when the sound of the school bell signaled class dismissed.
When my child came home and told me about the rampage the students had participated in at school that day, I was outraged. But when I spoke in protest to family members, they suddenly saw me as persecutor and closed ranks in defense of the poor persecuted victim church called LDS. So I would say the Mormon persecution complex is not only alive and well, but actively nurtured, here in Utah.
| The Reports Of Pioneer Persecutions Are Greatly Exaggerated Monday, May 4, 2009, at 07:51 AM Original Author(s): Randy Jordan Topic: PERSECUTION -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | From the research I've done, the actual number of Mormons who were killed solely because of their religious beliefs is very few, if any at all. Mormon leaders and apologists routinely cite a few historical incidents as "religious persecution," when in fact they really weren't.
For instance, the most oft-cited incident was the Haun's Mill massacre during the Missouri War of 1838. However, that occurred not because of religious persecution, but because of the Mormons' attempts to drive all non-Mormons out of western Missouri so they could have the area for themselves. Several years ago, on the alt.religion.mormon newsgroup, I rebutted a TBM woman named Diana Newman's ignorance on this issue. You can read my responses here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.re...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.re...
Some of the more rabid TBMs like Diana ignorantly assert that the Missourians attempted to commit "genocide" on the Mormons, which is laughably false. That kind of rhetoric is as ignorant as the infamous Rev. Jeremiah Wright's allegation that the purpose of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment was to effect genocide upon poor black people.
TBMs also cite the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, but the fact is that they weren't killed because of their religious beliefs either; rather, it was because they repeatedly flaunted the law and evaded justice. Here's some info on that:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.re...
Another case the TBMs refer to is the murder of apostle Parley P. Pratt. Most TBMs believe that Pratt was "assassinated by an anti-Mormon while on a mission in Arkansas," but the fact is that Pratt was killed by the estranged husband of one of Pratt's "plural wives." The killer, Hector McLean, didn't want his children by his wife, Eleanor, to be taken to Utah to be raised in polygamy, so he lured Pratt to Arkansas and murdered him.
Whatever the total number of Mormons killed by "persecutors" throughout the entire history of the church, it's far less than the 120 innocent non-Mormon emigrants whom the Mormons massacred in one day at Mountain Meadows in 1857.
| There probably isn't a mormon older than 7 who hasn't heard that satan works extra hard to fight the true church.
The church must be true because so many people are against it.
Now, when poeople are getting too lax, and are taking the church and their membership for granted there arises the need for anew bogey man. And the safest bogeyman to erect is one that won't really affect the membership too much. The ERA camapign was pretty good at polarizing people but it hurt in the long run because it adversely affected the female membership, and the relationships between eternal companions.
So the new group of persecutors to show that the church is true has to be the Gays. True, the church has always had a model of morality that is expected, but the need for new persecution calls the church to fund an increasingly unpopluar position.
And it is working, for now. Why, just look at the righteous temples being assaulted by satan! Just look at the negativity that he has stirred into the hearts of the world.
Not only that, but now our tv ads are being mocked when we try to be nice and show the world how wonderful we are.
And so the membership huddles together against the storms of adversity and are reassured once again that the church really must be truer than ever and that they must stand firm and resolute. And despite the fact that it is just a bad neighbor no matter where it plants itself, it will always point the finger of scorn upon its unholy neighbors instead of in the mirror.
The church has always thrived when it could get some good old persecution happening, and is willing to let its members die in the plains, cast out its own members, or even get the whole nation ticked off on TV just to convince its membership that it is on the Lords side.
| America And The Meaning Of A Mormon President - A Mormontimes Article Monday, Jun 6, 2011, at 07:16 AM Original Author(s): Jw The Inquizzinator Topic: PERSECUTION -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | Snippets:
"..."The LDS Church has suffered greater religious persecution in its history than any other religious group in American history," said Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, a practicing Jew. "For a member of the LDS Church to be elected president, or honestly even just to come close, would represent in some important way a repudiation of (anti-Mormon) prejudice."
"And make no mistake about it," Feldman warned, "that prejudice is real."
Prejudice against Mormons began when their founding prophet and president, Joseph Smith, claimed heavenly visions in upstate New York. Subsequently, he and his followers were driven from Ohio to Missouri to Illinois. After Smith's violent death in Illinois, more persecution prompted a mass exodus to the Salt Lake Valley. The flight to the Utah Territory didn't stay American prejudice; it continued with the Utah War and the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which dictated the incarceration of polygamists and the federal confiscation of Church land.
Even after Utah's incorporation as a state in 1896, the U.S. House of Representatives still refused to seat the recently elected Mormon, B.H. Roberts. In the early twentieth century American-Mormon relations began to turn a corner, but only after Reed Smoot's Congressional hearings. Reed Smoot (a Mormon Apostle) was elected to the U.S. senate in 1903, yet his seating faced a three-year-long Congressional debate that included a three-day-long interrogation of Mormon Prophet Joseph F. Smith.
Smoot's distinguished thirty-year career in the senate, along with other 20th century developments, eventually helped assuage Mormonphobia by showing Americans that the LDS Church was, by most accounts, a benign institution...."
http://www.mormontimes.com/article/21...
Mormonphobia?? I'm not sure I've ever seen it written down as a word. And oh how I wish the cancer called Mormonism was, in fact, benign.
This is the type of reporting half-truths and innuendo to distract from known facts about these events. The uninformed reader is left to his or her own imagination as to "why "there was friction in the seating of B.H. Roberts and Reed Smoot.
With the infection of Mormon apologists on Wikipedia, few casual readers would bother looking up the facts.
Here are links to the complete Smoot hearings (I think complete)
Vol1 http://www.archive.org/details/procee...
Vol2 http://www.archive.org/details/procee...
Vol3 http://www.archive.org/details/procee...
Anyway, there are plenty of places to see primary sources, lds rags like Mormontimes bet that most tbm's and any investigators won't have the wherewithal to google them.
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119
HOSTED BY
| | |
|